Roman Catholicism and the total abuse & murder of children (incl. abortion).

[Alofa Atu]

...I see you teach a version of original sin where I am culpable for all past Catholics acts is this correct? ...

I never said, or implied such a thing. You are responsible for what you now know and the sins and errors thereof. You are not responsible for a single 'pope's (etc) or another's atrocities except your own, or by what you are knowledgably complicit in (doctrinally or by deed). In other words, I do not hold you personally responsible for anything listed in this thread, except with the exceptions just noted (ie your own or knowledgably complicit in).

 

[Alofa Atu]

No.

The KJV translators knew that a unicorn was a mythical horse with a long pearly horn and that the cockatrice was also mythical cross between a rooster and a snake. They knew what a rhinoceros was and they already had a word for it - rhinoceros. They did not mix up the words multiple types.

But arguing with you will be as beneficial as arguing with a flat-earther.

AV1611 screenshots:

Isaiah 34:7 (AV1611), see Left Hand Notation for "|| Unicornes", which says, "|| Or, Rhino-cerots.", which is in addition to the 'bullockes with the bulles' (therefore not an 'ox, wild-ox, or horse').

Isaiah 59:5 (AV1611), see Left Hand Notation for "|| cockatrice egges", which says, "|| Or, adders.", which is a deadly viper, which is exactly what the context said it has to be.

The AV1611 translators knew their Latin and use of words being linguists, and thus knew what they were doing by giving the notation and 'knew' no such thing as you intimated they did.

Stay on OP please.

 

[Alofa Atu]

When discussing the issue of 'abortion', most of the discussion is confused by blurry, fuzzy nebulous definitions. I had previously given a definition:

Let us definitionally define "abortion":

"AN EXPLANATION OF MEDICAL TERMS USED IN THIS WORK, AND IN MEDICAL WORKS GENERALLY

... Abortion. A miscarriage, or producing a child before the natural time of birth. {1868 JNL, HBH 214.3} ..." - John Norton Loughborough, The Handbook of Health, page 214.3

Is a "miscarriage" a sin? (Depends on how it took place.) Is "producing a child before the natural time of birth" a sin? (did the child live? how did the event take place).

So all things termed 'abortion' is not what the 'heat' is all about, is it?

Would anyone say that a 'miscarriage' was sin? It would depend on how that miscarriage came about, wouldn't it? Not all things in this world are 'sin', though there are 'evil' things as a result of mankind's sin/s. For instance, pollutants, ignorance, etc, can all bring about a miscarriage (an 'abortion'), but while it is 'evil', it is not automatically 'sin'.

If a person does bodily harm to a woman who is pregnant, even this is 'evil', but not always sin, as for instance, a woman may be injured in an accident, or accidently trampled by a crowd escaping a fire, etc, and end up miscarrying ('aborting'), but was it sin?, no, it is 'evil', but not sin. The result came about of the greater result of sin in the world, and was thus 'evil' (bad).

A woman may eat something, and unknowingly have an allergic reaction, and miscarry.

A woman, because of the nature of the world we currently live in, and its fallen state, may end up with what is known as an ectopic pregnancy, or with the pregnancy attached to another place other than the normal place, outside of the uterus/womb. This is a very dangerous condition, if the pregnancy is viable and begins to grow and cell divide/multiply, and could cause the bursting and internal bleeding of said person, and bring the woman to death. It is morally right to surgically remove the life-threatening condition? Yes, as even scripture gives council to 'cut off' that which is 'evil', and even gives counsel not only physically, but also spiritually (cutting off, casting out unruly church members who refuse to be counseled).

Yet, are we really speaking about any of those things, when dealing with the subject of 'abortion'. Not really.

The real matter is when a woman, who is pregnant, decides (for whatever reason) to personally terminate the pregnancy which is viable.

This may be because the woman became pregnant through her own fault and is not married.

This may be because the woman became pregnant through force (rape). This situation is much more delicate. The woman should always be counseled, helped, comforted and encouraged in this case. The choice to do what she wills, is her decision (whether legal of illegal by state law) and will be responsible before God for that decision. Others would try to force this woman (girl, female child) to carry through to birth. This brings in the other 'evil' side. For instance, such a little girl, as an extreme (since many love to dwell in the extreme, rather than the norm), if pregnant through rape or incest would then begin to develope and would this little girl be able to survive such, or would even the pregnancy? This is all in the realm of 'ifs'.

What brings the discussion to a boil is the definition of what comes of the first moment of pregnancy. What is the classification thereof. Human being, lump of cells, something inbetween, neither?

Looking at it from a medical standpoint, the pregnancy has unique human D.N.A. and is therefore nothing else but 'human'. For instance, it is not 'elephant kind', 'horse kind', etc. The pregnancy is most definitely human kind by its very D.N.A. Yet does that automatically make such cells a 'human being'. Allow me to illustrate, as I may have a piece of human flesh (say from my fingernail, or toenail, or simply sloughed off skin from scratching, or an eyelash, hair, etc) separated from my body. Does that have all the D.N.A. of a human being? Yes. Is it still living (yes, for the moment if fresh), Is it a human being? No.

