Blogging on Abortion
You are probably aware that my doctoral dissertation dealt with the issue of abortion and more specifically about the shift the Adventist church took when the General Conference approved the document entitled "Guidelines on Abortion," which justified the killing of the unborn under a variety of circumstances including rape, incest, malformation, when the pregnant woman is a minor, and even when the pregnancy is affecting the mental health of the woman. This represented a drastic departure from the original SDA's pioneers position on this issue, who did condemn the practice of abortion in the strongest manner, and labeled the same as "murder" and a violation of the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue. Since the time my doctoral dissertation was approved, I have been blogging on this controversial issue. What follows is a small sampling of the comments I have been posting, coupled with a few of the postings by other participants.
*********
If women should have the right to take the life of their own flesh and blood, then why not grant also men the right to rape them. A woman who has been raped can eventually get healed of her traumatic experience and lead an almost normal life afterwards. Not so with the unborn baby after it has been either poisoned or torn apart limb from limb.
Taking the life of the unborn is an irreversible act which deprives an innocent child of life on a permanent basis. Likewise, men perhaps should also have the right to steal somebody else's property. Depriving a human being of his possessions can never be compared with the deprivation of the right to life of an innocent baby.
The victims of rape and incest can always give their baby for adoption, and thus avoid a life of regret of having authorized the execution of innocent life and of having been an accomplice of the shedding of innocent blood, which the Good Book forbids.
For two thousand years the Hippocratic Oath forbade physicians from performing abortions, then came the sexual revolution of the sixties, and bingo: Suddenly what was a crime against humanity became therapy for pregnant women who were not prepared to raise a child. On what basis can the killing of innocent babies be called a "therapeutic pregnancy interruption?" Would those advocating such therapy accept said therapy treatment for themselves?
I have had the privilege of carefully studying this issue and I chose said topic for my doctoral dissertation. I discovered things that are hard to believe, such as the reason given by the president of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists in defense of abortion: Overpopulation and hunger in the world.
You may not be aware of this, but a few years ago a survey revealed that several SDA hospitals were offering--not only therapeutic--but also elective abortions where there was nothing wrong with the pregnancy. This from the leader of a church which is proud to proclaim to the world as being God's chosen "Remnant church." Remnant while justifying the execution of the innocents, which is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments?
No wonder the SDA church in North America is not growing. We are killing the future generation of Adventists. Last Sabbath, the SS teacher lamented the closing of SDA schools in our country. Well, in other parts of the world they are building SDA schools like crazy because the church is growing. And in those countries, abortion is still illegal!
If you are interested in reading my doctoral dissertation entitled: "From Pro-life to Pro Choice: The Dramatic Change in Seventh-day's Attitudes Towards Abortion," then visit the following Internet page: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html.
*********
First I want to thank Pat, Daniel, Carrol, Elaine, and David for their comments about the issue of abortion. Very soon we will be casting our votes for the next president of our great nation, and the issue of abortion should be relevant to Christians, and more so to Seventh-day Adventists, because our early pioneers were very clear regarding their stand on this topic.
The Opinion of James White. For brevity’s sake, I will limit myself to what James
White, the founder of our publishing work and one of the earliest presidents of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, stated about this issue. He condemned the practice of abortion with the strongest terms and did not hesitate to describe it as “murder.” When I was asked by “Adventist Today” to write about this topic, I was warned that any offensive word would be edited out, which meant that the founder of our publishing work would have to soften his statement today to get published in our SDA magazines.
The SDA Pioneers Heritage. Where did the SDA pioneers get this idea that abortion was equivalent to murder? The answer is quite simple: For two thousand years the Christian church held in high esteem the Hippocratic Oath, which required that doctors abstain of doing any harm to their patients including the unborn. This is why, even today, the Catholic hospitals abstain from the offering abortion services. In fact, both the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist organization have a high regard for the sanctity of human life.
A Dramatic Shift. In 1970, the SDA church took a 180 degree turn towards the practice of abortion. The reason? When the state of Hawaii legalized abortion, the non Adventist physicians at our SDA hospital there threatened to take their abortion patients elsewhere if the administration did not allow them to provide elective abortions, and the then president of the NAD publicly declared that the SDA church was leaning towards abortion. The reason? There was too much hunger and overpopulation in the world.
