Protestant denominations & abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Katholikos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Katholikos:
Former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, M.D., in his book Aborting America (Doubleday, 1979) lists the major religious organizations that supported abortion at the time his book was published. Dr. Nathanson, who described himself as a ‘culturally Jewish atheist,’ says he is personally responsible for the deaths of 75,000 unborn children.
methinks the good doctor may be padding the number a tidge. Consider that if he did four abortions a day (a ludicrously high number) it’d have taken 51 years to reach 75,000. In studies I’ve read some clinics have done up to 50 a day, but that’s with a staff of 100 people.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
methinks the good doctor may be padding the number a tidge. Consider that if he did four abortions a day (a ludicrously high number) it’d have taken 51 years to reach 75,000. In studies I’ve read some clinics have done up to 50 a day, but that’s with a staff of 100 people.
Since your in and out of the abortion mill in a couple of hours and you have at least an hour in recovery and in the abortion mills in Memphis the is ONE Doctor at each location it is not a far out number.They can do between 50-60 a day and that comes from a director of one who thinks just like you about human life.God Bless
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Since your in and out of the abortion mill in a couple of hours and you have at least an hour in recovery and in the abortion mills in Memphis the is ONE Doctor at each location it is not a far out number.They can do between 50-60 a day and that comes from a director of one who thinks just like you about human life.God Bless
Come on Lisa, 50 to 60 a day? One doctor? That means in an 8 hour day he spends no more than 8 minutes on each, and has no lunch break, and no potty breaks.

Riiiight.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Come on Lisa, 50 to 60 a day? One doctor? That means in an 8 hour day he spends no more than 8 minutes on each, and has no lunch break, and no potty breaks.

Riiiight.
Look that is from an abortion mill director,makes you wonder who is doing the abortion that are so called safe.Of course for everyone but the baby:mad:
 
4 marks:
there is only one denomination that has officially condemned abortion. Surprise, it is not the Roman Catholic Church. It is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. No JW woman is permitted to have an abortion. If she does, she is disfellowshipped, and can never again be re-instated in good standing. She has become anathema.

Catholics have support programs run by dioceses for women who have had abortions. While this may be motivated by pastoral concern, is not strict condemnation of abortion. Plus, a woman can always seek forgiveness as a Roman Catholic, and receive it, for an abortion.

The point is. To denounce abortion is not a theological tenet of Catholicism, nor must one’s stance on abortion be a litmous test of a person’s faith in the One True God.

Abortion happens. Christians of all denominations must deal. Capice?
THe catholic church has equated abortion with murder. That being said we forgive murderers all the time a person has excommunicated herself if she has an abortion. Do we offer her absolution? OF course we do we are merciful as Christ would want his body to be. I see our stance far more Christ like than THe JW’s who ban you forever without forgiveness. Jessu forgave the gravest sinners. His sacrifice is greater than any sins we may have the JW’s don’t beleive this we do.
We exommunicate abortionist and people who have abortion this is a strong stance. WE give them absolution. This is a merciful stance. This is just like Jesus strong on morality but merciful to our great sins. So no the catholic church does not just accept abortion like you say it is taken very seriuously and is akin to murder. IF you suggest the JW stance is better than God have mercy on your soul.
 
Good for you guys LCMS; sad to see ECLA go the way of the Episcopalians. THe Evangelical Lutherans will soon walk hand in hand with their pro-gay marriage and indiffernece to abortion that typifies liberal protestantism.
 
It’s amazing how much ridicule and rhetoric comes out when this issue comes up. This thread is another example of protestant bashing that is unwarranted. Many protestants (like myself) hate abortion. Unequivocally.

What I have seen is a finger-pointing campaign intent on demoralizing conscientious objectors to abortions and lacking any spirit of cooperation and goodwill towards the *denominations *and/or people who oppose abortion.

The Catholic Church is the not the only denomination/religion to denounce abortion and its members are not the only people that denounce abortion. To believe the opposite is to be self-absorbed, stereotypical and without understanding.