So the question becomes obvious doesn't it.

This is where the conversation needs to happen.

Am I advocating tearing whole viable children apart in the womb, that have a heartbeat, a mind already functioning. Obviously not (even in cases of rape/incest for adults, that have carried to that point, the person should at least consider the other options). The life of the one already alive should be considered first.

Discussing these things would help us to not have unrealistic, or even cruel, positions on 'abortion'.

Any thoughts, questions, comments? Let's really look at this.

 

[Walter]

When discussing the issue of 'abortion', most of the discussion is confused by blurry, fuzzy nebulous definitions. I had previously given a definition:

So all things termed 'abortion' is not what the 'heat' is all about, is it?

Would anyone say that a 'miscarriage' was sin? It would depend on how that miscarriage came about, wouldn't it? Not all things in this world are 'sin', though there are 'evil' things as a result of mankind's sin/s. For instance, pollutants, ignorance, etc, can all bring about a miscarriage (an 'abortion'), but while it is 'evil', it is not automatically 'sin'.

If a person does bodily harm to a woman who is pregnant, even this is 'evil', but not always sin, as for instance, a woman may be injured in an accident, or accidently trampled by a crowd escaping a fire, etc, and end up miscarrying ('aborting'), but was it sin?, no, it is 'evil', but not sin. The result came about of the greater result of sin in the world, and was thus 'evil' (bad).

A woman may eat something, and unknowingly have an allergic reaction, and miscarry.

A woman, because of the nature of the world we currently live in, and its fallen state, may end up with what is known as an ectopic pregnancy, or with the pregnancy attached to another place other than the normal place, outside of the uterus/womb. This is a very dangerous condition, if the pregnancy is viable and begins to grow and cell divide/multiply, and could cause the bursting and internal bleeding of said person, and bring the woman to death. It is morally right to surgically remove the life-threatening condition? Yes, as even scripture gives council to 'cut off' that which is 'evil', and even gives counsel not only physically, but also spiritually (cutting off, casting out unruly church members who refuse to be counseled).

Yet, are we really speaking about any of those things, when dealing with the subject of 'abortion'. Not really.

The real matter is when a woman, who is pregnant, decides (for whatever reason) to personally terminate the pregnancy which is viable.

This may be because the woman became pregnant through her own fault and is not married.

This may be because the woman became pregnant through force (rape). This situation is much more delicate. The woman should always be counseled, helped, comforted and encouraged in this case. The choice to do what she wills, is her decision (whether legal of illegal by state law) and will be responsible before God for that decision. Others would try to force this woman (girl, female child) to carry through to birth. This brings in the other 'evil' side. For instance, such a little girl, as an extreme (since many love to dwell in the extreme, rather than the norm), if pregnant through rape or incest would then begin to develope and would this little girl be able to survive such, or would even the pregnancy? This is all in the realm of 'ifs'.

What brings the discussion to a boil is the definition of what comes of the first moment of pregnancy. What is the classification thereof. Human being, lump of cells, something inbetween, neither?

Looking at it from a medical standpoint, the pregnancy has unique human D.N.A. and is therefore nothing else but 'human'. For instance, it is not 'elephant kind', 'horse kind', etc. The pregnancy is most definitely human kind by its very D.N.A. Yet does that automatically make such cells a 'human being'. Allow me to illustrate, as I may have a piece of human flesh (say from my fingernail, or toenail, or simply sloughed off skin from scratching, or an eyelash, hair, etc) separated from my body. Does that have all the D.N.A. of a human being? Yes. Is it still living (yes, for the moment if fresh), Is it a human being? No.

So the question becomes obvious doesn't it.

This is where the conversation needs to happen.

Am I advocating tearing whole viable children apart in the womb, that have a heartbeat, a mind already functioning. Obviously not (even in cases of rape/incest for adults, that have carried to that point, the person should at least consider the other options). The life of the one already alive should be considered first.

Discussing these things would help us to not have unrealistic, or even cruel, positions on 'abortion'.

Any thoughts, questions, comments? Let's really look at this.

Nothing to discuss! Abortions are a stench in the Lord's nostrils. Whether a person is conceived by way of rape or incest, it is still a child which is created in God's image. Shame on your Adventists abortion mills. Your pro-Choice 'church' can try to point fingers at others but MY Church OFFICIALLY.condemns what your church carries out each and every day of the year. Corporation vs church? Your not fooling anybody. The founders of the SDA would weep if they saw the evil the Church has become and condones. Shame on you for trying to defend it. Come out of HER!!!

 

[JonC]

I think you may be that SDA person who was kicked off this site a few months back. You might have a new name, but the same bile.

I'm not sure. It does not seem that a SDA would have much room to denounce a Catholic stance on the abortion issue. At least that huge stick poking out of the SDA's eye would get in the way of seeing the splinter in the Catholic's eye on the topic of a church's stance on abortion.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Nothing to discuss!

Then why keep speaking from a position of ignorance?

Abortions

You didn't define your terms. You purposefully live in a nebulous world of SJW.

are a stench in the Lord's nostrils.