The Remnant Church Question. If only the Catholic and the Southern Baptists communities decided to remain faithful to the Hippocratic Oath, while the rest of the religious organizations, including the Adventists, opted to ignore the Biblical injunction against the shedding of innocent blood, then I ask: Who is the “Remnant”? Can the Adventist church still claim to be God’s Remnant church on earth? Can any violation of God’s commands be worse than executing innocent unborn children?
The Sabbath Question. I was trained to believe that the Sabbath was the most sacred element of the Decalogue. Did Jesus believe this? Perhaps he did, but he never said that! Nevertheless, he did state that in the final judgment our destiny would be determined on the basis of our treatment of the “least of these.” Do the unborn qualify as the least of these?
When Does Human Life Begin? Dan raised the question of when does in fact human life begin. For two millennia there was a tacit agreement that human life started at conception, and all biology books stated that human life started with fertilization. Both
*********
I want to thank Spectrum for providing a platform for those with moral conviction where they can express their opinion on issues dear to their hearts. I believe that voting is a sacred duty which Christians should exercise with care and thoughtfulness, since the consequences of choosing the wrong candidate has such far reaching consequences.
Is there an ideal candidate for the highest office in our country? Probably not! I voted for Bush twice, and look at the result! I congratulated myself for my choice when he nominated conservative individuals for the Supreme Court, when he lowered our taxes and thus avoided another economic recession, and when he signed the bill outlawing the partial-birth abortion.
But then, I lamented the fact that he introduced the horrendous Preemptive Strike doctrine which led us into the Iraq quagmire and resulted in the death of over 3,000 American soldiers and the killing of hundreds of thousand Iraqis. Conclusion? There is no ideal candidate. Now I understand how God must have felt when his chosen “Republican” king, Saul, deviated from his mission and focused his energies against David who had done him no wrong.
Obama sounds like a good candidate, and he talks about hope, and he is quite eloquent. Who can be against hope? Nevertheless, he offers no hope for the unborn, since he favors the killing of the unborn. Could I vote for him? I don’t think so. It goes against my religion! Taking the life of an innocent human being is a violation of the Sixth Commandment, and the injunction against the shedding of innocent blood. The Bible condemns this, and our SDA pioneers did the same, including James White, the founder of our publishing work, and his wife, Ellen White, the most prolific and influential SDA writer.
What other option do I have? Hillary? She says she is against abortion, but she is determined to make sure abortion is “available, safe, and rare.” Well, I do not see how making abortion available can make it “rare.” It will never be rare, even if we make it illegal again. But look what happened when we legalized abortion: according to data provided by Planned Parenthood, abortion mushroomed overnight into a million and a half unborn babies per year.
Who else is a viable candidate? Ron Paul? I don’t think so! I do like his position on abortion. He is the only candidate who submitted to Congress a bill, which if approved, would offer full protection for the unborn from the moment of conception, which would do more than overturning Roe vs. Wade: It would make abortion illegal in the entire country, while overturning Roe vs. Wade would simply send the issue back to the states.
Why do I doubt his electability? He is a libertarian. Has ever a libertarian been elected to the presidency of the U.S.? His dream is to dismantle the military, the IRS, the Education department, and leave merely a skeleton government in its place. Conclusion: I don’t believe he has a chance of being elected. Hugo stated above that he is the heir to the Reagan mantra. Really? Reagan strengthened the military, while Ron Paul is planning to outdo Bill Clinton who dismantled 2/3 of our military strength.
How about Giuliani? He knows by experience how to reduce crime, and how to balance a budget. He is electable. Nevertheless, he is unwilling to put a stop to the murder of the unborn, and we are talking of a million and a half of our own unborn children every year. He is unwilling to protect them, and is planning to leave them at the mercy of those who profit from the killing of the unborn, for which reason I have discarded him as well. I could almost say the same about McCain.
