-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
SDA's and Abortion
- Thread starter targus
- Start date
BobRyan said:
Then are not the mother and doctor both condemned for not sparing the life of the unborn child?
Is not your denomination and everyone else who preaches "save the mother first at all costs" also condemned for every unborn child who is murdered under the excuse of "sparing" the mother?
BobRyan said:
But God does command "Thou shalt not kill." Chosing the mother means killing the child so it's not a choice you can make without sinning is it?
Besides that, you ignore the other exceptions that your denominations "offical guidelines" list as "murder that is ok."
How about the emotional well being of the mother.
How about rape or incest.
The list goes on.
BTW - how about some scripture to back up the opinions. If you read back to the OP that is what I asked for...
Joe said:
In other words - The ends justify the means?
Lets change it up a little and see if it still sounds as good...
Instead of a pregnancy and a car accident let's give the mother two minimum wages jobs and a drunk husband who doesn't work. With your logic wouldn't it be better for the mother to murder her husband for the life insurance? The foster kids would be better off because the mother wouldn't have to work so hard and there would be more money to care for the kid's medical and mental issues.
Finding excuses for sin is part of the fallen nature of man.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
targus said:
You seem to be stuck in a rut on this one. There is the claim that the doctrinal positions of the church stand or fall "sola scriptura".
I have never made -- and there is no statement on that web site that claims -- that the specific Administrative opinions are the opinions of the actual church members or that they are established "sola scriptura".
"opinions may vary".
My own opinion is that when it comes to the life of the mother or the life of the baby -- the Mother wins.
I find support for saving the Mother in scripture where we are told that if we see someone in need and do nothing to save their life - God will count that as a charge against us.
I am not pro-abortion - But I also do not know the moment when a single cell becomes a "living soul".
On this subject I simply "go for the obvious". One of the obvious points is that the State government itself admits that it is murder to kill a baby once it is born. I think that ALL Christians should be able to agree that "the location of the Baby" does not change that fact and only a scenario where the life of the Baby is killing the mother would it be even reasonable to consider the death of the Baby "in self defense" for the Mother.
Even if the Baby were 4 years old and it was about to kill the Mother with the only recourse being to kill the baby or the 5 year old or the 12 year old -- the State today would consiider "Self defense" to be a valid argument.
Here again - this is just "my opinion". Let me know if you ever want to discuss actual doctrine - sola scriptura.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
Bob, you should have been a politician!
I have heard so many politicians claim that, personally, they do not believe in abortion, but they turn around and vote pro-choice.
You are either for abortion or against abortion (murder).
There are no extinuating, or politically correct, circumstances that can justify it.
A baby is a baby is a baby (God knew us before conception).
It is not a blob of cells, an amoeba, a fetus, or an embryo.
It is a baby the second the sperm impregnates the egg.
This is why I am against cloning and stem-cell research in a Petri dish. There are plenty of adult stem-cells to do research on.
It is just as wrong to kill an unborn child as it is to kill anyone else.
I have heard so many politicians claim that, personally, they do not believe in abortion, but they turn around and vote pro-choice.
You are either for abortion or against abortion (murder).
There are no extinuating, or politically correct, circumstances that can justify it.
A baby is a baby is a baby (God knew us before conception).
It is not a blob of cells, an amoeba, a fetus, or an embryo.
It is a baby the second the sperm impregnates the egg.
This is why I am against cloning and stem-cell research in a Petri dish. There are plenty of adult stem-cells to do research on.
It is just as wrong to kill an unborn child as it is to kill anyone else.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are either for murder abortion or against it? I don't know of anyone who fits this bill, including any Christians. Most are for our troops, and the death penaltyI Am Blessed 17 said:
Agreed.
We rented a documentary about Christopher Reeve. He said everyone misunderstands what he is proposing. It's true. I was against stem-cell research before understanding it. In what he is proposing, no one would be against this stem cell research but I can't remember anything else about it. It's not immoral or sinful but would help many folks walk.
It isn't wrong to kill a child or an adult who is experiencing horrific pain for long periods of time, and that is the only feeling they will endure until death.