I could agree, depending on what you refer to.

Whether a person is conceived by way of rape or incest, it is still a child which is created in God's image.

I never said otherwise.

Shame on your Adventists abortion mills.

I know of no such thing.

Your pro-Choice

Propaganda, of the hegelian dialectic. I am Pro-Bible (KJB).

church' can try to point fingers at others but MY Church OFFICIALLY

No, it doesn't, I just demonstrated that in this thread. It only refers to that which it self defines as "innocent". Roman Catholic doctrine is very specific in that definition in who it deems 'innocent' and who it deems 'guilty'. I gave several examples, to which you never responded.

condemns what your church carries out each and every day of the year.

Misidentification, and it is seemingly purposeful to justify your own sins and your own official Catholic definitions (Canon Law, etc). You keep using broad brush strokes by saying 'church', but I just cited to you on several occasions what the official body of Seventh-day Adventists world-wide adhere to, which is the non-transgression of God's law.

What you do find is individuals that do their own thing, and then somehow make those Judas' the 'whole church'. You are actually painting Jesus Christ as the author of the crime. Woe is upon you.

Corporation vs church?

Indeed. The Seventh-day Adventists movement is not a business. It is a body of people world-wide that speak and do according to the Law and to the testimony, not what some few persons do in their own time.

Your not fooling anybody.

I do not have to 'fool; anything on anyone. All my sources are clearly cited, while you have???

The founders of the SDA would weep if they saw the evil

She wrote of the condition of the tares among the wheat. Yet, since you do not read her, since you do not believe she was a messenger from God (you have probably never read Ministry of Healing), how can you know the truth? She did weep. I weep as Daniel did, see Daniel 9 as Joel, Joel 2:17, and I have seen what Ezekiel saw, going on in the Temple, and you can read of the judgment of God that will first come to us, then to you:

Eze 9:1 He cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying, Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man with his destroying weapon in his hand.
Eze 9:2 And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar.
Eze 9:3 And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;
Eze 9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
Eze 9:5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
Eze 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
Eze 9:7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
Eze 9:8 And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?
Eze 9:9 Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not.
Eze 9:10 And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.
Eze 9:11 And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.

Judgment begins at the house of God, beginning with the Elders. We are Laodicea, no doubt.

the Church has become and condones.

This is your mistake, and broad-brush again. The Seventh-day Adventist movement, the body of persons world-wide, condones no such thing. There are tares among the wheat, goats among the sheep, foolish among the wise, and Judas' among the apostles. There are also very wolves in sheeps clothing amongst us also seeking to destroy by every act they can. Yet, all this, is merely the shaking, which will increase in intensity, until all the sinners in Zion are shaken out.

Shame on you for trying to defend it.

I do not defend one iota of evil or sin. Your mistake. I defend that which is truth, righteousness and those who truly are innocent, as opposed to that system of harlotry in Revelation 17.

Come out of HER!!!

Not a chance. I will not be leaving because of a few bad and rotten eggs. Should Peter, James and John have left because Judas? Should Paul have left because of Hymenaeus, Philetus, and Alexander? Should Moses and Joshua have left because of Dathan, Korah and Abiram? I am one settled in the truth, by the grace of God and know better. This vessel is going through unto the end, even though it be about to break into pieces structurally (Acts 27).

I told you this already:

"... The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a [205] wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure. {1SM 204.2}

Who has authority to begin such a movement? We have our Bibles. We have our experience, attested to by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. We have a truth that admits of no compromise. Shall we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with this truth? {1SM 205.1} ..." - 1 Selected Messages 204.2-250.1.

Notice, "structure". Anything which was not built according to the plans God gave in the Scripture and SoP/ToJ, will be swept away soon enough, and even now is already being swept away, piece by piece. God's people will go through, as Paul's ship, and some pieces of structure will go through.

I warned you. If you do not come out of the Roman Catholic system (Rev. 18), you will perish with that entire system:

Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Nothing of it will remain. The judgment of God upon it, after He deals with us, will be unlike anything this world has yet seen. Flee from the wrath to come Walter. Even Rome acknowledges that she is the woman of Revelation 17, Urs von Balthazar.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Sister White saw:

"... That night I dreamed that I was in Battle Creek looking out from the side glass at the door and saw a company marching up to the house, two and two. They looked stern and determined. I knew them well and turned to open the parlor door to receive them, but thought I would look again. The scene was changed. The company now presented the appearance of a Catholic procession. One bore in his hand a cross, another a reed. And as they approached, the one carrying a reed made a circle around the house, saying three times: "This house is proscribed. The goods must be confiscated. They have spoken against our holy order." Terror seized me, and I ran through the house, out of the north door, and found myself in the midst of a company, some of whom I knew, but I dared not speak a word to them for fear of being betrayed. I tried to seek a retired spot where I might weep and pray without meeting eager, inquisitive eyes wherever I turned. I repeated frequently: "If I could only understand this! If they will tell me what I have said or what I have done!" {1T 577.2}

I wept and prayed much as I saw our goods confiscated. I tried to read sympathy or pity for me in the looks of those around me, and marked the countenances of several whom I thought would speak to me and comfort me if they did not fear that they would be observed by others. I made one attempt to escape from the crowd, but seeing that I was watched, I concealed my intentions. I commenced weeping aloud, and saying: "If they would only tell me what I have done or what I have said!" My husband, who was sleeping in a bed in the same room, heard me weeping aloud and awoke me. My pillow was wet with tears, and a sad depression of spirits was upon me. {1T 578.1} ..." - Testimonies to the Church, Volume 1, pages 577.2- 578.1

All such is being swept away.