Finally there is Mike Huckabee. Is he electable? I am not sure. He did well in Iowa, but he is doing very poorly in New Hampshire. Some reports claim that he is soft on crime. In synthesis, there is no ideal candidate, and if there were one, he might later surprise us with a bombshell like Bush did when he embraced the preemptive strike doctrine and initiated a war on unreliable intelligence report against a country that had not attacked us.
Regarding the abortion issue, Elaine stated that nobody knows when human life begins. She seems to imply by this that in case of doubt it is ok to take the life of the unborn. This bothers me! I thought that the wise thing to do in case of doubt is to err on the side of caution, since we are dealing with human life. She also claims that the beginning of human life is a theological question. I agree, but it also concerns the government, because the role of the government is to protect human life.
Leaving this question in limbo creates only confusion. Consider the Scott Peterson case. Was this a single or a double murder? If the unborn is not a human being, then Scott should have been convicted of a single murder instead of a double one. When an abortion is performed, the nurse has to reassemble a human body. She has to make sure there is a head, a torso, two arms, and two legs. How can we pretend that this is simply a conglomerate of cells?
Not long ago I had a long debate with a young and extremely talented young SDA physician who told me performing an abortion for him was the equivalent of removing an appendix. I heard similar comments from some of the most renowned Loma Linda University teachers and ethicists. This bothers me a great deal.
Daneen stated above that the most adamant defenders of the unborn are man. Thanks for the compliment! James White was also a male, and I doubt that anybody can match his strong condemnation of the practice of abortion. I could cite many other SDA pioneers who were also male and adamant in their condemnation of abortion. Don’t forget that those who legalized abortion were also male, and if men got us into this mess, then men should be in the forefront in its undoing!
Brantley stated above that God is a Republican. I knew that, this is why I have been voting for Republican candidates. Most of them, at least before election, claim to be on the side of the sanctity of life. Of course, quite often they say this because they want my vote, and I can’t pin them down after they are comfortably seated behind the Oval Desk.
*********
Jared: That was a good video, and your choice of background music was super. I am for change! Will Obama’s change include our policy towards the unborn? Our misguided Iraqi war is responsible for the death of close to 4,000 American lives, and hundreds of thousands Iraqis. This is tragic, but more tragic is the death of our own children. The future of our country has been decimated by the loss of fifty millions of American unborn future citizens who could be alive and working today to support our failing retirement fund.
Among these, there are thousands who were aborted by our own Adventist members, and we lament the fact that our church is not growing and that we are forced to close many SDA schools! How can it grow, if we are decimating the future generation of our church members? Look at some of the countries where abortion is still illegal: The church is growing, and they are building SDA schools non-stop!
To top this, our younger folk are postponing marriage and the raising of kids, which adds to the shortage of young folk in our church. The children of one of my friends got married when they were over forty, and another of my friends who has two children, one of them got married when he was over forty, and the other one is almost the same age with no marriage proposal from her fiancée. Does it make sense for us to make things worse by justifying the abortion of the unborn?
Shygirlj: Yes, Brantley is right. I know that God is not a Republican, although sometimes I think that he might get close to being one. I tend to vote Republican, but in fact I prefer to identify myself as an Independent. I have been accused of being a one issue voter. This is not exactly true. I do prioritize the political issues, and for me there is no other issue as important right now as the issue of abortion.
In this respect, I follow the example of Abraham Lincoln. He also did prioritize the political issues of his time. His economic plan for the U.S. was a disaster, but he was right on his determination to free the blacks from slavery. We don’t remember for his failed economic program, but we do remember for his moral stand regarding slavery. Likewise, I am determined to do what I can to free the unborn from execution for their terrible crime of waiting to be allowed to see the light of day.
To accomplish this objective, I have devoted ten years of my life to work half time--add honorem--on this project. I don’t have much to show for my efforts, except for a pro-life news website, and a doctoral dissertation dealing with the issue. It is entitled: “From Pro-life to Pro-choice: the Dramatic Shift of Seventh-day Attitudes Towards Abortion.” Here are the Internet links to my web site and to my doctoral dissertation: http://www.sdaforum.com and http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html.