I have seen people in extreme pain until right at their death (my grandmother, and aunt) and a few others. My Aunt...oh she was bad! They turned off all support for her at my and my cousins(her son's) request. No one showed up to be with her.
The nurses continued to give her antibiotics for a whle longer. I realized this, it made no sense since we decided to let her die. There was no saving her. I asked for the antibiotis to cease. Within maybe 3 hours or so of ceasing the antibiotics, the room smelled. Within the first few minutes up to an hour or so of her death the hopspital room stunk so bad I realized she had been rotting inside while she was alive. Her body had to have been almost rotten except her heart and mind.
There is no way to describe that stench except if I ever smelled it again I would know it right off.
The pain I saw in her eyes was real, we knew for sure. The nurses seemed very upset, and said this was a real bad death. I believe the reason they wanted the antibiotics, and didn't ask me about that when we spoke of her medicatons is because when antibiotis are ceased, the body starts to smell. Too bad we discontinued it.
The poor nurses wouldn't come in, and I couldn't allow myself to let her family come in to see her. I didn't tell them she smelled, because they would want to know why. I told them they wouldn't want to see what she looks like, and all were smart enough not to press me for an explanation. They wouldn't show up to sit with her when she was alive, woundn't even answer my 3 calls to them concerning medical care decisions so I had to make the decisions. My cousin only answered one call. Guess it was too upsetting for them. but came pretty quick when she died.
I can't see anyone alowing her to live. I went home for a break inbetween sitting with her for hours and called a Doc. We have many family members who are physicians and a few very close friends. I called one of them whom I consider my best friend. I asked him if there was a drug I could get to giver her to kill her. He said yes, one that there is a non-traceable drug and no one would know but I should calm down(not that I wasn't calm but no one is in their right mind in this situation) and she will probably die on her own.
He came to visit her after I called him but she was already dead. I could tell a load was lifted off him that he was really happy to have a close friend willing to do such a loving thing. Obviously, he has been with many people who have died.
He brought it up again so I offered to do that for him. I knew that is what he wanted to hear. He only said we would talk about it when we were much older,as the drug would still be around. I felt better, as I only wanted verification not to get into great detail. He knew that. He's a Chrisitan. I am not against suicide and have the nerve to do it if I was terminally ill and in pain. Others may not, but I suspect most of my friends wouldn't stick around. It would probably look like a car accident because the people left get so upset over suicide in any circumstance.
Some things are obvious. It's utterly cruel to allow some people to live. My aunt and I were close friends.
No one could know what they would do or feel until it happens.
Rent the movie "Lorenzos Oil" for just a smidgid of what the real life thing is.
Clearly, all circumstances need intense prayer and bible reading before continuing.
Last edited by a moderator:
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
Joe: I am for our troops and the death penalty.
What I posted pertained to abortion only.
Some people think it's all right to murder an unborn child but not a year-old child. I was trying to say that they are both murder.
I was not directing my post towards any of the situations you described.
I guess my post lacked clarity. Sorry.
windcatcher
New Member
Am I the only one who understands this verse another way?
A woman with child is hurt. [Because of 'men strive' it looks like woman's injury is unintentional consequence of close procimity]
so that her fruit depart. [This is true of any birth whether live or still born, 'it departs']
and yet no mischief follow [The baby could have been still born, or born live but premature unable to thrive, or born live mature and thriveing: If it were referring to the death of the woman, it could have said so and called it 'she dies' or 'she was killed']
The question I have...... I don't see where in this verse it makes a certain reference to a still born: It sounds like the harm to the woman brought on premature labor.....the result of which is captured in the word 'mischief' which follows...... either the baby lives or the baby was born dead or dies as result of prematurity/ or injury. The husband, in this case, is aware of the cause of the strife and how his wife was involved in getting hurt. He is the one who determines to bring charges: If it was a silly fight or rough housing which he started....he might prefer not to charge as he was initiator of the conflict: If he strove over a break-in, he might count himself as justified in the strife, and charge the other man according to the injury or death which occurred.
But the part that I'm concerned with is that this verse is not clear that the fruit departing is dead.
