Which non-Catholic denominations are pro-life?

[Newbie2]

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.

Please don’t mischaricterize my position. You’ve yet to show me where I’ve presented a falsehood. When you do, I’ll correct it and apologize for it. Please show me where I’ve erred, rather than just say “your posts speak for themselves”.

I most certainly have not said that your tradition is a “bunch of liars” (which gramatically is confusing…are you claiming that I said that the members of the UMC are a bunch of liars or that the UMC tradition is a bunch of lies?)

What I said is that the official position as stated on the website is disingenuous as it pertains to the use of the term “sanctity”. That doesn’t mean that the flock believes the same way, or even that you believe the same way.

You need to focus on what I’m actually writing.

BTW, it wouldn’t bother me a bit if you were to characterize any particular or all of Catholocism as lies as long as you explained why you thought so. This is an open forum, and all comments are welcome. Start a thread on divorce and annulmnet if you’d like. I’ll gladly participate.

 

[LynnGM]

Pro-Choice/Pro - Homosexual Marriage denominations:

Episcopal Church USA
Presbyterian Church USA
United Church of Christ
Evangelical Lutheran Church America (ELCA)
United Methodist

There are individuals - clergy and laity - in these denominations that are PRO- LIFE. But, the majority is liberal.

As for evangelical and bible based churches, stick with the ones in your area. E-mail the pastor and find out his stance. Each evangelical and/or bible-based church is a case by case basis.

 

[Newbie2]

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…I don’t see the difference.

You don’t see a difference in the purposeful termination of an unborn baby’s life and an unintentional death from a medical procedure. Did I misinterpret what you’re saying?

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?

OK, I guess you don’t see a distinction. Look at it this way, do you see a difference in first degree murder and killing someone in self-defense? No, it’s not a perfect parallel, but do you make that distinction?

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?

Do you think that intent is important?

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

What do you mean by “discipline”?

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.

Perhaps. Look at it another way…and perhaps reconsider that intent is crucial when it comes to sin…

Scenario 1) I get in a fight with some other guy in a bar, and hit him…he goes down and hits his head on the floor and dies as a result of hitting his head. I indirectly caused his death, but that was not my intent, I just wanted to cause him a bit of pain by hitting him.

Scenario 2) I get in a fight with the same guy in a bar, but pull out a gun and shoot him in the head, wanting to kill him and with my well-placed, deliberate shot, kill him.

Do you make a distinction between my intent in scenario 1 and scenario 2?

Am I any more or less responsible for the man’s death in scenario 1 and scenario 2?

 

[Newbie2]

Pro-Choice/Pro - Homosexual Marriage denominations:

Episcopal Church USA
Presbyterian Church USA
United Church of Christ
Evangelical Lutheran Church America (ELCA)
United Methodist

There are individuals - clergy and laity - in these denominations that are PRO- LIFE. But, the majority is liberal.

As for evangelical and bible based churches, stick with the ones in your area. E-mail the pastor and find out his stance. Each evangelical and/or bible-based church is a case by case basis.

Is the doctrine of these denominations “Pro-choice” as well? Of course, we’d find individual pro-choicers in all denominations as well as Catholocism.

I’m a bit surprised by the ELCA. Do you have a reference for any official pro-choice position documents or statements from them?

 

[rwillenborg]

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.

You are absolutely right that stating that one is pro-life and then giving no discipline against those who have abortions is wrong. In the Catholic church, you are instantly excommunicated. I’m not sure how other denominations treat it.
And of course, to die without repenting from such an act will lead to eternal damnation.
By the way, as someone who ALSO could not see the difference between an unintentional termination and an intentional one, I thought I might be able to shed some light on the matter.
Firstly, think of the difference between murder in the first degree and involuntary manslaughter. Though the end result is the same in both, the METHOD and INTENT to get there are very, very different. I think you would recognize that there is a difference between those two. This situation is similar, I think.
It is important to recognize that ANYTHING that is life threatening to the mother is also, obviously, life threatening to the baby in utero. So, though the baby cannot and should not be KILLED, if the mother’s life is in danger the baby MAY be delivered prematurely if necessary. This is a RISK to the life of the baby, but it is not certain death, whereas if the baby were to stay inside its dying mother, the death of BOTH would be certain.
Here’s an analogy. It’s fanciful, and I’m sorry for that, but it’s the best I’ve got It’s a stormy day at the ocean and there is a man who was pushed overboard. He is now struggling to stay above water. There is another man, flying a helicopter overhead who sees the man struggling. But, the pilot realizes, if he gets close enough to the water for the man to grab his ladder, the waves would overtake his helicopter and they’d both be dead.
So, instead he circles the man overhead to keep an eye on him and radios for help from the shore.
In this instance the pilot’s INTENT is to save the drowning man, but he can’t, not without risking his own life, and in risking his own life, he is also risking that of the drowning man.
Do you see how this pilot’s efforts are different than, say, the person who pushed the man overboard in the first place, even if the end result is the same?
I hope this is of some assistance.
You’re quaker? I went to a quaker wedding once, in PA.
Nice bunch of people, those PA quaker’s. Seriously. They were really really some fo the kindest people I’ve ever met.