 

[Alofa Atu]

...Your pro-Choice ...

Slander, Libel. Easy to do.

Have you forgotten so soon my sources?

Catholics for Choice - "... Catholics for Choice believes in a world where everyone has equal access to the full range of reproductive healthcare services—including access to safe and legal abortion services and affordable and reliable forms of contraception. ..." - - Catholics for Choice

"... And although religious groups have been some of the most vocal anti-abortion advocates in America, the majority of people who got abortions in 2014 identified as religious, with 17 percent listing themselves as mainline Protestant, 13 percent as evangelical, and 24 percent as Roman Catholic. The abortion rate among Catholic women was about the same as the national average, while among evangelical women it was about half the national average. ..." - VOX - https://www.vox.com/2019/5/16/18628002/abortion-ohio-alabama-georgia-law-bill-details

“... Research and publications from the Alan Guttmacher Institute in America illustrate some contradictions in the Catholic stance against abortion:

Catholic women in the United States are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, and 29% more likely than Protestant women.

Catholic countries, even where abortion is illegal, have high levels of abortions: in Brazil, the estimated number of abortions ranges from 1 million to 2 million per year and in Peru, 5% of women of childbearing age have abortions each year, compared to 3% in the United States.

64% of US Catholics disapprove of the statement that abortion is morally wrong in every case (Survey of 493 Catholics, designed by Lake Research and Tarrance Group, for US News & World Report, Sept. 1995, margin of error ± 4.5%.)

72% of Catholics in Australia say decisions about abortion should be left to individual women and their doctors. (Survey for Family Planning Australia and Children by Choice, Melbourne, AGB McNair, Aug. 1996.) ...” - BBC - Religions - Christianity: Abortion

“... In 1973, as a result of the Supreme Court decisions, “Roe V. Wade” and “Doe v. Bolton” abortion became legal in the U.S. for all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason. ..." - Abortion History » Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse#

"... And yet medieval biographies of multiple Irish Catholic saints, including beloved Brigid of Kildare, reverently record abortions among their miracles, and medieval Irish Catholic penitentialists, priestly authorities who prescribed penances for sins and were often celebrated as saints themselves, treated abortion as a relatively minor offence. ...

...Ciarán of Saigir, after he rescued a nun named Bruinnech who had been abducted by a local king. “When the man of God returned to the monastery with the girl, she confessed that she was pregnant. Then the man of God, led by the zeal of justice, not wishing the serpent’s seed to quicken, pressed down on her womb with the sign of the cross and forced her womb to be emptied.” Bruinnech’s feelings about her rape, pregnancy, or abortion are not addressed, apart from her “confession”. ...

... When another nun, pregnant after “fornicating secretly”, had Cainnech of Aghaboe bless her belly, “at once the baby (infans) in her womb vanished without a trace”. ..." - Saints once did abortions – it was a lesser sin than oral sex

 

[Alofa Atu]

...Your pro-Choice ...

Slander, Libel. Easy to do.

Yet, I have sources, and more and the practices of Rome's theology carried out, and it is nothing 'pro-life' in it, but is simply a name to cover the atrocities.:

Religion of the Supreme Court

Was Roe Vs. Wade Decided By a Republican Court?

Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion

Abortion

The Straits Times, 20 January 1967, Page 3

40% of Catholic Nuns Have Been Sexually Abused - Apostasynow.org

40% of Catholic Nuns Have Been Sexually Abused - LIBRARY OF MOST CONTROVERSIAL FILES

https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-jE87IzV9MFhV07FV/Kennedy - Lucifer's Lodge - Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Catholic Church (2004)#page/n11/mode/1up

Nuns, rape, and the Zika virus

18th century nun had sought abortion

Little Sisters face new lawsuit over their HHS mandate exemption

The Catholic church is ‘shocked’ at the hundreds of children buried at Tuam. Really? | Emer O’Toole

Pope Francis probably got his history wrong when talking about contraception and Zika

CATHOLICS AND THE SUPREME COURT: AN UNEASY RELATIONSHIP

Documents Allege Abuse of Nuns by Priests

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...posed-Sisters-sold-children-fallen-girls.html

Pregnant Nuns | NZETC

Hospital owned by Catholic nuns will commit abortions

https://amazingdiscoveries.org/blog...-and-rape-of-nuns-by-priests-in-23-countries/

NEW INFORMATION: Catholic hospital asked to cut ties with doctor

Abortion vs. saving mother's life

Dublin’s leading Catholic hospital agrees to kill unborn babies through abortion

Sisters of Charity hospital deal altering Denver-area care - The Colorado Independent

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...-are-carried-out-at-st-vincents-35654876.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/

https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproduct...-rights/one-nations-largest-catholic-hospital

http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/upload/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf

Nun Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion

Which denominations allow abortions, and why?

