Seventh Day Adventist Church and Abortion

[djconklin]

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.

 

[PaulDupre]

But, according to the guidelines, the SDA church does permit abortion under certain circumstances, such as pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Is that correct?

Can you point us to an official statement on abortion by the SDA leadership (or whatever) that you and other SDAs would consider authoritative?

Paul

 

[adventistnomore]

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

Dismissing subtlety is a poor response. And I’m a republican, anyways.

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

Happily, we don’t follow “traditions of men.”

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

God has made His will clear through the Church, and we obey Him. And please, “lifting a hand” is just a convenient way to say “lifting a hand to kill another.” Let’s be blunt.

 

[adventistnomore]

Christians don’t quibble with God.

What did you think about my entire response, regarding the boundaries of “free choice?” (Responding to the last line in isolation is kinda a cheap trick, lol ). I’m not quibbling with God; I’m reflecting the Biblical tradition that free choice is never truly “free” (as if it gives unlimited moral license).

 

[pedja]

What did you think about my entire response, regarding the boundaries of “free choice?” (Responding to the last line in isolation is kinda a cheap trick, lol ). I’m not quibbling with God; I’m reflecting the Biblical tradition that free choice is never truly “free” (as if it gives unlimited moral license).

It seems that the difference between us (in this mother is going to die unless she aborts scenario) is that you would rather see them both dead then at least save one life. Well I personally dont agree with that. Instead of saving one life you let die both, that makes no sense.

 

[adventistnomore]

It seems that the difference between us (in this mother is going to die unless she aborts scenario) is that you would rather see them both dead then to at least save one life. Well I personally dont agree with that. Instead of saving one life you let die both, that makes no sense.

As I see it: the difference between you and us is that you can countenance certain situations where directly killing an innocent person is appropriate, and we cannot. Yes, we have more to lose on the level of life, but we believe that human dignity is such that it prefers the passive death of two to the direct killing of one.

This is a tricky situation, granted. And I think we’d all agree that the positions of our churches aren’t satisfying, even if we share them (as I do mine). They can’t be, because the original dilemma isn’t very satisfying. What we try to do is draw moral guidelines to apply in each circumstance. God forbid we feel comfortable with the end result of any decision we made in that situation.

BUT: for us as Catholics, life-critical situations aren’t the most significant problem. We really take issue with abortion in cases of incense, rape, and birth defects, or non-terminal health risks to mother and child. Here, you are opting to take one life, when no one should die.

We can understand your reasoning on the life-critical issue, even though we don’t share it; but in those other cases, we think Adventism is entirely hypocritical.

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

In the SDA church the GC cannot make official “teachings.” Our basic beliefs are only based on Scripture and can only be voted as “official” when we have a world-wide conference of elected representatives.

So the Adventist church does things in a similar way to the Catholic Church. That’s good to know

It would be good if Adventists realised this, because too many Adventists out there quote newspaper clippings and church bulletins as official sources of Catholic teaching, e.g. to show that the Catholic Church allegedly claims that the Church, apart from the Apostles, changed the Sabbath. In reality, the Church teaches no such thing - several popes and at least once Council have explicitly stated that Sunday observance was begun by the Apostles. The issue of which day is correct aside, misrepresentation of Catholic teaching just to gain points doesn’t go down well when people actually look up official teaching.

“These guidelines were approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council session in Silver Spring, Maryland, October 12, 1992.”

Note that these are “guidelines.” The church does NOT “permit” abortions. The “guidelines” clearly put the decision in the hands fo the women.

To repeat the paragraph:

"4. The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned {note the following!} by the Church.

The Adventist church serves as a conscience when it comes to pork, alcohol, and in the past, dress code and jewellery, and which day of the week to worship on.

If it were truly pro-life it would serve as a conscience regarding murder. Or at least take a stand as strong as it does on beer and bacon.

Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman’s life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not **should be made by the pregnant woman **after appropriate consultation. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I hope that the bolding, coloring and editorial comment in the text helps. Does that make it clearer? If not maybe this will help:

“… not condoned by the Church …”
“… not condoned by the Church …”
“… not condoned by the Church …”

Except in exceptional circumstances, such as eugenics, as stated above, after permitting the Holy Spirit to lead the woman to abort for reasons of eugenics.

If she is to be guided by biblical principles, why don’t the guidelines on the official Adventist website tell us what those principles are when it comes to this issue, the 6th commandment, as it does with alcohol, pork, and the 4th commandment, etc?

If the official Adventist website posts these as guidelines, it has some degree of formality. Were the USCCB website to post such guidelines, the Vatican would come down hard on them.