 

[Publisher]

So, what I am reading is that Catholics DO feel there are circumstances when the termination of a pregnancy is allowable…as long as the “intent” to end the pregancy isn’t the main reason to terminate it? Doesn’t sound too much different than those Protestants who chose to save the mother’s life…they don’t “intend” to end the pregnancy…just save the mother and saving the mother has the “unintentional” effect of terminating the pregancy. As I wrote before…it seems to me most of the criticism from Catholics is that those Protestant churches which allow procedures to save the mother’s life but causes the termination of a pregancy is simply a “war of words”…it get’s down to the “gnat’s fanny” wording of the statements. Neither accept abortion as a means of birth control…but if abortion happens due to a “procedure”…it’s not really abortions for Catholics since they say it’s not their “intention” to end the pregancy…but it is for the Protestants since they don’t word their stance the same way.

Signed,

Invincibly Ignorant with an Unformed Conscience

 

[O.S.Luke]

Pro-Choice/Pro - Homosexual Marriage denominations:

Episcopal Church USA
Presbyterian Church USA
United Church of Christ
Evangelical Lutheran Church America (ELCA)
United Methodist

There are individuals - clergy and laity - in these denominations that are PRO- LIFE. But, the majority is liberal.

As for evangelical and bible based churches, stick with the ones in your area. E-mail the pastor and find out his stance. Each evangelical and/or bible-based church is a case by case basis.

Another untrue statement. The United Methodist Church is NOT pro-Homosexual Marriage.

Regarding clergy (BOD ¶ 304.3)
While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. (note: “Self-avowed practicing homosexual” is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual.)

¶ 161b Marriage—We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity** between a man and a woman.** We believe that God’s blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union.

We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. **We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. **

¶161 f Human Sexuality - **The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. **We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.

Any ordained UM pastor who presides over a same-sex union can have canon charges filed upon him and be stripped of credentials and ordained status.

Why do some Catholic persist in spreading untruths about Protestants? You would think Catholics, of all people, would appreciate how demeaning and hurtful spreading such untruths are. I guess it’s the nature of people to attack that which they don’t understand.

 

[Newbie2]

So, what I am reading is that Catholics DO feel there are circumstances when the termination of a pregnancy is allowable…as long as the “intent” to end the pregancy isn’t the main reason to terminate it? Doesn’t sound too much different than those Protestants who chose to save the mother’s life…they don’t “intend” to end the pregnancy…just save the mother and saving the mother has the “unintentional” effect of terminating the pregancy. As I wrote before…it seems to me most of the criticism from Catholics is that those Protestant churches which allow procedures to save the mother’s life but causes the termination of a pregancy is simply a “war of words”…it get’s down to the “gnat’s fanny” wording of the statements. Neither accept abortion as a means of birth control…but if abortion happens due to a “procedure”…it’s not really abortions for Catholics since they say it’s not their “intention” to end the pregancy…but it is for the Protestants since they don’t word their stance the same way.

Signed,

Invincibly Ignorant with an Unformed Conscience

We need to be precise about our language. Intended abortion is prohibited, unintentional loss of the pregnancy due to medical intervention is addressed under the concept of “double effect”, which has been discussed in other threads in this forum. Perhaps doing a search can steer you in the direction of better understanding this concept.