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/68930/1/Christopoulos_John_201306_Phd_thesis.pdf

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=nd_naturallaw_forum

https://books.google.com/books?id=pSPoCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=archbishop+of+Florence,+Antoninus+Abortion&source=bl&ots=_0pE3Egsz-&sig=hmtmgAIOrSicakPjdpbuV1MmTyM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjji4LJhrjcAhVk0FQKHbo2As8Q6AEwA3oECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=archbishop of Florence, Antoninus Abortion&f=false

THE PROBLEM OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF AFRICAN RELIGIOUS IN AFRICA AND IN ROME

https://www.actl.com/docs/default-s...fpowell_lectureseries_2017_final.pdf?sfvrsn=6

Do consider the pain, suffering and death brought about by the Roman Catholic official doctrine, to women, because they have a false position by their so-called 'pro-life' position, which is nothing of the sort. Consider the links above and the women in them.

I didn't make any of it up Walter. You will find sister White didn't have to make it up either.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Nothing to discuss! ...

Why are you avoiding my specific questions and the actual position, that were designed to take away the useless 'heat' of finger-pointing?

What brings the discussion to a boil is the definition of what comes of the first moment of pregnancy. What is the classification thereof. Human being, lump of cells, something inbetween, neither?

"... Looking at it from a medical standpoint, the pregnancy has unique human D.N.A. and is therefore nothing else but 'human'. For instance, it is not 'elephant kind', 'horse kind', etc. The pregnancy is most definitely human kind by its very D.N.A. Yet does that automatically make such cells a 'human being'. Allow me to illustrate, as I may have a piece of human flesh (say from my fingernail, or toenail, or simply sloughed off skin from scratching, or an eyelash, hair, etc) separated from my body. Does that have all the D.N.A. of a human being? Yes. Is it still living (yes, for the moment if fresh), Is it a human being? No.

So the question becomes obvious doesn't it.

This is where the conversation needs to happen.

Am I advocating tearing whole viable children apart in the womb, that have a heartbeat, a mind already functioning. Obviously not (even in cases of rape/incest for adults, that have carried to that point, the person should at least consider the other options). The life of the one already alive should be considered first.

Discussing these things would help us to not have unrealistic, or even cruel, positions on 'abortion'.

Any thoughts, questions, comments? Let's really look at this. ..."

Well?

 

[Alofa Atu]

Let's look at Ectopic pregnancy:

"... For pregnancy to happen, the ovary has to release an egg into the fallopian tube, where it stays for about 24 hours. There it has to come in contact with a sperm to be fertilized. The fertilized egg stays in the fallopian tube for 3 or 4 days before it heads to the uterus. There it attaches to the lining and continues to grow until a baby is born.

But if the fertilized egg implants in your fallopian tube or somewhere else in your abdomen, you end up with what’s called an ectopic pregnancy. In these cases, the pregnancy can’t continue normally, and it requires emergency treatment. ..." - WebMD

A rare condition (Ectopic) to be sure, yet a very real condition in this the final days of earth's present history.

So, my question is (especially to the persons already responding in this thread), Once the egg of the woman is fertilized by the sperm, and begins to cell divide, and move from the fallopian tubes to the 'womb' (about 4-5 days process), but gets stuck inbetween, and attaches to the fallopian tube or other location than the 'womb', and begins to grow, is it right to remove this (surgically) so that the woman does not internally bleed out and suffer serious injury or death? Would Jesus bring healing to this woman by removing that which is harmful? What then happens to the 'ectopic pregnancy', does it continue to grow outside of its normal environ (womb)? Does it have all the D.N.A. of a human being, as my fingernail, does?

"... An ectopic pregnancy cannot be moved to the uterus to grow normally and almost never survives until birth. ..." - Ectopic Pregnancy « Ada

Thus my original question and statements:

Looking at it from a medical standpoint, the pregnancy has unique human D.N.A. and is therefore nothing else but 'human'. For instance, it is not 'elephant kind', 'horse kind', etc. The pregnancy is most definitely human kind by its very D.N.A. Yet does that automatically make such cells a 'human being'. Allow me to illustrate, as I may have a piece of human flesh (say from my fingernail, or toenail, or simply sloughed off skin from scratching, or an eyelash, hair, etc) separated from my body. Does that have all the D.N.A. of a human being? Yes. Is it still living (yes, for the moment if fresh), Is it a human being? No.

So the question becomes obvious doesn't it.

This is where the conversation needs to happen.

Am I advocating tearing whole viable children apart in the womb, that have a heartbeat, a mind already functioning. Obviously not (even in cases of rape/incest for adults, that have carried to that point, the person should at least consider the other options). The life of the one already alive should be considered first.

Discussing these things would help us to not have unrealistic, or even cruel, positions on 'abortion'.

Any thoughts, questions, comments? Let's really look at this.