Peace…
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
methinks the good doctor may be padding the number a tidge. Consider that if he did four abortions a day (a ludicrously high number) it’d have taken 51 years to reach 75,000. In studies I’ve read some clinics have done up to 50 a day, but that’s with a staff of 100 people.
His “personal responsibility” includes his directorship of several abortion centers in additon to the procedures he did himself.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
can you provide a source for this as official teaching of any of the Orthodox Churches (as opposed to aberrations of individual priests or bishops)
There is no central authority in Orthodoxy like there is in Catholicism. So the “abberations” of individual priests of bishops is as close as one can get to official Orthodox doctrine. But here are some statements that come as close as I can get to answering your question (I will post others in succeeding messages):

(This was posted on another thread; I don’t have the actual book, so I can’t provide the publisher’s name)

The Orthodox Church Timothy Ware
First Edition, first printing
1963
(pg. 302)

“Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church.”

The Orthodox Church
Timothy Ware
First Edition, revised 1984
(pg. 302)

“The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father.”
 
For puzzleannie: (part 1 of 2)

The Orthodox Church:
455 Questions and Answers
by Stanley S. Harakas
Light & Life Publishing
Copyright 1988
(Sixth Printing)

Birth Control
Question #56
Pg. 40-42

What beliefs does the Orthodox Church have about Birth Control?

Within modern Orthodox Christianity, varying views on the subject exist. They can, however, be classified in two basic approaches, with methods and conclusions appropriate to each. The Very Rev. Chrysostom Zafiris’ article is characteristic of one approach. A book written in Greek a number of years ago by Fr. Seraphim Papacostas, entitled “To Zetema tis Tecknogonias” (The Issue Concerning Child-Bearing), represents the other approach.

What should be noted at the beginning is that this lack of clarity has its roots in some of the tradition of the church itself. Basically, it is to be found in a varying understanding of sex in the life of the Christian. Searching the tradition, we receive the impression that sex is, on the one hand, a God-created distinction of persons through which men and women share in the creative work of God, a God-given desire and attraction which serves to unite a husband and wife into a psychosomatic unity. The Apostle Paul sees the sexual relations of husband and wife as required to ward off temptation. The church has designated the blessing of the material relationship as a sacrament. Those who have condemned sex and marriage as evil and debasing have, in turn, been condemned by the church in numerous church canons. On the one hand, then, as the service of Holy Matrimony says, “marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled.”

However, at the same time the powerful influence of monasticism has tended not only to lower the estimation of the married life, but also to equate sex in general to a condition not quite fitting and appropriate for Christians, if not, in fact, sinful. At its extreme, this view held that marriage itself was nothing but “legalized fornication.”

Both these views have been held and promulgated through the years within the church, even though they are mutually inconsistent. This inconsistency has been reflected in approaches to the question of contraception.

"Natural Law" View

Some of the tradition has emphasized the biological dimensions of sex in marriage, tending to see its place in the scheme of things as a basically evil passion which, however, is needed to propagate the race. Thus, sex is tied closely to a view of natural law which sees a biological purpose as the crucial factor.

The result of this approach is two-fold: sexual relations are seen as legitimate only when the intended purpose is to conceive and bear children; sexual relations entered into for pleasure, for the purpose of expressing love or deepening the marital relationship, are simply not considered relevant but as positively violating the natural and legitimate purity of sex relations. Thus, any method which circumvents the only admitted purpose for sexual relations in marriage, such as contraception, is morally wrong. This is the approach taken in the book, “To Zetema tis Teknogonias” and some of the letter writers who made frequent appeals to “the natural law.”

Sacramental View

The approach of Fr. Zafiris’ article and that supported in Fr. John Meyendorff’s book, “Marriage: And Orthodox Perspective,” places the emphasis for the meaning of sex in general and contraception in particular on the whole experience of marriage as a holy, interpersonal relationship within the total framework of the Christian life. The approach sees marriage and the sex within it as having many purposes, none of which is seen as the crucial and exclusive purpose. When marriage and the sexual relations within it are approached from this sacramental perspective, then sexual relations between husband and wife are procreative in purpose, but also unitive.

In this perspective, the sexual relations of husband and wife have an intrinsic value: they unite husband and wife in flesh and soul in a bond of mutual love and commitment. The procreative purpose remains, however. But when children have been born, and the task is now the nurture of those children in a family environment of mutual love and in an atmosphere dominated by the relationship of the husband and wife, that sexual relationship is also significant for the whole tenor and well-being of the family life. Within this perspective contraception is not condemned, but rather it is seen as a means for the furthering of the goals and purposes of marriage as understood by the church. Normally, it would be wrong to use contraceptives to avoid the birth of any children. However, once children have been born, the use of contraceptives by the parents does not seem to violate any fundamental Christian understand of marriage.
 