*********
Hugo: If Jesus were to come again as he came the first time, God would make sure his delivery is cared for in a Catholic hospital.
Dick: If your first comment was directed at me, then I ask: Did I ever suggest “unlimited population”? Let me remind you of the many alternative ways of controlling the population short of poisoning or dismembering unborn babies.
Johnny: Thank you for your comments. You claim that I am guilty of breaching “email etiquette.” If I am in fact guilty, I apologize to you. I do admire you as a great teacher, and I had no intention of offending your sensibility. I just reviewed my previous comments to you, and I find no confidential details in my public posting. Did I reveal any of the contents of your email communication? I merely clarified that my ethnicity is not Hispanic but rather Ukrainian.
I have lived in half a dozen countries for many years, and most of them have considered me as their citizen, including Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Paraguay, Argentina, and the U.S. While in South America, I was often referred to as “El Ruso.” This means that people considered me, not Hispanic, but rather, of Russian extraction. My birth certificate is written in Polish, my ethnic ancestry is Ukranian, I was a citizen of the Soviet Union until 1990, and I lost my Argentinean citizenship when I became a citizen of the U.S. This is why I did not consider to be entitled to be considered of Hispanic extraction.
My question to you: Does my publicly revealing my true ethnic ancestry a breach of email etiquette? If yes, then my apology to you. I felt that publicly revealing my true background was my personal privilege. Of course, I could be wrong, and it would not be the first time I have been wrong. I hope I am not wrong on what is really important: my views on abortion.
*********
Tom: I still believe that there is an undeniable connection between the abortion issue and the solvency of the social security fund. This will be more patent as the number of retirees increases with time. The contribution to the work force of the 50 million babies that were aborted will be missed and there will be a financial price to pay for our lack of vision. Does this bother me? Not as much as the mass genocide of the most innocent members of humanity, and especially the fact that our church made the big mistake of allowing our medical institutions to be involved in this shameful extermination of the unborn.
I believe that the Lord will not take this moral lapse lightly. There will be a terrible price to pay, unless we repent. Recently, the Austrian and German SDA leadership publicly apologized for the church collaboration with the Nazi regime. Our church is repeating history in America. Not so, in many other countries of the world. I can give you details, if you are interested. The lack of proper civil restraint is tragic, and the main culprit is Congress, which has allowed unelected justices of the court to rule from the bench and carve laws out of thin air without proper Constitutional support.
Johnny: I need to clarify that I did not suggest that illegal immigrants are responsible for the problems connected with abortion. Actually, they are filling the void created by the mass extermination of the unborn. Were it not for the illegal immigrants, the U.S. population would be at dangerous levels by now. Nevertheless, I think that it is rather foolish and irresponsible to allow a porous border to continue to exist. We need to know who is here and we need to be fair to those who are patiently waiting for their chance to enter the U.S. legally.
I agree with you that our abortion policy should not be determined by population trends and the solvency or insolvency of our social security fund. Abortion is a moral issue that needs to be treated from a strictly ethical position. If abortion is wrong, then we should set aside any financial consideration in the process of setting our policies.
Thanks for clarifying your identity. I wasn’t sure, and I did assume that I was dealing with your father. You do have a great dad, and you probably did inherit his exceptional talents. In Spanish we say, “De cual palo tal astilla.” Like father, like son, is the closest English saying I can think of.
Elaine: I am not suggesting that the police should get into our bedrooms. Most abortions are performed inside the abortion clinics, and not inside our bedrooms. Crime should be punished regardless of where it is done. I would penalize the perpetrator. Most women are victims of their either husbands, their boyfriends, the society, and the abortionists. I would jail all abortionists for profiting from the deaths of innocent unborn babies. If I had the power, I would also cut the SDA connection between the church organization and any SDA medical institution unwilling to stop the practice of abortion, especially the elective abortions.
*********
Dick: Yes, many of those 50 million of aborted babies would be helping by now to keep the retirement fund solvent. Without them, very soon the retiring baby boom generation will threaten the solvency of said fund. Many countries of the world are facing a population implosion, and in some of them the situation is alarming since the low birth rate, exacerbated by the practice of abortion, is placing a strain on their economies. The countries most affected include Italy, Germany, Japan, and Russia. In the U.S. we don’t seem to notice this because the illegal immigration makes up for the shortage.