 

[Walter]

You have already been exposed for claiming that what 'individual SDA's do and say is not official church teaching. Then you turn around and point fingers at cultural Catholics who by virtue of the fact that they are pro-abortion are AUTOMATICALLY ex-communicated from the Catholic Church. The FACT remains, the Catholic Church CONDEMNS abortion in it's official teaching, whereas your OFFICIAL GUIDLINES make it clear that the SDA is pro-abortion. I think of poor SDA (pro-life Andrew) desperately trying to change the minds of SDA leaders who have abandoned the founders (E.G. White's) anti-abortion position in favor of the present Adventists Health abortion mills which are performing abortions around the clock. The ALMIGHTY DOLLAR WINS OUT IN YOUR FARCE OF A CHURCH!!! `Andrew posts video after video exposing the current teaching and practice of the SDA on abortion. You say 'Andrew said he knows of no other teaching of the SDA he objects to', as if this should not be such a big deal. You should FLEE this Molach worshipping cult! God bless Andrew for the courage he exhibits EXPOSING the evil permeating the SDA. I hope he is not the target by SDA assassins who, I am sure, would like nothing better than to silence the hideous baby murders going on in Adventists abortion millls day after day, year after year. Now, go back to your finger pointing and try to claim 'we aren't as bad as these 'cultural Catholics' over here or this 'Catholic in name only hospital over there'. You aren't fooling anyone!

 

[Walter]

Let's look at Ectopic pregnancy:

"... For pregnancy to happen, the ovary has to release an egg into the fallopian tube, where it stays for about 24 hours. There it has to come in contact with a sperm to be fertilized. The fertilized egg stays in the fallopian tube for 3 or 4 days before it heads to the uterus. There it attaches to the lining and continues to grow until a baby is born.

But if the fertilized egg implants in your fallopian tube or somewhere else in your abdomen, you end up with what’s called an ectopic pregnancy. In these cases, the pregnancy can’t continue normally, and it requires emergency treatment. ..." - WebMD

A rare condition (Ectopic) to be sure, yet a very real condition in this the final days of earth's present history.

So, my question is (especially to the persons already responding in this thread), Once the egg of the woman is fertilized by the sperm, and begins to cell divide, and move from the fallopian tubes to the 'womb' (about 4-5 days process), but gets stuck inbetween, and attaches to the fallopian tube or other location than the 'womb', and begins to grow, is it right to remove this (surgically) so that the woman does not internally bleed out and suffer serious injury or death? Would Jesus bring healing to this woman by removing that which is harmful? What then happens to the 'ectopic pregnancy', does it continue to grow outside of its normal environ (womb)? Does it have all the D.N.A. of a human being, as my fingernail, does?

"... An ectopic pregnancy cannot be moved to the uterus to grow normally and almost never survives until birth. ..." - Ectopic Pregnancy « Ada

Thus my original question and statements:

Looking at it from a medical standpoint, the pregnancy has unique human D.N.A. and is therefore nothing else but 'human'. For instance, it is not 'elephant kind', 'horse kind', etc. The pregnancy is most definitely human kind by its very D.N.A. Yet does that automatically make such cells a 'human being'. Allow me to illustrate, as I may have a piece of human flesh (say from my fingernail, or toenail, or simply sloughed off skin from scratching, or an eyelash, hair, etc) separated from my body. Does that have all the D.N.A. of a human being? Yes. Is it still living (yes, for the moment if fresh), Is it a human being? No.

So the question becomes obvious doesn't it.

This is where the conversation needs to happen.

Am I advocating tearing whole viable children apart in the womb, that have a heartbeat, a mind already functioning. Obviously not (even in cases of rape/incest for adults, that have carried to that point, the person should at least consider the other options). The life of the one already alive should be considered first.

Discussing these things would help us to not have unrealistic, or even cruel, positions on 'abortion'.

Any thoughts, questions, comments? Let's really look at this.

Less than 1% of pregnancies are of the type for which you are wanting to use as a green light to justify SDA abortion mills and SDA doctors proceeding with elective abortions. You are not the first SDA to come on to this board and try to present these circumstances as reasoning for their 'churches' pro-abortion teaching. Often these abortions are performed as the baby has become an inconvenience to the 'mother'.

 

[Alofa Atu]

You have already been exposed for claiming that what 'individual SDA's do and say is not official church teaching.

"Exposed"? That individuals do what they want outside of official doctrine (Bible, SoP/ToJ) is pretty obvious, even as it was in Jesus day (Judas, etc).

Then you turn around and point fingers at cultural Catholics who by virtue of the fact that they are pro-abortion are AUTOMATICALLY ex-communicated from the Catholic Church.

I am not doing that in the least. I have cited individuals, true, but I am not blaming Roman Catholicism for its individuals. I am directly assaulting its official doctrine, and especially when it hides behind its (mostly unknown) definition of "innocent", and when it deals with 'obstinate heretics' and 'death'.

William Joseph Brennan, Jr. (appointed by Dwight Eisenhower) [Catholic] on Roe. Vs. Wade:

One of the 'Justices' of the Supreme Court, during the Roe v Wade, was a Roman Catholic, named, “William Joseph Brennan, Jr.”, who “... voted to legalize abortion.” - Was Roe Vs. Wade Decided By a Republican Court?