FOR PUZZLEANNIE (part 2 of 2):

455 Q&A - Orthodoxy (continued)

Which Is More Correct?


As we have indicated, there is evidence in the history of the church to provide support for both approaches. That is why there is still discussion and controversy. Even our archdiocese has responded differently at different times. In older issues of the archdiocese “yearbook” a strong negative attitude was expressed. In more recent issues, a position was taken indicating that this was a private matter, involving the couple alone, which was to be discussed with the Father Confessor.

The real issue is which of the two views best represents the fullness of the Orthodox Christian faith. The first, negative response, draws primarily on an exclusively biological, physical and legalistic perspective. The second, affirmative response, emphasizes the close relationship of body and soul, places the issue in total context of marriage and family, and most importantly, takes a sacramental approach. To state the differences of emphasis is to respond to the question “Which is more correct?” The second fits a well-rounded Orthodox Christian view of the truth.

It should be clearly stated that for the church, sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful and the use of contraceptives merely compounds the impropriety of that kind of behavior. Nor should anything said above imply that there is an obligation on the part of couples to use contraceptives if they do not wish to. What we are saying is that if a married couple has children, or is spacing the birth of their children, and wishes to continue sexual relations in the subsequent years as an expression of their continuing love for each other, and for the deepening of their personal and marital unity, the Orthodoxy of contraception is affirmed.
 
4 marks:
The Catholic Church has never officially defined opposition to abortion as a theological dogma. It is, and remains, an issue of morality. The Church may definite it as contrary to the proper moral order expected of Catholic Christians by the Church.
The Church has never officially defined opposition to any of the Ten Commandments as a theological dogma.

JMJ Jay
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
It’s amazing how much ridicule and rhetoric comes out when this issue comes up. This thread is another example of protestant bashing that is unwarranted. Many protestants (like myself) hate abortion. Unequivocally.
This thread concerns Protestant organizations (not Protestants per se) and abortion. I’m not aware of any ridicule. Stating the facts is not “bashing.”
What I have seen is a finger-pointing campaign intent on demoralizing conscientious objectors to abortions and lacking any spirit of cooperation and goodwill towards the *denominations *and/or people who oppose abortion.
You are wrong about that. I wish to shine the light not on denominations who oppose abortion, but on those who support it. And many do. Individual Protestants are not the subject of this thread at all.
The Catholic Church is the not the only denomination/religion to denounce abortion and its members are not the only people that denounce abortion. To believe the opposite is to be self-absorbed, stereotypical and without understanding.
Protestant churches who permit contraception are opposed to surgical abortions, in the public arena, but they do not oppose chemical or other forms of abortions that occur in private. “The Pill” and IUD – whose use is permitted by all Protestant denominations – are well-known abortifacients.

That’s just a statement of fact.

The anti-abortion protests and opposition to surgical abortion by any Protestant denomination are important to ending the holocaust of the unborn and are recognized with gratitude by all pro-life advocates.

JMJ Jay
 
40.png
Katholikos:
This thread concerns Protestant organizations (not Protestants per se) and abortion. I’m not aware of any ridicule. Stating the facts is not “bashing.”

You are wrong about that. I wish to shine the light not on denominations who oppose abortion, but on those who support it. And many do. Individual Protestants are not the subject of this thread at all.

Protestant churches who permit contraception are opposed to surgical abortions, in the public arena, but they do not oppose chemical or other forms of abortions that occur in private. “The Pill” and IUD – whose use is permitted by all Protestant denominations – are well-known abortifacients.

That’s just a statement of fact.

The anti-abortion protests and opposition to surgical abortion by any Protestant denomination are important to ending the holocaust of the unborn and are recognized with gratitude by all pro-life advocates.

JMJ Jay
Protestant organizations are by and large natural arms of protestant denominations run by protestant people. They go hand in hand. Wouldn’t you agree?

You personally haven’t been ridiculing. Some have. I still see the thread as an opportunity for such people to make unfair statements and judgements upon other denominations and its people. I reached out to one such individual and they did not respond to a call for unity on this issue.