Tom: The number of deaths connected with the back-alley abortions before the abortion was legalized pale in comparison with the 50 million babies that followed this shameful event. In a short time following the legalization of abortion, according the Planned Parenthood reports, the number of dead babies resulting from it mushroomed to a million and a half,
Wayne: Yes, human life started with Adam and Eve, but the life of every individual did not start there. The life of every human being has a well marked starting point: fertilization. Only at that point there is a new DNA which characterizes said individual. Prior to this momentous event, neither the egg nor the sperm can claim to possess a unique identity separate from the individual they came from.
You argue that when there is no brain activity, there is no personhood. You are correct from a legal point of view, but not from the ethical one. You assert that when science cannot detect brain activity, the patient is dead, and you conclude that likewise, prior to the development of the brain, the embryo is simply a bunch of cells. I have a question for you: Would you issue a death certificate for a patient whose brain activity seems to have ceased, if you were sure that said brain activity would be activated within a reasonable time, and especially if blood flow could be verified? Well, embryonic blood circulation is present before a woman realizes that she is pregnant. This means that by the time an abortion is performed, there is blood circulation, and there is almost absolute certainty that brain activity will be present in the near future.
Tell me, please: What does this do to your apparently unassailable argument regarding the absence of brain activity? How can you argue that the unborn baby is dead at that stage of development when we know quite well that it is alive and well way before we can detect brain activity? If that baby were dead, there would be no need to kill it! Can you issue a death certificate for a developing unborn baby unless you kill it first? If those babies were really dead before abortion, the nurse would have no need to reassemble the baby parts, head, torso, two legs, and two arms to make sure no residue remains inside the uterus. As you can see, Tom, your argument defies human logic!
Daneen: Terrorism has nothing to do with the absence of legalized abortion. If your argument were true, then I would also conclude that it is the lack of legalized raping, theft, and child abuse, which causes terrorism to flourish!
David: I believe that in the case of embryonic malformations survival of the fetus is severely impacted. The job of physicians is healing instead of killing. Why can’t we let nature take its course? There have been many cases of miss diagnosis, and the lives of healthy babies have been sacrificed due to errors in the detection of malformations. The same can be said about the millions of babies killed for fear that they might be victims of neglect and abuse if allowed to live. Shall we start the genocide of all the human beings who might become victims of neglect and abuse?
Regarding your question about the morality connected with pre-implanted embryos, my guess is that it is always wise to err on the side of caution. Nevertheless, my mission is centered on the practice of abortion instead of artificial insemination and fertility treatments.
*********
I just finished reading James Standish article and the comments from Harold, Beverly, Gasry, and Beresford; and I must confess that I am greatly delighted to hear two Seventh-day Adventist leaders coming to the defense of the unborn. I have been waiting for something like this for the last twenty years. Ten years ago the editor of a now defunct Loma Linda University newsletter wrote a critical editorial of the activity of pro-lifers. I asked for the privilege of responding in defense of the unborn. The answer I got was that the issue was rather controversial.
A few years ago the Pacific Union Recorder published the pro-abortion views of John Stevens Jr., a former SDA religious liberty leader, arguing that the unborn do not acquire any right to life until they take their first breath. Again I requested the chance to respond. My request was denied. It took me fifteen years of efforts to get a pro-life article published by Adventist Today. This is why I can hardly believe that NARLA is allowing the opinions on non-persons like me the chance of speaking on behalf of those who can’t speak for themselves.
This kind of personal experience connected with the abortion issue prompted me ten years ago to sign up for a distant learning doctoral program in religion. It took me ten years to complete the program and write the dissertation, on a part-time basis, while taking care of by business. My topic was: “From Pro-life to Pro-Choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes Towards Abortion.” I discovered many things which disturbed me a great deal. I learned that the original SDA pioneers, including James White, Ellen White, and others were pro-life, and they condemned the practice of abortion in the strongest possible terms. To read my dissertation, click on the following Internet link: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html.