He was not Latae Sententiae excommunicate, but went to his grave (July 24, 1997 at age 91) as a Roman Catholic. I already told you why this was so. Its all in the official definitions (CCE, CCC, Canon Law, etc) of Rome in how they define 'innocent' and 'heretics, and 'just war', etc:

"...In a traditional Catholic ceremony at Washington's majestic St. Matthew's Cathedral, the late Justice William J. Brennan Jr. was remembered in eulogies yesterday that captured his vast liberal legacy, trademark compassion and enduring good humor. ..." - https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...00e4200/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.36673ba43f1c

The FACT remains, the Catholic Church CONDEMNS abortion in it's official teaching

No, it doesn't and I pointed this out already by the use of the word 'innocent' and 'guilty' in how Romanism officially defines those terms, among others, such as "human" and "human being" (for Romanism does not count 'obstinate heretics as 'human', but as 'rabid beasts', a 'contagion' to be eliminated).

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Go find out how Romanism defines those terms, specifically and see if those words are used in definition with 'obstinate heretics':

For instance what Romanism thinks of Martin Luther:

"... The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it. ..." - Exsurge Domine, 'pope' Leo X, 1520

Think that in the past?

"... try to imagine that Martin Luther, the foul worm and beast of an apostate ..." - the catholic church | catholic churches

"... The most rabid enemies of the Catholic priesthood are today the very enemies of God; ..." - On the Catholic Priesthood - Papal Encyclicals

There is of course, much, much more.

whereas your OFFICIAL GUIDLINES

Did you just say 'official guidelines'? That's an oxymoron. First of all, 'guidelines' (especially by an annual executive council) aren't "official doctrine". Did you see the two differing words? For anything to be "official doctrine" is has to go through the General Conference full body in Session. That's why it's called 'guidelines', and may be as ignored as much as the 'church manual' when it isn't in harmony with the scripture and SoP/ToJ, which is the foundation in all matters of faith and practice, the Law and the Testimony. The real and official "church manual" of the Seventh-day Adventist movement is not a book calling itself "church manual", but is instead the Bible (this is the real "church manual"), as sister White calls it the "common version" (KJB).

Look at the so-called 'guidelines' as "pro-Catholicism Andrew" points out:

"... 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 by the Church. 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. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships. ..." - Abortion

Which part of that do you disagree with specifically? The 'rape/incest cases'? These we can look at, and I have been trying to get you to do that for some time now. I even gave a case of a child raped/incest (say age 7 or 11, (yeah that happens, especially in certain purple and scarlet churches (I cited in the OP, 'Eaters of Children') etc).

So, in order to be actually 'official' (not on a website saying its 'official') it has to be by the General Conference Seventh-day Adventists in full session. Everything else is individuals. If it doesn't agree with scripture and SoP/ToJ its bunk and never official no matter what. The Seventh-day Adventist movement is built from the ground (common people) up (Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone).

 

[Alofa Atu]

make it clear that the SDA is pro-abortion.

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice", "pro-abortion" are nothing but propagandistic smear terms, or cosmetic terms, built upon the Jesuit hegelian dialectic. They're merely distracting terms from the details. True Seventh-day Adventists are pro-Bible.

I think of poor SDA (pro-life Andrew)

I actually continued dialogue (such as it was) with him. He doesn't address my questions either and avoids the issues I raised. I even know what he is now. In all his videos, he doesn't even once mention Roman Catholicisms serious problems in abortion, rape, incest, etc even in his own country (Philippines). He doesn't even address the fact of the Roman Catholic who voted for 'Roe vs Wade' which legalized abortion in the U.S. He only attacks key individuals in the Seventh-day Adventist movement. When I asked him a specific question, he did not refer to the Bible or SoP/ToJ as a true Seventh-day Adventist would, do you know what he cited immediately (so I know what he is)? He cited the Roman Catholic Catechism. How quaint. He even didn't bother to read it carefully, and to this I pointed out to him, at which he didn't bother to respond to what I said, but instead tried to bypass it by asking non-sequitur questions. Sounds like you.

desperately trying to change the minds of SDA leaders who have abandoned the founders (E.G. White's) anti-abortion position

Whoa, is that an admission that what Seventh-day Adventists officially and actually teach rather than individuals so named?

in favor of the present Adventists Health abortion mills

Calling it by the name 'Adventist' doesn't make it so whether it was or was not doing 'abortions'. The 'Hospital' system is not according to the Bible or SoP/ToJ, and is therefore not Seventh-day Adventist by default. it can claim the name all it wants. Read the book, "Broken Blueprint" by Vance Ferrell, you can find it online in PDF.

which are performing abortions around the clock.

Exaggerate much? Documents please. It has to be 'Adventist hospitals' that are doing what you claim. Thank you. Anything else, you just swapped stories.

The ALMIGHTY DOLLAR WINS OUT IN YOUR FARCE OF A CHURCH!!!