Maria’s right - those guidelines are posted on the official Adventist website, not on the actual page adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html but linked from the guideline page it links to, on the same official Adventist website. adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html

Unlike the misrepresentation by newspaper clippings, and unlike Martin Malachi, the official Adventist website is a lot more official. They don’t put a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying the guidelines are not official, nor do they state as much in their disclaimer.

djconklin:

Note that this was voted on by the “General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee” and not by the church as a whole. The guidelines, as they are clearly labled, are just that. The Executive Committee (which I never heard of before this!) does not have the power to dictate to the individual members what they will believe, nor can they kick you out of the church (and thus not be saved) if you contradict what they say.

The “General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee” sounds very much like the title of an official governing body, or an official branch thereof, that is not linked to a mere local conference.

If you haven’t heard of them before, how do you know that they’re not in a position to formulate official statements, or kick you out? If you checked up on this, could you cite some explanation (an official one, preferably) that can enlighten us?

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

Maria,

I have the feeling you simply cannot resist the temptation to attack the SDA on whatever occasion (forgive me if I am wrong, this is only my personal impression).

Catholics in general do not go around attacking Adventism. We find the need to defend our faith against the initial attack BY Adventism. Yours is an offensive, ours is a defensive. We recognise that Adventist claims, often dishonest, about the Catholic faith are taken seriously by some people, and we wish to inform those who need to be informed. Forums such as this serve to educate the Catholic community on how to defend our faith against the attacks.

Ours is not an anti-Adventist position as much as a position of defence against Adventist anti-Catholicism.

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

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?

It seems to me that the importance of the positions is as follows:

Day of the week
Pork
Alcohol
Life

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

Because a down syndrome child isn’t worth years of love and sacrifice?

Not in a world so keen on eugenics. Such a child is defective and violates a -]mother’s/-] woman’s right to a perfect child.

Cleft palate abortions are already in. Diabetics and depressives next. Downright uglies and Jews thereafter.

Bestiality is also very rare, and very damnable.

The (UK) government has overturned its proposed ban on the creation of human-animal embryos …

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

1. Truth is not found by counting noses.

But it’s very telling when the committee was made up by the very leaders of the Adventist Church.

1. We could do the same line of argument on other cases of moral failure for other denominations.

We could, yes. But we’re discussing Adventism here, and the stance taken by it’s leaders, whether officially or unofficially, when they issue guidelines on their official website. Neither the leaders nor the statement are pro-life. Nor is their official website, even if it is not an official statement.

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

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

The issue here is not about what you favour. It’s about what Adventism considers morally acceptable.

The official Adventist website and some very prominent leaders consider abortion in those cases to be morally acceptable. That is therefore the message that gets sent out by the Adventist Church as a whole, especially since it’s on their official website - what the “official” position is is of lesser importance if pro-choice remains taught from official leaders and official websites.

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

But, according to the guidelines, the SDA church does permit abortion under certain circumstances, such as pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Is that correct?

Can you point us to an official statement on abortion by the SDA leadership (or whatever) that you and other SDAs would consider authoritative?

Good point … in light of the statement made on their official website by prominent official leaders, it would take a MORE official statement to the contrary (and necessarily from the same people and ideally on the same website) to effectively argue that this one really has no clout.

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

God has made His will clear through the Church, and we obey Him. And please, “lifting a hand” is just a convenient way to say “lifting a hand to kill another.” Let’s be blunt.

I should also point out that everything moral is done to save the life of both. The argument here is really just a convenient one to criticise the moral stance of the Church. When the extremely rare situation arises, we let God choose. If God is impotent, perhaps we have the right to take the life of an innocent in his place. If not, we act morally and leave it up to him who to call home when.

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

It seems that the difference between us (in this mother is going to die unless she aborts scenario) is that you would rather see them both dead then at least save one life. Well I personally dont agree with that. Instead of saving one life you let die both, that makes no sense.

I’d put it this way:

Catholics would leave the decision up to God, and do all they could to save the lives of both. The outcome is never final until the end.

Pro-choice would deny God his choice, and choose the death of the infant.

If you want us to choose the death of someone, would you be satisfied if we chose the death of the mother in order to allow the infant to live? I doubt it.

The death of both … the life threatening situations at issue here occur late in pregnancy, so that’s never a choice. The death of the infant is highly unlikely, and such a death can’t be predicted. If the life threatening situation is predicted early on, the pregnancy can be terminated after reasonably determining viability, giving both their best combined chance at survival.

We never choose death in the Catholic Church - we do our best for both lives, respecting both lives for what they are - God-given.

 

[Maria1212]

Maria,

I have the feeling you simply cannot resist the temptation to attack the SDA on whatever occasion (forgive me if I am wrong, this is only my personal impression). You are also very bold to proclaim abortion is murder- no exceptions whatsoever. I think it has been pointed out to you that our church **does not **condone abortion so what then is your point now?