To my dismay, I learned that back in 1970 the then North American Division president, under pressure from our Castle Memorial Hospital, where non-Adventist physicians were threatening to take their abortion clients to other medical institutions, publicly declared that the SDA church was leaning towards abortion because there was too much hunger and overpopulation in the world. Can you believe this: The leader of the SDA church in North America, the richest country of the world, arguing that it was morally acceptable to engage in the mass killing of the unborn because there were too many people and too much hunger in the world?
The result was that the church approved a very liberal document, “Guidelines on Abortion,” which contains lofty pro-life statements, but justifies the destruction of human life under many circumstances like rape, incest, when the pregnant female is a minor, and even when the pregnancy is affecting the mental condition of the woman. All a pregnant woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy needs to do is to find a physician certifying that her mental condition is being affected and bingo, the life of another innocent human being is extinguished.
The same church abortion document states in fine print that Jesus died to restore our “freedom of choice.” My question is: perhaps we should also conclude that Jesus died to restore our freedom to rape, steal, and abuse little children! The net result of said guidelines, which were optional for all SDA hospitals, is that a few years later a survey revealed that five of our SDA medical institutions were providing elective abortion services. This prompted some non-Adventists to ask: “What about the Sixth Commandment.” Contrast this with Catholic hospitals which refuse to provide abortion services.
To Beverly, I would say: There is no need to arrest women who seek abortion services. All we need to do is put in jail those physicians who have set aside the Hippocratic Oath which forbids doing “harm” to their patients, and specifically forbids the practice of abortion. This Oath served humanity well for two millennia. Adventists, God’s “Remnant’ people on earth should remember that their identity is tied up with keeping God’s commandments. I would add that there are plenty of sterile couples desperate to adopt a just born baby, and some of them spend between 20 and 30 thousand dollars for said privilege. Adoption of just-born babies is in high demand.
To Gasry I would say: Type the phrase “abortion statistics” on your Internet browser, and read the statistics published by Planned Parenthood, the main provider of abortion in the U.S. They will not lie. All statistics agree that we are reaching the fifty million abortions mark since nine unelected justices of the highest court in America legalized the imposition of the death penalty on the innocent. And to Harold I would say: The highest ethical law during Jesus time was the Law of Moses, and the Lord did change it when he said: “Moses told you, but I say …”
*********
After reading David’s article and the comments that followed, the temptation to respond with a few comments of my own is too great to ignore, especially because my name is included among the comments. I am glad for the opportunity of speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak and plead for their own life. Can I remain silent when the life of millions of innocent unborn babies is sacrificed on the altar of convenience for the crime of not having taken the first breath?
Can I remain silent when my own church, who has from its inception labeled itself to be the God’s “Remnant” church on earth with the ”last message to a perishing world” and “keeping God’s Commandments,” has made an 180 degree turn from the example set by its early pioneers, and decided to bless what they, including James and Ellen White, did curse? Can I remain silent when, according to a survey, five Seventh-day hospitals were offering elective abortions to their clientele? Can I remain silent when, according to SDA historians, the first SDA hospital to offer elective abortions did so for financial reasons? Can I remain silent when non-Adventists protest in front of a SDA institution carrying placards reading: “Remember the Sixth Commandment!”?
Can I remain silent when a former SDA president of the North American Division, and later president of the General Conference publicly declared in the richest country of the world, that the SDA church was leaning towards abortion because “there was too much hunger and overpopulation in the world”? Can I remain silent when a former SDA religious liberty argued that the unborn do not acquire their right to life until they take their first breath? Can I remain silent when the only SDA official document dealing with the abortion issue [Guidelines on Abortion] states in fine print that Jesus died to restore our “freedom of choice”? If this is so, then perhaps Jesus also died to restore the criminal’s right to rape, steal, and abuse little children!
