Seventh Day Adventist Church and Abortion

[djconklin]

They will be punished in hell for doing so.

Doesn’t answer my challenge. My point is that even if rare, a wrong is still a wrong.

I made it very clear (or, at least I thought I did) that in the case of rape or incest I’d push to adoption. If you had a challenge to adoption I’d sure like to hear why?

 

[adventistnomore]

1. As you should well know, if you were an Adventist, the Sabbath isn’t mine. It was made by God at creation and has never been set aside. So, to use the phrase “your sabbath” is to tell a lie.
2. “A thus saith the Lord” is found in reference to the Bible, not the teachings of man.

1. I am not bound to the sabbath obligation; you are.
2. I was referring to “thou shalt not kill.”

1. If it was in self-defense it wouldn’t be murder.
2. There are cases where if you don’t abort you’ll end up killing both the mother and the child. Neither is the “aggressor” (a non-relevant term in this discussion). So, who do you choose to kill or do you kill both?

1. True, “murder” wasn’t the appropriate term. “Killing” would have worked well; perhaps, “directly causing the death of the fetus” would also have worked.
2. We don’t kill*; if they die, they die. We will not directly end the life of another person who is not an aggressor.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
I don’t know what exactly they are covering under that phrase.

List of Congenital Disorders

Nice list. How am I supposed to know that that is what they meant by the phrase? Is everything possible one on there? How would you know which one’s (or, if all of them) are included in the committee’s statement?

 

[adventistnomore]

I made it very clear (or, at least I thought I did) that in the case of rape or incest I’d push to adoption. If you had a challenge to adoption I’d sure like to hear why?

I sure don’t have a problem with adoption. We’re discussing why the Adventist Church feels abortion is also a viable option in that circumstance.

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin

1. As you should well know, if you were an Adventist, the Sabbath isn’t mine. It was made by God at creation and has never been set aside. So, to use the phrase “your sabbath” is to tell a lie.

1. “A thus saith the Lord” is found in reference to the Bible, not the teachings of man.

1. I am not bound to the sabbath obligation; you are.
2. I was referring to “thou shalt not kill.”

1. All mankind is bound to worship God on the only day that He made holy and never set aside.
2. If the Sabbath commandment was “nailed to the cross” then so was the commandment “thou shalt not kill.”

I noticed you still haven’t answered my question: who would you kill: the mother, the baby or both–if you don’t choose to abort when the mother’s life is in danger.

 

[djconklin]

So you finally concede that your denomination is pro-choice, even though you, for the most part, are not?

1. The church is not pro-choice in the conventional sense of the term. The guidelines make that VERY CLEAR–didn’t you READ IT?
2. God gave us the power and right to choose. What I don’t accept is someone arbitrarily and unscripturally dictating what I will and will not believe and do.

---

We can flip it around a bit:

“So you finally concede that your denomination is pro-death?”

 

[adventistnomore]

1. All mankind is bound to worship God on the only day that He made holy and never set aside.
2. If the Sabbath commandment was “nailed to the cross” then so was the commandment “thou shalt not kill.”

1. The sabbath was given as a sign between God and Israel.
2. I don’t believe the sabbath was nailed to the cross; I believe the Church revoked it.

I noticed you still haven’t answered my question: who would you kill: the mother, the baby or both–if you don’t choose to abort when the mother’s life is in danger.

I’ve answered it twice already. We would not directly take the life of either; if they die, then they die. Whose would you take–the fetus’ rather than the mother’s? (An indirect/unintentional abortion is morally permissible though).

Now mind you, since you invoked the “rare” rule earlier, danger to both lives is also a very rare occurrence.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
I made it very clear (or, at least I thought I did) that in the case of rape or incest I’d push to adoption. If you had a challenge to adoption I’d sure like to hear why?

I sure don’t have a problem with adoption. We’re discussing why the Adventist Church feels abortion is also a viable option in that circumstance.

1. For the umpteenth time the guidelines are not a teaching of the SDA church.
2. Adoption wasn’t the subject of the guidelines. Abortion was.
3. The guidelines recognize that God has given us the right to choose. They then went on to state:

Principles for a Christian View of Life

Introduction

“Now this is eternal life; that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3, NIV). In Christ is the promise of eternal life; but since human life is mortal, humans are confronted with difficult issues regarding life and death. The following principles refer to the whole person (body, soul, and spirit), an indivisible whole (Genesis 2:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:23).