For example, certain hormonal treatments can be useful for acne but cause abortions. For example, a woman decides to use such treatments, but doesn’t ***intend ***on aborting her baby, well, intent isn’t the only factor in play. The abortion is a forseeable, preventable side effect of the medication, and the woman could delay using it until after having her baby. It isn’t always black and white, either…but at the same time we are very careful in not falling into the trap of relativity.

Another untrue statement. The United Methodist Church is NOT pro-Homosexual Marriage.

Any ordained UM pastor who presides over a same-sex union can have canon charges filed upon him and be stripped of credentials and ordained status.

Why do some Catholic persist in spreading untruths about Protestants? You would think Catholics, of all people, would appreciate how demeaning and hurtful spreading such untruths are. I guess it’s the nature of people to attack that which they don’t understand.

Perhaps the poster is misinformed; I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that they are out to attack the UMC and those other churches. Perhaps the poster has heard from a Methodist that such is the teaching of the UMC.

Why do some Catholics do what you suggest? You hit the nail on the head when you mention understanding. Sometimes it’s a misunderstanding of other church’s teachings. Sometimes it’s just being insensitive. Other times, members don’t properly understand their own church’s teachings (Like many Catholics!).

 

[LynnGM]

Not attacking the United Methodist Church. Okay, so UMC does not officially recognize same sex marriages, nor can clergy preside over such ceremonies. This article from april 2009 makes it clear.
christianpost.com/article/20090430/united-methodist-court-rejects-gay-marriage-resolution/index.html

But UMC does have many congregants and clergy who support same sex marriage. And those are the Methodists who gain the most press. And yes, in my neck of the woods, UMC is VERY LIBERAL.

However, UMC is pretty tolerant of abortion. I’m linking to their website. umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2239163/k.A82E/Abortion_Overview.htm

And
rcrc.org/about/members.cfm

In my experience, it seems that the more tolerant a church is to abortion, the more tolerant it becomes towards other “alternatives”, like gay marriage.

 

[Publisher]

Not attacking the United Methodist Church. Okay, so UMC does not officially recognize same sex marriages, nor can clergy preside over such ceremonies. This article from april 2009 makes it clear.
christianpost.com/article/20090430/united-methodist-court-rejects-gay-marriage-resolution/index.html

But UMC does have many congregants and clergy who support same sex marriage. And those are the Methodists who gain the most press. And yes, in my neck of the woods, UMC is VERY LIBERAL.

Are there any Catholic priests and Catholic individuals who support same sex marriage? Are there any parishes that minister and welcome same sex couples? Are there any priests who serve the eucharist at Dignity meetings?

However, UMC is pretty tolerant of abortion. I’m linking to their website. umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2239163/k.A82E/Abortion_Overview.htm

And
rcrc.org/about/members.cfm

In my experience, it seems that the more tolerant a church is to abortion, the more tolerant it becomes towards other “alternatives”, like gay marriage.

 

[Newbie2]

Yep.

Yep.

And I highly doubt it, since the Eucharist is “served” (we like to say “celebrated” or “offered”) during Mass. I’m pretty sure a Dignity Meeting isn’t a mass, but I’m not 100% sure what a “dignity meeting” is.

 

[Publisher]

Yep.

Yep.

And I highly doubt it, since the Eucharist is “served” (we like to say “celebrated” or “offered”) during Mass. I’m pretty sure a Dignity Meeting isn’t a mass, but I’m not 100% sure what a “dignity meeting” is.

DignityUSA is the organization for GLBT. There are priests who conduct mass for those GLBT people. I have a good friend who happens to be a Dignity member who help orgainze meetings. As I understand they are no longer allowed to hold their meetings in Catholic rec halls…but use the TEC rec hall…but they have a catholic priest serve them the eucharist at an “abbreviated mass” after their meetings.

dignityusa.org/

 

[Newbie2]

Interesting. I particularly find the “Leather Ministry” on the website disturbing.

Such an “abbreviated mass” sound illicit.

 

[Publisher]

Interesting. I particularly find the “Leather Ministry” on the website disturbing.

Such an “abbreviated mass” sound illicit.

Is it wrong for Catholics to wear leather outfits?

As far as “illicit”, you would be the best to judge that issue I’d think. If it is “illicit”, does it invalidate the consecration? Is the sacrament invalid if “illicit”?

