Which non-Catholic denominations are pro-life?

[1ke]

Which is extremely rare. It is not a bad statement.

That depends entirely upon how they define “devastating damage.” It seems based on their involvement with the Reproductive Rights groups that “devastating damage” is whatever the woman says it is, not “rare” in the least.

 

[Newbie2]

Any truly Christian organizations must be Pro-Life, or they are simply confused hypocrites. Stick with Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodist denominations and you’ll reach pro-lifers.

The official stance of United Methodist is: “We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.” - from The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church

However, they do affirm this:

“Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.”

Which is extremely rare. It is not a bad statement.

That depends entirely upon how they define “devastating damage.” It seems based on their involvement with the Reproductive Rights groups that “devastating damage” is whatever the woman says it is, not “rare” in the least.

To my way of thinking it is a cop-out statement…so let’s call it what it is, a lie. “We believe in the sanctity of unborn human life…” except for the following circumstances…

Unborn human life is either sacrosanct or it is not. It’s pretty clear that the official position of the United Methodist Church is not, as we Catholics and many others define, “Pro-life”.

 

[kage_ar]

Which is extremely rare. It is not a bad statement.

If they allow for one single abortion, ever, it is a bad statement.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Unborn human life is either sacrosanct or it is not. It’s pretty clear that the official position of the United Methodist Church is not, as we Catholics and many others define, “Pro-life”.

As one of only 2 UM participants in this thread I would agree with you.

 

[dsears]

Indeed, the UMC is conflicted over this issue. The response of the General Board does not sit well with much of the grassroots of the UMC, but there the conflict also exists in the local church so there isn’t enough of a grassroots movement to actually exert the legislative power it would take to stop them from doing what many of us feel is contrary to our own discipline.

dsears, do you realize that if this was THE reason you left the UMC, that you actually made it more likely for the General Board to have its own way? It’s tantamount to a vote in support of the Boards actions.

Well as I’ve seen it, they won’t need any help getting their way. MTSO is considered a more conservative seminary, and yet if you would just sit in on my ethics class you would question that. While it is the main reason why I have left the UMC for the Catholic Church, there are some more minor issues that brought me to the Catholic church as well.

 

[Nominefili]

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church (WELS) are unquestionably pro-life. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is well… we’re not really sure what they are anymore. But anyway the LCMS and WELS are on board. (Re: Lutherans for Life.)

 

[Bengoshi]

All traditional Chariismatic/Pentecostal denominations (Assembly of God, Church of God, Foursquare), should be 100% pro life and pro traditional marriage.

Come to think of it this should extend to any church that considers itself evangelical and Bible believing.

Mainline denominations are a mixed bag, particularly in some regions of the country. Be careful.

Foursquare Church does not hold to orthodox (correct) doctrine of the Trinity though. They are modalists or oneness pentecostals.

 

[GeorgeSword]

Foursquare Church does not hold to orthodox (correct) doctrine of the Trinity though. They are modalists or oneness pentecostals.

We still agree on morals, and while it is our duty to do what we can to show them the truth, there theological errors should not prevent us from working together to save lives.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

Actually on the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are consistently pro-life acknowledging abortion is the killing of a human person and intrinsically evil. The Catholic and Orthodox do not acknowledge any “circumstances” in which abortion can be moral. LCMS and PCA embrace a fully pro-life position also.

Other denominations typically have shades of gray. Most embrace, at a minimum, “life of mother, rape, and incest” and then it goes downhill from there to totally pro-abortion.

Presbyterian:

PCUSA- accepts abortion
PCA - pro-life

Baptists:

Southern Baptist-- has vacillated. Currently, pro-life except they believe in “life of the mother” abortions

American Baptist-- accepts abortion

Methodist Church-- accepts abortion

–That makes zero sense.

Please link to support your commentary.

Any real “Christian” group could not be anything but pro-life.
No real “Christian” organization could EVER accept anything but a “pro-Life” stance.

Keep in mind there are a lot of phonies out there; a lot of confused folk. Very sad.