Life: Our valuable gift from God

1. God is the Source, Giver, and Sustainer of all life (Acts 17:25,28; Job 33:4; Genesis 1:30, 2:7; Psalm 36:9; John 1:3,4).
2. Human life has unique value because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Romans 3:23; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 3:2; John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18,19).
3. God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God’s creation and the object of His redeeming love (Romans 5:6,8; Ephesians 2:2-6; 1 Timothy 1:15; Titus 3:4,5; Matthew 5:43-48; Ephesians 2:4-9; John 1:3, 10:10).

Life: Our response to God’s gift

1. Valuable as it is, human life is not the only or ultimate concern. Self-sacrifice in devotion to God and His principles may take precedence over life itself (Revelation 12:11; 1 Corinthians 13).
2. God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction (Exodus 20:13; Revelation 21:8; Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 24:16; Proverbs 6:16,17; Jeremiah 7:3-34; Micah 6:7; Genesis 9:5,6).
3. God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed (Psalm 82:3,4; James 1:27; Micah 6:8; Acts 20:35; Proverbs 24:11,12; Luke 1:52-54).
4. Christian love (agape) is the costly dedication of our lives to enhancing the lives of others. Love also respects personal dignity and does not condone the oppression of one person to support the abusive behavior of another (Matthew 16:21; Philippians 2:1-11; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:8-11; Matthew 22:39; John 18:22,23; John 13:34).
5. The believing community is called to demonstrate Christian love in tangible, practical, and substantive ways. God calls us to restore gently the broken (Galatians 6:1,2; 1 John 3:17,18; Matthew 1:23; Philippians 2:1-11; John 8:2-11; Romans 8:1-14; Matthew 7:1,2, 12:20; Isaiah 40:42, 62:2-4).

Life: Our right and responsibility to decide

1. God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and ultimately will judge their misuse (Deuteronomy 30:19,20; Genesis 3; 1 Peter 2:24; Romans 3:5,6, 6:1,2; Galatians 5:13).
2. God calls each of us individually to moral decision making and to search the scriptures for the biblical principles underlying such choices (John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 1 Peter 2:9; Romans 7:13-25).
3. Decisions about human life from its beginning to its end are best made within the context of healthy family relationships with the support of the faith community (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 5,6).
4. Human decisions should always be centered in seeking the will of God (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 6:6; Luke 22:42).

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin

1. All mankind is bound to worship God on the only day that He made holy and never set aside.

1. If the Sabbath commandment was “nailed to the cross” then so was the commandment “thou shalt not kill.”

1. The sabbath was given as a sign between God and Israel.
2. I don’t believe the sabbath was nailed to the cross; I believe the Church revoked it.

While the covenant between God and Israel included the Ten Commandments it was exclusive to them. Otherwise, you are sayiong that only Israel bound to love God with all their heart, mind and strength and their neighbor as themselves while Gentiles are not bound by that.

The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments–check your list–it is still there even in the Catholic church. They didn’t revoke it.

BTW, there is no biblical record of God giving the church the right to set aside any of God’s laws.

 

[adventistnomore]

1. The church is not pro-choice in the conventional sense of the term. The guidelines make that VERY CLEAR–didn’t you READ IT?

Yes; again and again and again for the past 5 years; you don’t have to scream. But understand that “pro-choice” is a very broad term. Politicians who leave the possibility of abortion open in cases of rape and incest are labeled pro-choice. The application of the phrase to the Adventist Church is legitimate. Still, it is morally repulsive that Adventists countenance abortion in some very un-life-threatening cases (birth defects, rape, incest). Can you defend those as passionately as you can life-critical issues?

1. God gave us the power and right to choose. What I don’t accept is someone arbitrarily and unscripturally dictating what I will and will not believe and do.

God dictates what you will and will not believe or do. You are never** truly **free to choose; you are only free to choose what is morally right.

“So you finally concede that your denomination is pro-death?”

The Catholic Church is pro-life, and does everything to preserve the life of both mother and infant, short of electing to directly kill either. We are so “anti-death” that we will not directly cause an innocent death.

 

[djconklin]

I noticed you still haven’t answered my question: who would you kill: the mother, the baby or both–if you don’t choose to abort when the mother’s life is in danger.

