SDA's and Abortion

Doctrines - sola scriptura.

Is that coming through yet?

 

that is true.

That would be a case of taking an action that is going to cost the life of one person or the other person -- God does not command - "you can not choose to save the mother".

 

I think Christian Scientists use that logic when they refuse treatment.

The Bible condemns the one who can spare a life -- but does nothing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

It seems to me that the SDA is diametrically opposed to anything that is a RCC stance and then tries to bend scripture to the SDA's way of thinking even if the RCC is on the right side of the issue.
Just my thoughts on what has been posted here.

 

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

 

Is this on the subject of abortion and are you talking about a comparison to the RCC stance on abortion??

Is this a claim that some scripture was ever given at that "opinion web site" for the various social issues listed there???

 

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.

 

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 penalty

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Are you talking 2 days after or 20 weeks after?