Should Adventist Christians Have More to Say About Abortion?

[Richard OFfill]

As Seventh-day Adventist Christians do we say enough about the evils of abortion? Personally, I think not. Please read the following news clipping from Telegraph.co.uk.

"The new Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has given a sermon describing abortions as a "blessing" for the women who undergo them. The Rev Katherine Hancock Ragsdale also thinks that the people who run abortion clinics are "heroes" and even "saints".

"Ms Ragsdale, speaking in Birmingham, Alabama, said that "when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion - there is not a tragedy in sight - only blessing."

[Dean Ragsdale finished her sermon with the following exhortation]: "These are the two things I want you, please, to remember - abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.

"I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing - who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes -- in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You're engaged in holy work."

[newbie]

sigh and cry   

[Larry Lyons]

I wonder why the world church did not make some kind of official position statement right after Roe v Wade? What would inhibit them from making a position statement at this point?

When presented with the numbers of abortions that are done just in this country, it should cause outrage in a sane, rational person. I firmly believe that the majority of abortions are done simply for birth control and nothing else. 

I recall several years ago at a religious liberty meeting at PUC, a young woman questioned why the church did not support anti-abortion like many of the Evangelical churches. The Union R.L. Secretary said that her question was valid. He predicted that if our denomination ever looks to the Evangelicals for support for anything they will laugh at us and ask, "Where were you when we were fighting the abortion battles."

[Raven]

Is this woman demon possessed?  She dares take the name "reverend," while advocating the taking of innocent life?!  She is a wolf in sheep's clothing, if nothing else.

It is very disturbing that the SDA church has refused to take a clear stand against abortion.  We strongly supported prohibition a century ago.  How can we be on the sidelines with this issue?  I don't mean to be cynical, but could it be that some of our hospitals are preforming abortions, and that there is money in it?

It's been almost 20 years, but I still remember distinctly the dispiccable treatment given to one of our ministers who suggested (at a constituency meeting) that, as a conference, we should take a stand against abortion.  He was humiliated by both conference officials and laity.  Those who were the most vocal against him were from the church in the town where the SDA hospital is located.  To say that I was shocked would be an understatement.

[Richard OFfill]

There seems to be inconsistency. Our church was quick to correct racial inequities, women's rights but has been slow or slower in respect to the rights of the unborn. It is a strong thing to say, but the issue is killing the unborn.

This, if I may say so, is beyond the issue of religious freedom. As was mentioned earlier on this thread. There is serious inconsistency.

[Soli Deo Gloria]

Is this woman demon possessed?  She dares take the name "reverend," while advocating the taking of innocent life?!  She is a wolf in sheep's clothing, if nothing else.

It is very disturbing that the SDA church has refused to take a clear stand against abortion.  We strongly supported prohibition a century ago.  How can we be on the sidelines with this issue?  I don't mean to be cynical, but could it be that some of our hospitals are preforming abortions, and that there is money in it?

It's been almost 20 years, but I still remember distinctly the dispiccable treatment given to one of our ministers who suggested (at a constituency meeting) that, as a conference, we should take a stand against abortion.  He was humiliated by both conference officials and laity.  Those who were the most vocal against him were from the church in the town where the SDA hospital is located.  To say that I was shocked would be an understatement.

Raven,

There are some SDA hospitals that have been described as abortion mills, and there is profit in it.

The Loma Linda Alumni Journal carried an article in 1983 written by a GYN physician  "Abortion, a moral choice".  I am not sure how this is much different than the phony "reverend" speaking above. Any church claiming to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus should take a strong stand for the 6th commandment which says "Thou shalt not murder", and abortion is murder-- plain and simple!

Stan

[Raven]

Raven,

There are some SDA hospitals that have been described as abortion mills, and there is profit in it.

The Loma Linda Alumni Journal carried an article in 1983 written by a GYN physician  "Abortion, a moral choice".  I am not sure how this is much different than the phony "reverend" speaking above. Any church claiming to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus should take a strong stand for the 6th commandment which says "Thou shalt not murder", and abortion is murder-- plain and simple!

Stan

So it's even worse than I thought.  I agree with you.  However, not being in the medical profession, I have wondered about the oft repeated mantra, "to save the life of the mother."  I am assuming that with all the modern methods of caring for people, that it must be extremely rare that one would have to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.  It doesn't seem right to just let a woman die, if the pregnancy is killing her.  But, having never been faced with that choice, I've never really thought it through carefully.  Since you are in the medical field, can you shed more light on this?

[Raven]

There seems to be inconsistency. Our church was quick to correct racial inequities, women's rights but has been slow or slower in respect to the rights of the unborn. It is a strong thing to say, but the issue is killing the unborn.

This, if I may say so, is beyond the issue of religious freedom. As was mentioned earlier on this thread. There is serious inconsistency.

Amen!

However, I think we were rather slow in correcting racial inequities and women's rights.  That could explain some of the problems we are still having in those areas.  Why is it we lag behind the world when the world gets something right (racial justice, for instance), but rush to adopt many of the evangelical aberrations that pass for worship (such as the Willow Creek model)?

[Soli Deo Gloria]

So it's even worse than I thought.  I agree with you.  However, not being in the medical profession, I have wondered about the oft repeated mantra, "to save the life of the mother."  I am assuming that with all the modern methods of caring for people, that it must be extremely rare that one would have to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.  It doesn't seem right to just let a woman die, if the pregnancy is killing her.  But, having never been faced with that choice, I've never really thought it through carefully.  Since you are in the medical field, can you shed more light on this?

Raven,

I do agree that there are some rare exceptions for abortion, so I am not strictly rigid like some. If the life of the mother is truly at risk, then it is appropriate to save the mother over the baby, but as you say this is rare.

The liberals have redefined life of the mother to mean health of the mother, and even the mental health of the mother as being a good reason to abort, but this is nothing more than abortion on demand.

I think rape and incest are also legitimate reasons for abortion.

But in general the rule should be "What God has joined together, let not man (or the abortionist "doctor") put asunder"

Stan

[Raven]

Raven,

I do agree that there are some rare exceptions for abortion, so I am not strictly rigid like some. If the life of the mother is truly at risk, then it is appropriate to save the mother over the baby, but as you say this is rare.

The liberals have redefined life of the mother to mean health of the mother, and even the mental health of the mother as being a good reason to abort, but this is nothing more than abortion on demand.

I think rape and incest are also legitimate reasons for abortion.

But in general the rule should be "What God has joined together, let not man (or the abortionist "doctor") put asunder"

Stan

I have heard interviews with children who were born as a result of rape, and they would beg to differ in those cases.  However, I certainly will not sit in judgment of a woman who has had to experience the horrifying experience of rape or incest, and then made the decision to abort.  My only thought, coming from a male perspective, of course, would be that it is not the baby's fault that it was conceived in that manner.  Does it deserve to die for the sins of someone else?  There is always adoption if the woman cannot bear the trauma of keeping a child conceived under those conditions.