There are Judas' to be sure, and Caiaphas' and Annas', also. Yet the individual and their practices are not official church doctrine, as you make it out to be. Read James 5. Read Ezekiel 9. Judgment begins with the elders.

`Andrew posts video after video exposing

"pro-catholicism Andrew" posts video after video of a one-sided and ill-informed position, merely attempting to smear the whole of Seventh-day Adventist movement, while not once addressing anything about the Catholic voting for Roe vs Wade, or Roman Catholicisms sordid and black history of abortions, murders, rapes (right up to the level of popes), and more specifically, rather than any individual, the doctrine itself as defined. by themselves.

the current teaching and practice of the SDA on abortion.

Of which he knows little about, having spoken with him in several emails now, to which is response has been no answer to what I shared (I sent him everything in this thread), and only tries to defend Roman Catholicism. I know what he is.

You say 'Andrew said he knows of no other teaching of the SDA he objects to'

That' what he stated in email, and you can ask him yourself. prolifeandrew@gmail

He says he is in Philippines (so keep an eye on the time difference if you decide to bother with it). he might be too busy making another waste of time video that is only filled with half-truth, fanaticism, and love of Romanism (going so far as to even cite ex-adventists (who I have also spoken with, and refuse to address anything I said), while neglecting the real issues already made know to you.

, as if this should not be such a big deal. You should FLEE this Molach worshipping cult!

Call it what you will. Heard it all already. Nothing new under the sun. I am here, by God's grace, to stay the storm of infidelity, the wrath of satan, and the ignorance of people that refuse to acknowledge the truth, including soap-box youtubers.

God bless Andrew

Which 'God'? The "god" of Roman Catholicism? I know who that is:

2Co_4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

for the courage he exhibits EXPOSING the evil permeating the SDA.

I do not mind exposing evil within our ranks, the tares, goats, wolves, etc. I do mind a misinformation campaign and ignorance unwilling to see truth (documentedly so).

Eph_5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

I hope he is not the target by SDA assassins who

No such thing exists. I do know of the Jesuit (a military prelature) order however ... how deep did you want to go?

I am sure, would like nothing better than to silence the hideous baby murders going on in Adventists abortion millls day after day, year after year.

Oh, please.

Now, go back to your finger pointing and try to claim 'we aren't as bad as these 'cultural Catholics' over here or this 'Catholic in name only hospital over there'. You aren't fooling anyone!

Did you see the polls I cited? How many Roman Catholic women percentage wise? How many Roman Catholic women are there total? Then look at the percentage and the number of the whole and you figure the math out. Yet, I am more concerned about the official doctrines ...

 

[Alofa Atu]

...The ALMIGHTY DOLLAR WINS OUT IN YOUR FARCE OF A CHURCH!!! ...

Your cracks are beginning to show. Temper, temper. First of all, Jesus Christ is the 'Almighty', for 'all power' in heaven and in earth is in His hands.

As for the 'dollar', it is nothing but 'fiat' money, empty air, and worse, debt notes.

 

[Alofa Atu]

In Malpractice Case, Catholic Hospital Argues Fetuses Aren’t People (2013)

"... But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

The Catholic Health attorneys have so far won decisions from Fremont County District Court Judge David M. Thorson and now-retired Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Arthur Roy. ..." - In Malpractice Case, Catholic Hospital Argues Fetuses Aren't People - The Colorado Independent

 

[Alofa Atu]

As for 'pro-catholicism Andrew', he needs to look in his own backyard, because if he really cared (rather than keep up a misinformed one-sided (his) agenda), he would start missionary work there:

"... According to an extensive 2006 Guttmacher Institute report Unintended Pregnancy and Induced Abortion in the Philippines, over 50 percent of Filipinas who have had abortions were not using any family planning. Of those who were practicing some method of birth control, three-fourths were using only the church-sanctioned methods of rhythm or withdrawal. (Did you say effective, Father Castro? That appears to be very wrong…). Further, it is estimated that most Filipinas who have abortions are married, Roman Catholic, and have at least three children. The majority of these women terminate their pregnancies because they cannot afford another child–a well-known situation of the clear and basic human need for survival. ..." - (VIDEO) The Forsaken Women of the Philippines: The Hardship, Humiliation, and Hypocrisy of Unsafe Abortion - Rewire.News

 

[Alofa Atu]

"... In fact, in 1974, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted the church's opposition to abortion but fell short of calling it murder and was honest about the church's ambiguity over the personhood of a fetus or at what stage in development the creator endows a fetus with a soul. This question has been debated by theologians since the early centuries of the church. Even the current Pope favors the term "that which is in the process of becoming" when discussing a fetus. In addition, church history and positions regarding the possibility of a "just war" make the church's adherence to the impossibility of a "just abortion" hard to justify. This hard-line position has removed the church from a position in which it could help women and society understand the values which must underly every decision to have an abortion. ..." - Religion and abortion: Roman Catholicism lost in the pelvic zone. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Alofa Atu]

Less than 1% of pregnancies are of the type ...

That's what I said in the very post you obviously didn't read (so much for objectivity):

"... A rare condition (Ectopic) to be sure, yet a very real condition in this the final days of earth's present history. ..."