To Bob I say: Take heart. There is a new Pharaoh in town, and the trend on this issue, with God’s grace, does have a chance to force the SDA church to consider the wisdom of returning to the example set by our SDA pioneers who condemned the practice of abortion in the strongest imaginable terms, and labeled it as “murder” instead of “pregnancy interruption,” and “therapeutic abortion.” There is nothing therapeutic about abortion for the baby, but rather pure poison and a violent execution. Would those defending the practice of therapeutic abortion accept such treatment for themselves?
Pay attention to what James Standish, a new Daniel in the GC king’s court, had to say about abortion on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the legalization of abortion: "But on this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, it is hard to ignore the reality around us. This year more than 1.2 million American babies will be aborted. Of these, approximately 92% will be healthy babies conceived consensually to healthy moms. Over 500,000 of these babies will be at or past the point of development where they have little faces, arms, legs, fingers and toes. ..." [To read his entire article and the comments that followed, click on the following link: http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/?p=58#comments. Curiously, the chance of posting additional comments on Standish article was closed! Can you guess why?]
To the others I say: Why is it wrong for men to straighten what nine unelected justices of the court twisted over three decades ago? Should not men undo the harm done by other men? Should pro-lifers carry a watermelon for nine months before acquiring the right to come to the rescue of those destined for the execution chamber? Yes, nature does do strange things. It destroys innocent human lives through tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. Does this mean that we should imitate nature? Does the fact that science cannot see the faces of the unborn in the first five weeks of pregnancy with the present technological instruments mean that we should be free to destroy human life in its early stages of developments? Should we not rather err on the side of caution?
Is it wise to discard the Hippocratic Oath which served the Christian church for two millennia quite well? Is it fair to sacrifice one of the victims of rape while letting the guilty live? If our thirst for human blood is so strong, why not shedding the blood of the guilty instead? The “mother should decide”? Since when a life and death decision should be left to the whims of depressed and mentally unbalanced individuals? Is it safe to play God by arguing that some of the unwanted children will later be neglected, unloved, abused, and perhaps killed by their parents? Don’t we realize that by so doing we are also killing those who will be loved and live a life which will bless humanity? Yes, some clever politicians argue that abortion should be “legal, safe, and rare.” Does this make sense? Could we also argue that “rape, burglary, and child abuse should be available, legal, safe, and rare”? What happened to our human common sense?
May I encourage my SDA fellow believers to look at the life of Mother Theresa, who set a brave example for all to follow in this respect, and the example of the one who said: “Since you have done this to the least, you have done it unto me.” Mother Theresa could see the face of Jesus in each neglected human being. Can Adventism produce a saint like this? Shame on us. We allow our SDA institutions to practice the killing of human life, while the Catholic institutions refuse to do so! The Pope may be wrong on the state of the dead, but he is right on the state of the living!
[If anyone is interested in reading my doctoral dissertation on this issue, please click on the following Internet link: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html You can also read the pro-life material I have on my web site by clicking on http://www.sdaforum.com/page2.html, and http://www.sdaforum.com/page11.html ] May the good Lord bless his church!
*********
Tom: The comments I am about to post are probably of no consequence, since you have already awarded the Oscar to Elaine. I hoped you would be a fair judge and at least wait for my response before issuing your final verdict!
Elaine: For me to accept your arguments in defense for the practice of abortion would require that I ignore the following: God’s injunction against murder, the Old Testament prophets’ prohibition against the shedding of innocent blood, Jesus’ declaration stating that he came that we might have life [instead of death], his warning that our eternal destiny will be based on how we treat the “least of these,” James White’s outright condemnation of abortion as “murder,” Ellen White’s declaration that when a man ignored his pregnant wife’s health he is almost guilty of murder of her unborn child, Mother’s Theresa’s statement that those nations who favor abortion are the poorest [morally speaking], and General Conference James Standish’ lament of the tragic death of 50 million of unborn children since abortion was legalized [Did you read his article referred to in my previous posting?] This is a high price for me to pay for agreeing with your position. I will rather stick to the old Hippocratic Oath which served Christianity for two millennia instead of falling prostrate in front of this modern abortion Moloch.