But again, your categorizations make zero sense.

 

[k0nod541]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a position stated here:
newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion

 

[1ke]

–That makes zero sense.

I’m not sure what makes “zero” sense. You told people to “stick to” certain denominations that you asserted would guarantee you were with a pro-life position.

This is just not so.

You asserted Presbyterians, United Methodist, and Baptist were denominations to “stick with.” However, these groups have denominational statements at odds with a pro-life position.

Please link to support your commentary.

I already did, in numerous prior posts on this thread. But, here we go again:

NRLC website with a list of various denominations and their positions

Denomination websites:
Presbyterian Church USA (PC-USA)
United Methodist Church
American Baptist Church

The Southern Baptist Convention has changed its stance several times, but currently has a pro life position.

Any real “Christian” group could not be anything but pro-life.
No real “Christian” organization could EVER accept anything but a “pro-Life” stance.

Well then, by your definition, the United Methodist, Presbyterian USA, American Baptist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Episcopal, and United Church of Christ are not Christian groups.

So, why would you tell someone to “stick with” the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists?

Instead, you should tell them to “stick with” the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, WELS, LCMS, or Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), or Southern Baptist Convention.

Even the National Association of Evangelicals affirm abortion in cases of “life or health” of mother, rape, incest. However, each congregation is independent so this is not a denominational statement/teaching, it is a statement by the NAE association through “resolution.”

Keep in mind there are a lot of phonies out there; a lot of confused folk. Very sad.

I am not talking about confused individuals or phonies. I am talking about the actual statements of the denominations themselves.

But again, your categorizations make zero sense.

My categorization makes perfect sense. You stated certain groups were pro life. I refuted your statement by posting the positions of those denominations you put forward.

They are NOT pro life.

 

[O.S.Luke]

To my way of thinking it is a cop-out statement…so let’s call it what it is, a lie. “We believe in the sanctity of unborn human life…” except for the following circumstances…

That’s not what it says - but it appears that you watch a lot CNN and Fox News in your spin on it. It seems you are using a lie to make your case for a “lie.”

That’s dishonest. I believe that’s also known as “lying.” I mean, let’s call it what it is, right?

You could have said the position is weak, and I would agree with you, as I wish it were stronger. However, you chose to inflame and berate, which of course is your right and choice.

 

[Publisher]

I’ve been reading this thread and see a lot of “finger pointing”. Catholics say there is no reason whatsoever for an abortion. Many Protestants say they do not believe in abortion except in the case of the mother’s life being at risk. Yet Catholics will allow “surgical procedures” that will terminate a preganancy as long as it wasn’t the “intent” to cause the termination of the pregnacy but to provide a medical procedure which inadvertantly caused the termination of a pregancy…like the whole “we don’t believe in divorce” issue but allow for annulment even though the couple has 15 children and have been “married” for 30 years…if the original marriage wasn’t “sacramental” then it’s not really a marriage…maybe it’s how my Quaker mind works…I don’t see the difference.

I really don’t see the deep distinction between terminating a pregancy unintentionally through a surgical procedure…even though we know the pregancy will be terminated by the procedure if the “intent” is to correct the primary issue and the abortion is secondary and terminating a pregancy due to the health of the mother…a pregancy is terminated by a surgical procedure…must Protestants state the minutae of “intent” to be pro-life?

Would it be better for those Protestant bodies to state they are “pro-life”, yet “look the other way” when their members have abortions or terminates a pregancy due to a medical procedure where the termination of the pregnancy is an “unintentional” by-product of the procedure?

Stating one is “pro-life” unwaiveringly and yet there is no disipline against those who have abortions as a matter of course seems…wrong.

Perhaps it’s my “unformed conscience” or my “invincible ignorance” which prevents me from seeing any REAL distinction between the two poles…it seems to me to be a matter of words that neither set of postions is reflected in real life.