Maybe it is easy for you to say things like “abortion is murder-case closed”. I too believe abortion is wrong and I do not support it. But the problem is that sometimes some people are faced with a terrible reality in which reason or a moral dogma, even God’s commandment does not prevail. And I believe that this woman will not burn in hell for her decision neither will those who let that decision be only hers.

Dear Pedja,

As I have stated before, my purpose in posting on Catholic and Adventist threads is to educate myself and others on fact versus created myth/fiction when it comes to Catholicism and Adventism. Adventism, by its teachings, is anti-Catholic, and I want to educate my Catholic brothers and sisters, and myself, so that we can better understand, and defend our faith. As another poster pointed out, my stance is defensive and not offensive.

I love Catholicism and believe that following the Catholic faith is the best way to follow Christ`s teachings. The more I study my faith, the more I am sure of this. The Catholic Church, whether you agree or not, is the Church Christ founded. I want to share my love of Jesus, and of his Church with my brothers and sisters, whether they be Catholic Christians, non-Catholic Christians, or non-Christians. This may sound offensive to you, but I do not want my Catholic brothers and sisters to be “duped” or misled by the myths that some (not all) Adventists have spread about Catholicism. Moreover, despite what you may think, I have a deep love for my Adventist brothers and sisters. The study of our faiths can only bring us closer to God, even if we do not agree on what “the other side” has to say. I know the more I study other faiths, the more certain I am the Catholic Church is where God wants me to be.

I see a lot of contradictions within the Adventist Church. There is so much emphasis on what day one worships`s, whereas killing the unborn appears as almost an after thought (on the website anyway).

While the Adventist Church opposes abortion in some cases, its guidelines permit it in other cases. The fact that it is permited in any case, makes the Adventist Church pro-choice, or pro-abortion, which violates God`s commandment Thou shall not kill.

You say I am bold to equate murder with the abortion. It is the same because life begins at conception, and abortion murders that life and soul.

I will continue this post below.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[djconklin]

Dismissing subtlety is a poor response.

On the one hand see Gen 3:1.

On the other hand, when I make a “subtle” distinction I’m basically called a liar.

And I’m a republican, anyways.

Ah, mission accomplished then!

 

[Maria1212]

Dear Pedja,

I am sorry you have witnessed so many horrible things in your life and will pray the Lord will continue healing you. I agree with you that it is horrible when a women is sexually violated. But it is not the unborn child`s fault how he or she was conceived. St. Paul teaches us that we can never do evil to bring about good. (Romans 3:8). In other words, the end never justifies the means. Therefore abortion cannot be used to terminate an unborn life, because the mother does not want to carry the child to term.

Rape, murder, and adultery are always evil, no matter what the circumstances or intentions are. Instrinsically evil acts, such as rape, remain evil, and can never become good acts.

The Adventist guidelines on abortion use “freedom of conscience” to justify abortion. Catholics believe our consciences must be formed according to Church teachings, and not our own opinion. Conscience can never conflict with Church teachings (for Catholics) because Church teachings are Gods voice. If our conscience conflicts with Church teaching, then it is not our conscience speaking.*Pope John Paul II often said "True freedom isnt the ability to do whatever you want, but the ability to do what you ought.*

Again, arguing the end justifies the means is a false moral system. Yet, that is what the Adventist guidelines, whether official or not, are saying. I am glad you are against abortion, and hope you will encourage your church to take that same pro-life stance.

I want to repeat that rape and incest are horrible crimes; people who commit them should be punished. But a baby that results from rape or incest is an innocent human being with the same right to life as everyone else. Two wrongs do not make a right, so why should murder to be added to the equation. It violates God`s commandment “Thou shall not kill” to kill a child for the sins of his father (or mother).

Catholics believe that the human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception. I know many Adventists share this view, and hope they will encourage their church to adopt this view as well. The Adventist Church does everyone a disservice by not offering official clear guidance on this. (One of the other Adventist posters said the Adventist guidelines I posted, are not actually official Adventist teaching). In my humble, and personal opinion, it is hypocritcal, and a contradiction, for Adventists to be so focused on the day of the week one worships on, while permitting the murder of unborn children.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Maria1212]

In some of the above posts, some Adventist posters implied that the Catholic Church chooses death by not allowing abortion if it might save the mothers life. Catholics believe that even if a mother tries to justify abortion to save her own life, she is still doing evil (committing abortion) to attain a good (possibly saving her life). This violates St. Pauls commandent that we can never to evil to accomplish good.

Catholics do everything they can to save both lives, but it is not our right to take the life of another. This is based on Scripture and the oral and written teachings of early Christians.

catholic.com/library/abortion.asp

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Maria1212]

The Didache
“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas
“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

The Apocalypse of Peter
“And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

Athenagoras
“What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it” (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).