 

[Newbie2]

Is it wrong for Catholics to wear leather outfits?

Nope. I just find the combination of leather wear and ministry to be odd.

As far as “illicit”, you would be the best to judge that issue I’d think. If it is “illicit”, does it invalidate the consecration? Is the sacrament invalid if “illicit”?

We’d have to know the particulars of what’s going on in an “abbreviated mass” to comment on what may or may not be illicit. Generally speaking, there’s no such thing as an abbreviated mass; the mass has to contain certain elements to be considered a valid or licit mass. Rubrics for the mass are spelled out in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, aka the GIRM.

Also, mass is usually held in a Catholic Church if available, although under certain circumstances it may be celebrated outside of a church. I’ve been to mass in a shopping mall in Mexico and an outdoor mass in Polish in Michigan. But both were full, proper masses (although I understood very, very few words).

 

[rwillenborg]

So, what I am reading is that Catholics DO feel there are circumstances when the termination of a pregnancy is allowable…as long as the “intent” to end the pregancy isn’t the main reason to terminate it? Doesn’t sound too much different than those Protestants who chose to save the mother’s life…they don’t “intend” to end the pregnancy…just save the mother and saving the mother has the “unintentional” effect of terminating the pregancy. As I wrote before…it seems to me most of the criticism from Catholics is that those Protestant churches which allow procedures to save the mother’s life but causes the termination of a pregancy is simply a “war of words”…it get’s down to the “gnat’s fanny” wording of the statements. Neither accept abortion as a means of birth control…but if abortion happens due to a “procedure”…it’s not really abortions for Catholics since they say it’s not their “intention” to end the pregancy…but it is for the Protestants since they don’t word their stance the same way.

Signed,

Invincibly Ignorant with an Unformed Conscience

I get what you’re saying.
I think you’re right, protestants and catholics sometimes disagree on semantics, when, at the end of the day, they’re saying the same thing.
I think the reason Catholics are SO particular about the wording is because in the supreme court case when they say ‘threatening the life of the mother’ that can mean ANYTHING. So, I think Catholics are very careful with their words - it’s a sticky trap.
That being said, this is one of the points that I think our evangelical brothers and sisters are VERY unified with this on, and for that I am very glad. It’s really a point of genuine bridge building and mutual respect. It definitely changes one’s view of another when an evangelical and a catholic stand outside an abortion clinic together praying for the women and the babies.
I think in actual, real-life circumstances many evangelicals, for example, who are pro-life would ACT the same way as a pro-life catholic, and in the end that’s what REALLY makes someone pro-life.

 

[Publisher]

I get what you’re saying.
I think you’re right, protestants and catholics sometimes disagree on semantics, when, at the end of the day, they’re saying the same thing.
I think the reason Catholics are SO particular about the wording is because in the supreme court case when they say ‘threatening the life of the mother’ that can mean ANYTHING. So, I think Catholics are very careful with their words - it’s a sticky trap.
That being said, this is one of the points that I think our evangelical brothers and sisters are VERY unified with this on, and for that I am very glad. It’s really a point of genuine bridge building and mutual respect. It definitely changes one’s view of another when an evangelical and a catholic stand outside an abortion clinic together praying for the women and the babies.
I think in actual, real-life circumstances many evangelicals, for example, who are pro-life would ACT the same way as a pro-life catholic, and in the end that’s what REALLY makes someone pro-life.

I agree with you on it being a “matter of semantics”.

 

[O.S.Luke]

**But **UMC does have many congregants and clergy who support same sex marriage. And those are the Methodists who gain the most press. And yes, in my neck of the woods, UMC is VERY LIBERAL.

And there are Catholics who do not embrace transubstantiation, practice birth control, and advocate for married clergy. Does that mean that Catholics in my neck of the woods are VERY LIBERAL? I mean, what does either prove, other than that individuals can be disobedient to their church’s teaching? It doesn’t invalidate the church’s teachings. I guess you just like calling something “liberal” that you don’t like.

Bashers, when confronted with the truth, like “buts.” And “buts” usually stink.

In my experience, it seems that the more tolerant a church is to abortion, the more tolerant it becomes towards other “alternatives”, like gay marriage.