 

[awantz]

Missonary Church, Pentecostal Church, AOG Church,

 

[Newbie2]

Originally Posted by Newbie2
To my way of thinking it is a cop-out statement…so let’s call it what it is, a lie. “We believe in the sanctity of unborn human life…” except for the following circumstances…

That’s not what it says - but it appears that you watch a lot CNN and Fox News in your spin on it. It seems you are using a lie to make your case for a “lie.”

That’s dishonest. I believe that’s also known as “lying.” I mean, let’s call it what it is, right?

You could have said the position is weak, and I would agree with you, as I wish it were stronger. However, you chose to inflame and berate, which of course is your right and choice.

BEG YOUR PARDON??? What I quoted is right off the UMC website:

archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1732

Please, if you’re going to call me a liar, specify what I’m lying about. Show me the dishonesty. Perhaps you didn’t see the quotations? That’s ***exactly ***what their website says:

“Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy.”

RIGHT OFF THE WEBSITE. Where am I lying???

Everything past the word, “But” is a cop-out i.e. “Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life is conditional.” is really what’s being said. Or do you have a better explanation???

You cannot have it both ways; either you believe in the sanctity of unborn human life or not. There is not inbetween, no conditional sanctity. Yes, I choose to berate such a statement, as opposition to or acceptance of the murder of the unborn crosses ecumenical lines. It takes a lot of stand to stand there and say, as an official position, that “We believe in the sanctity of unborn human life” out of one side of your mouth, then say, “But it’s OK under certain circumstances*” out of the other.

*For those who don’t get it, this is not a direct quote off the website, lest I be accused of falsehood again.

BTW, Pal, I don’t watch news on TV. Please don’t make baseless assumptions.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Your post(s) speak for themselves - context is everything, “Pal.”

The WHOLE statement:

The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born.
Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.

We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption. (See ¶ 161.K.)

Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel. - from The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church

I’m glad you don’t watch television news.

 

[Newbie2]

Your post(s) speak for themselves - you said “except” which is not part of the statement. Context is everything, “Pal.”

I’m glad you don’t watch television news.

Please note that I did not include the word “except” and what followed in what I quoted from the website.

Context is not everything, english and grammer and understanding that what’s between the quotation marks is what’s being quoted and not what follows is important too, as you’ve demonstrated for us.

Please read more carefully before you throw such accusations around, OK?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Please note that I did not include the word “except” and what followed in what I quoted from the website.

And you mislead by that. That was my point.

As far as accusations, I believe you made the accusation of a “lie” first.

 

[Newbie2]

And you mislead by that. That was my point.

As far as accusations, I believe you made the accusation of a “lie” first.

Mislead?

Dear Sir, that is precisely why I included the quotations, so that readers of my post could tell what I was quoting and what were my own ideas.

Let me rephrase to perhaps be more satisfactory:

It is disingenuous to state that one believes in the sanctity of X, then go on to qualify that sanctity with a “but” statement. Sanctity, as most people understand the word, means “untouchable”; i.e. that whatever one believes to be sacrosanct cannot and must not be violated.

The very next sentence in the UMC statement negates the first. If anything is misleading, it is the UMC statement on the sanctity on the unborn human life as sacrosanct.

I’m sorry if my use of lie or lying is upsetting to you, but I believe that purposeful misuse of the term sanctity in the UMC statement is stronger than disingenuous. If you feel that I’ve been misleading in my characterization of their statement, please elaborate. If you feel that Iie or lying is too strong a term, there we must agree to disagree.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I’m sorry if my use of lie or lying is upsetting to you, but I believe that purposeful misuse of the term sanctity in the UMC statement is stronger than disingenuous. If you feel that I’ve been misleading in my characterization of their statement, please elaborate. If you feel that Iie or lying is too strong a term, there we must agree to disagree.

We disagree. And your use of “lying” yet resisting it being applied to you seems to be very selective. You’ve basically said my tradition is a bunch of liars. I don’t think you would take very kindly to my calling Catholicism lying when it comes to divorce vs. annulment.

I have a lot of respect for Catholicism. Wish you shared such respect for my tradition.