I’ve answered it twice already. We would not directly take the life of either; if they die, then they die. Whose would you take–the fetus’ rather than the mother’s? (An indirect/unintentional abortion is morally permissible though).

Now mind you, since you invoked the “rare” rule earlier, danger to both lives is also a very rare occurrence.

If you had already answered it twice then I missed it.

“We would not directly take the life of either” – no, you don’t have the choice: either you abort and the baby dies, or you don’t abort and both die.

Nice cold-blooded approach there: kill both. I’d expect that from someone who claims to be an ex-SDA. Personally, since I love people I’d fight like (you know where) to save both.

 

[adventistnomore]

While the covenant between God and Israel included the Ten Commandments it was exclusive to them. Otherwise, you are sayiong that only Israel bound to love God with all their heart, mind and strength and their neighbor as themselves while Gentiles are not bound by that.

The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments–check your list–it is still there even in the Catholic church. They didn’t revoke it.

BTW, there is no biblical record of God giving the church the right to set aside any of God’s laws.

This is better saved for another thread on the sabbath. If I respond now, you will feel compelled to respond, and we will continue to compromise the subject of this thread. Let’s save this till then. (And trust me, this is not backing down from a challenge; I’d be glad to respond to each of your points. Right now, I’m exercising restraint.)

 

[djconklin]

Still, it is morally repulsive that Adventists countenance abortion in some very un-life-threatening cases (birth defects, rape, incest). Can you defend those as passionately as you can life-critical issues?

For the 3rd freaking time now: I ALREADY told you that I favor adoption!

Now, I want you to make post stating that you FINALLY got it!

 

[djconklin]

(And trust me, this is not backing down from a challenge; I’d be glad to respond to each of your points. Right now, I’m exercising restraint.)

ROFL!

 

[pedja]

Did you read MarysRoses’ post? How can you say that a man should rather die than break the Sabbath in times of violent persecution, and then turn around and claim that a mother under enormous emotional duress can legitimately take the life of her child to avoid further suffering (a form of self-comfort)? Is a day of the week is more important to you than an individual human life?

Did I ever say that?? Show me in which post!

 

[adventistnomore]

If you had already answered it twice then I missed it.

“We would not directly take the life of either” – no, you don’t have the choice: either you abort and the baby dies, or you don’t abort and both die.

“To kill” suggests direct action. We are allowing both to die, rather than killing either. If there is one thing we are not doing, it is killing.

Here’s another question, and I don’t mean this one as a challenge: why do you favor taking the life of the fetus rather than the life of the mother?

 

[djconklin]

2) God gave us the power and right to choose. What I don’t accept is someone arbitrarily and unscripturally dictating what I will and will not believe and do.

God dictates what you will and will not believe or do. You are never truly free to choose; you are only free to choose what is morally right.

WOW! An alleged Christian questioning God!

He tells you to “choose this day and live” and you want to argue that you don’t “really” have the power of choice?

 

[adventistnomore]

WOW! An alleged Christian questioning God!

He tells you to “choose this day and live” and you want to argue that you don’t “really” have the power of choice?

I’m saying we don’t have the right to choose the wrong, though we have the power to do so.

God may give you the choice of whether to kill a fetus or not; that doesn’t mean both choices are equally valid. God also gives you the choice to commit adultery or not when presented a certain temptation; that doesn’t mean you have can legitimately choose to commit sin. “Free choice” is ideally restricted by the bounds of morality.

And p.s., calling someone an “alleged” anything borders on offensive; I don’t doubt your sincerity, please don’t doubt mine.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
If you had already answered it twice then I missed it.

“We would not directly take the life of either” – no, you don’t have the choice: either you abort and the baby dies, or you don’t abort and both die.

Nice cold-blooded approach there: kill both. I’d expect that from someone who claims to be an ex-SDA. Personally, since I love people I’d fight like (you know where) to save both.

“To kill” suggests direct action. We are allowing both to die, rather than killing either. If there is one thing we are not doing, it is killing.

Wow! Arguing like Clinton! Next we’ll be asking what is, is?

If you wish to be “technical” then in a court of law your actions would be called “depraved indifference” as they are.

God wouldn’t be anywhere near so “fussy.” By not lifting a hand to help you killed both.

 

[djconklin]

And p.s., calling someone an “alleged” anything borders on offensive

Christians don’t quibble with God.