And I’ve seen no one taking the initiative to point out the similarities of our respective faiths and seek unity on this issue of abortion. Do you believe in getting all viewpoints portrayed accurately or do you seek to offer one side of the story?

The media does a fantastic job of one-sidedness. Don’t make the same mistake here.

I’m sure you’ve done much more research than I have on the medical aspects of the pill and IUD. However, isn’t it true that these methods CAN be abortifacents. They aren’t by nature aboritifacents. The possibility is there but is minute. Isn’t that scientifically true?

If we really seek to end the holocaust of the unborn - you and I must make the efforts ourselves to mend the fences. With a combined effort the Catholic Church, the protestant churches, the Orthodox and all other religious faiths can make a huge difference in stopping it.

Peace…
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
methinks the good doctor may be padding the number a tidge. Consider that if he did four abortions a day (a ludicrously high number) it’d have taken 51 years to reach 75,000. In studies I’ve read some clinics have done up to 50 a day, but that’s with a staff of 100 people.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was the co-founder of the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), now known as the National Abortion Rights Action League. From February 197l to September 1972 he was director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, the largest and busiest abortion clinic in the world. He was Chief of Obstetrical Services at St. Luke’s Hospital in NYC when Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. He wrote in his book, Aborting America, that he had “in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” In a later statement, printed in a brochure entitled “Sex, Lies and Murder!, Lies of the Enemies of the Church,” Dr. Nathanson wrote “I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions.” He is largely responsible for the legalization of abortion in America, so the figures are actually an understatement.

Thank God, he is now an effective pro-life member of the Catholic Church. He produced the well-known film, “Silent Scream” and speaks out against abortion all over the world.

JMJ Jay
 
40.png
Katholikos:
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was the co-founder of the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), now known as the National Abortion Rights Action League. From February 197l to September 1972 he was director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, the largest and busiest abortion clinic in the world. He was Chief of Obstetrical Services at St. Luke’s Hospital in NYC when Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. He wrote in his book, Aborting America, that he had “in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” In a later statement, printed in a brochure entitled “Sex, Lies and Murder!, Lies of the Enemies of the Church,” Dr. Nathanson wrote “I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions.” He is largely responsible for the legalization of abortion in America, so the figures are actually an understatement.

Thank God, he is now an effective pro-life member of the Catholic Church. He produced the well-known film, “Silent Scream” and speaks out against abortion all over the world.

JMJ Jay
It’s amazing the turn-around in his life. And now he’s a pro-life Catholic!?!? Wow, as you said - thank God! I personally wonder if he suffers from any guilt of his past life. Admittedly, I have my own personal sins to deal with, but you would have to admit this kind of lifestyle is quite horrendous. To preside over that many deaths is incredible.

Thanks for sharing that bit of info.

Peace…
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
I’m sure you’ve done much more research than I have on the medical aspects of the pill and IUD. However, isn’t it true that these methods CAN be abortifacents. They aren’t by nature aboritifacents. The possibility is there but is minute. Isn’t that scientifically true?
Peace…
Greetings ahimsaman! Glory to Jesus Christ!

My understanding is that virtually all birth control prescriptions and IUD of today’s modern society are abortifacients. How truly tragic.

😦
 
40.png
Mickey:
Greetings ahimsaman! Glory to Jesus Christ!

My understanding is that virtually all birth control prescriptions and IUD of today’s modern society are abortifacients. How truly tragic.

😦
Hello Mickey!!!

Peace be with you…!!!
 
When the ‘good’ doctor said he’d presided or was responsible for 60000 deaths it does not mean he was the abortionist. As an operator of a clinic with multiple providers he was responsible for the procedures done even if he didn’t have a hand in every abortion. So I don’t think you can discount his comments without understanding the context.

On the subject of reconciling with our Protestant brothers and sisters, on this issue I see no possibility if the denomination supports abortion. They are not going to change their stance on this issue and neither are Catholics. Abortion is a deal killer. I left the Methodist church over their abortion stance. It shocks me that this denomination is SO incredibly pro-abort. The site indicated the denomination even supported PBA. IMO that is absolutely unreasonable. John Wesley (one of nineteen children) must be rolling in his grave.

LIsa N
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top