So, being proved wrong, you still have to justify your thinking to cover up your gaffe.

You are Protestant bashing. Call it whatever you want. A rose, by any other name.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Is the doctrine of these denominations “Pro-choice” as well? Of course, we’d find individual pro-choicers in all denominations as well as Catholocism.

There are individuals - clergy and laity - in these [other] denominations [like UMC] that are PRO- LIFE. But, the majority is liberal.

I’m a bit surprised by the ELCA. Do you have a reference for any official pro-choice position documents or statements from them?

Newbie2, I think you had better stick to either talking about your own Catholic church or to direct quotes from these other bodies. Your speculations, my charitable word to describe the opinions you given about these other denominations, show a lack of actual knowledge about the groups of which you speak. I am a UM pastor and I spent 4 years serving in the ELCA on the bishop’s staff, so I’m going to risk stating that I probably know both of these denominations better than you do.

As to whether or not the majority of the UM is liberal, one has to remember that “liberal” is a relative term. I find that people pretty much think that all those to the left of themselves are liberal and all those to the right of themselves are conservative. Thus, if I happen to be to the right of you, that makes you a liberal in my book. While another person on this forum might think of you as an arch-conservative.

Trying to use some less subjective standards then, the majority of UM pastors do not condone gay marriage. The denomination strictly prohibits it. There are clusters where this is not the case, so of those clusters are at some of our seminaries. One posters suggests that MTSO (Methodist Theological Seminary in Ohio) is one such place where she see rainbow flags in support of the gay agenda. Of course, flying such a flag does not mean that one supports gay marriage. I remember one event where I gladly where a rainbow pin, not because I support the concept of gay marriage, but because there are other issues in which I think that gay and lesbians need to be heard, even if I disagree with their end goals. But this is again a case of the nature of liberal/conservative being relative terms. The poster said that she heard that MTSO had a conservative reputation. I can only say that I never had such a view of it, and I pastored in Ohio and have friends who graduated from there.

As to the UMC being liberal/consevative with regard to abortion. The Dsicipline shows that the UMC as a denomination is trying to straddle the line. Why do you think that is? It is because there is no clear majority that comes down completely on one side or another. Some pastors think that abortions are something that should not be regulated at all. That the way to prevent them is not with laws, but with good teaching, and equipping people to make better choices. Other pastors think that is all well and good, but that such an event is so horrific as to need to simply be declared wrong in all times and circumstances. But the majority are not in either of those two camps. They do see cases were life conflicts with life and feel that no blanket statement can be made either way. They see it not as either/or, but a continuium of possibilities and I suppose that there is a UM pastor at practically every point in between.

Now, repeat what you have already said that a statement of “valuing the sanctity of life, but…” is itself a disingenious statement that doesn’t actually value the sanctity of life because one would then not allow for the but, let me ask you some questions?

Do you value the sanctity of life?
All life?
Do you value the sanctity of the life of murders and oppose capital punishment?
Do you value the sanctity of the life of those who have conspired against the United States and would not seek to execute them?
Do you value the sanctity of the life of Osama Bin Laden?
Would you value the sanctity of the life of one who has broken into your home and is about to harm your family?
Do you suppose that soliers who fight in combat situations are guilty of not valuing the sanctity of human life?
If a woman has a medical condition that makes carrying a pregnancy to term likely to be fatal, would opting for a life-saving medical procedure that she knew would end up in the termination of the pregnancy mean that she did not value the sanctity of human life?
What choice would you want your wife, your daughter, your sister or your mother to make if she were to have an ectopic pregnancy? Would you recommend that one go ahead and have a medical procedure that would end that pregnancy (i.e., by whatever name you choose to call it, it is an abortion) before any harm was done to your wife, daughter, sister, mother? Or would want them to wait until the baby had died, even if it meant risking the life of your wife, daughter, sister, or mother so that you could say that they didn’t have an abortion? Which of these options truly shows the greater sanctity for life?

Can you truthfully tell us that you are able to read throught that entire list of questions without any “I don’t believe in abortion, but…” statements being made?

As for the ELCA views on abortion, you can read about them here. The official view is not much different than the UMC, but the day-to-day position of pastors when given advice to their flock is a bit more open to it. But as with most things varies greatly from person to person.