Does anyone else see this possibility?
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
Exd 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].
To me, this speaks of the woman losing her baby (the fruit of her womb.
It is illegal in most states for anyone to hit a pregnant woman, whether she is 2 weeks or 9 months pregnant.
You cannot be a "little pregnant".
Why?
Because, from the moment she conceived, she is carrying a baby within her.
To me, this speaks of the woman losing her baby (the fruit of her womb.
It is illegal in most states for anyone to hit a pregnant woman, whether she is 2 weeks or 9 months pregnant.
You cannot be a "little pregnant".
Why?
Because, from the moment she conceived, she is carrying a baby within her.
BobRyan said:
At last an admission that the "official guidelines" "voted on" by the SDA conferences and posted on the "official SDA" website have no basis in Scripture !!!
In fact they go directly against Scripture !!!
Now you can keep repeating the mantra that they are not "doctrine" but the "official SDA" website specifically says that they are to teach and guide the SDA members. In other words they are the official teachings of the SDA.
Now that we have settled that please answer the following questions that you have repeatedly ignored.
Is the emotional well being of the mother justification for abortion?
Is rape a justification for abortion?
Is incest a justificaton for abortion?
Is economic hardship a justification for abortion?
The teaching of the SDA on the website says "YES".
What about you?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Hint: The "teaching of the SDA" is found in the 28 fundamental beliefs voted by the church "not on the women's ministry page" and not in the opinion sections.
But I suppose that "making stuff up" is as good a fiction as anything else when it comes to bashing other denominations.
Hint 2: Every 5 years representatives of all conferences and division around the world (14 million members world wide - not just the 1 million on the U.S) come together to vote on the official doctrines of the church established "Sola Scriptura". I know of NO church that goes to that web page to "find out what else SDAs should believe even if it is on positions not based on a Bible study". We "have no Popes"!
The social positions of a few adminstrators in the U.S on abortion are not one of them. Whining that you do not agree with those social issues positions -- is no different than me whining about that same thing -- except I make my opposition known directly to the group publishing those statements.
What is even more facinating is that the book "the 27 fundamental beliefs" contains a lot of Bible study backing each of the statements of belief - but since that in-depth study is not the part that is "voted by the entire church" at it's 5 year meetings - even IT is not considered binding on all SDA members. Only the actual 28 statements (a short paragraph for each statement).
Though I might "wish" I could control all the free will actions and published statements of every administrator in every division that has access to a web site -- I can not. Bashing or no bashing.
in Christ,
Bob
But I suppose that "making stuff up" is as good a fiction as anything else when it comes to bashing other denominations.
Hint 2: Every 5 years representatives of all conferences and division around the world (14 million members world wide - not just the 1 million on the U.S) come together to vote on the official doctrines of the church established "Sola Scriptura". I know of NO church that goes to that web page to "find out what else SDAs should believe even if it is on positions not based on a Bible study". We "have no Popes"!
The social positions of a few adminstrators in the U.S on abortion are not one of them. Whining that you do not agree with those social issues positions -- is no different than me whining about that same thing -- except I make my opposition known directly to the group publishing those statements.
What is even more facinating is that the book "the 27 fundamental beliefs" contains a lot of Bible study backing each of the statements of belief - but since that in-depth study is not the part that is "voted by the entire church" at it's 5 year meetings - even IT is not considered binding on all SDA members. Only the actual 28 statements (a short paragraph for each statement).
Though I might "wish" I could control all the free will actions and published statements of every administrator in every division that has access to a web site -- I can not. Bashing or no bashing.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I Am Blessed 17 said:
Many - perhaps billions upon billions of zygotes have perished in the course of history. None of them had a funeral that I know of -- But as you say - God may well have them all in heaven awaiting a family reunion with the mother and father.
I think that would be a great thing -- if it were so.
But when the Bible says "a body you have prepared FOR me" it seems that the body 'has not been made' when it is just a single cell. I know that I don't lose any sleep each time a living skin cell perishes.
But others may take each and every cell very seriously long before an actual body has been developed. I don't debate it one way or the other.
in Christ,
Bob