 

[Newbie2]

Newbie2, I think you had better stick to either talking about your own Catholic church or to direct quotes from these other bodies. Your speculations, my charitable word to describe the opinions you given about these other denominations, show a lack of actual knowledge about the groups of which you speak. I am a UM pastor and I spent 4 years serving in the ELCA on the bishop’s staff, so I’m going to risk stating that I probably know both of these denominations better than you do.

Before you start throwing around criticism, pal, please get your quotes straight. I did not write “There are individuals - clergy and laity - in these [other] denominations [like UMC] that are PRO- LIFE. But, the majority is liberal.” That was LynnGM.

Trying to use some less subjective standards then.(blah,blah, blah)…there.

Interesting. But I didn’t address the Liberal/Conservative issue.

As to the UMC being liberal/consevative with regard to abortion. The Dsicipline shows that the UMC as a denomination is trying to straddle the line. Why do you think that is?

Lack of respect for the sanctity of unborn human life, contrary to the doctrinal statement.

It is because there is no clear majority that comes down completely on one side or another. Some pastors think that abortions are something that should not be regulated at all. That the way to prevent them is not with laws, but with good teaching, and equipping people to make better choices. Other pastors think that is all well and good, but that such an event is so horrific as to need to simply be declared wrong in all times and circumstances. But the majority are not in either of those two camps. They do see cases were life conflicts with life and feel that no blanket statement can be made either way. They see it not as either/or, but a continuium of possibilities and I suppose that there is a UM pastor at practically every point in between.

In other words, they have fallen into the trap of relativism, no?

Now, repeat what you have already said that a statement of “valuing the sanctity of life, but…” is itself a disingenious statement that doesn’t actually value the sanctity of life because one would then not allow for the but, let me ask you some questions?

Do you value the sanctity of life? Yes
All life? Nope. Not the life of parasites, bugs and animals potentially hazardous to humans.
Do you value the sanctity of the life of murders and oppose capital punishment? Yep.
Do you value the sanctity of the life of those who have conspired against the United States and would not seek to execute them? Yep.
Do you value the sanctity of the life of Osama Bin Laden? Yep.
Would you value the sanctity of the life of one who has broken into your home and is about to harm your family? Yep.
Do you suppose that soliers who fight in combat situations are guilty of not valuing the sanctity of human life? Nope.
If a woman has a medical condition that makes carrying a pregnancy to term likely to be fatal, would opting for a life-saving medical procedure that she knew would end up in the termination of the pregnancy mean that she did not value the sanctity of human life? Not necessarily. Clearly you do not seem to understand the principle of double effect.

What choice would you want your wife, your daughter, your sister or your mother to make if she were to have an ectopic pregnancy? No, I’d want them to die. Pullleeeze. Would you recommend that one go ahead and have a medical procedure that would end that pregnancy (i.e., by whatever name you choose to call it, it is an abortion) before any harm was done to your wife, daughter, sister, mother?

Again, you need to educate yourself on the principle of double effect. I would recommend the procedure that would best protect both the life of the baby and the mother.

Or would want them to wait until the baby had died, even if it meant risking the life of your wife, daughter, sister, or mother so that you could say that they didn’t have an abortion? Which of these options truly shows the greater sanctity for life?

Sigh…once again, please read up on the principle of double effect. You’ll understand my and the Catholic position much better.

Can you truthfully tell us that you are able to read throught that entire list of questions without any “I don’t believe in abortion, but…” statements being made?

Yep. Any more trick questions? Fire away.

Perhaps if the word “sanctity” wasn’t used in the UMC position statement, I wouldn’t be critical of the position. Look up sanctity. In this context, it should mean that never can or should be violated. Yet, the very next sentence introduces the qualifier, “but”. I have no problem with “We believe in the importance of unborn human life…” or something similar. But sanctity is an inappropriate term if there are exceptions involved.

As for the ELCA views on abortion, you can read about them here. The official view is not much different than the UMC, but the day-to-day position of pastors when given advice to their flock is a bit more open to it. But as with most things varies greatly from person to person.

Thank you for the link. I’m a former Missouri Synod Lutheran, and my experience is that MS Lutherans hold a much more Catholic view on abortion than do the ELCA Lutherans, same with gay clergy.