You claim that the unborn is the pregnant woman’s possession. I will rather believe Saint Paul who tells me that said woman does not even own her own body, which belongs to God. You state that pro-lifers should put their money where their mount is. I have done that! And if you think I have not done enough, let me know. For the last twelve years, I have devoted half of my time to the pro-life cause without any hope or expectation of being compensated for my sacrifice of time and money. Had I invested said time into my real estate business, I would be rich today, which I am not. I have neglected my business for the sake of the unborn, and you are asking me to put my money where my mouth is? You are talking to the wrong guy!
You ask me what I would have done if my 15-year-old daughter had informed me that she was pregnant. I would have prayed for wisdom to convince her to carry the baby to term, and we would have helped her raise the child! You argue that the financial cost of raising a child should include a college degree. I got my college degree by hard work and sweat instead of parent’s largesse. Are you saying that without a college degree life is not worth living and that all those without one should have been aborted? Had this been done, most of the world’s population would have never made through the loop! What kind of morality are you preaching?
Evidently, you believe that anencephalic babies should be deprived of the little life God has granted them. I disagree. I had a niece born with spina bifida. She was loved and cared for until her death a few after birth. She was given a decent burial. There was no regret for having allowed her to be born, and no guilt associated with killing your own child. You suggest that pro-lifers should mind their own business. I believe that you are wrong! Life is Jesus’ business, and we are merely caretakers. We have no right to destroy what belongs to him.
*********
On May 31st, 2008 nicsamojluk says:
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
There is no question, the Bible makes it patently clear that Rome remains on the world's scene till the end. The question is: How do you identify Rome, by its past or its present behavior? We have labeled the church of Rome as the "Beast of Revelation," and we identify it by the enigmatic 666 number. What do "beasts" of prey do? They attack, kill, and devour the weak. Is this what the Catholic Church is doing today? It is true, it did perform the beastly function of predatory animals in the past through its infamous Inquisition.
Should we judge individuals and institutions by their past behavior or its present character? Is the Catholic Church today persecuting and killing innocent human beings today? If it is not, then we have a problem. Take the issue of abortion, for example. What earthly power is behind the destruction of the unborn? Is it the Catholic church? If the Catholic Church and the current Popes are fearlessly defending the right of the unborn, while the "Remnant" church is justifying the extermination of the innocent, and if some our hospitals are engaged in the provision of elective abortion services, while the Catholic hospitals refuse to follow suit, then tell me, please: Judging on the beastly character of institutions, who is the "Beast of Revelation"?
Have you read our SDA Church official Guidelines on Abortion? You find lofty statements about the sanctity of human life, but when you read the fine print, you discover that it states that Jesus died to grant us "freedom of choice." If this is true, then perhaps Jesus also died in order to grant us the right to rape, steal, and sexually abuse little children. Do you have an answer for me on this issue? [http://www.atoday.com/content/solely-totally-and-only-rome#comment-66 ]
On May 31st, 2008 nicsamojluk says: Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Dadu: Yes, and there is much more we could say that is positive about the Catholic Church. Take, for example, the influence of Mother Teresa. A church that could produce such a saintly woman cannot be all that bad. No other denomination has ever turned a human being into such a loving individual. But I have a question for you. You stated regarding people involved in abortion that you are glad that "it is God judging them and not humans." Would you say the same about those involved in rape, burglary, and child abuse? If not, then on what basis do you establish a difference? Doesn't society force rapists, criminals, and child abusers to account for such crimes? Why give a carte blanche to those who either poison or dismember innocent babies before they are born, and sometimes while they are being born? A victim of rape, burglary, or child abuse may eventually recover and enjoy life. Those who are murdered before they have a chance to see the light of day are permanently deprived of the same God given right. [http://www.atoday.com/content/solely-totally-and-only-rome#comment-66 ]
*********
On May 31st, 2008 nicsamojluk says:
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Cliff: What you say about Rome is true regarding its past, its prophetic future, and its role in obscuring the true Gospel of salvation. Nevertheless, I must question your characterization of abortion as a "red herring." For Mother Teresa, James and Ellen White, and the other leading SDA pioneers abortion was plain murder, and so it is in the sight of Almighty God, I believe. I once asked a respectable SDA physicians about the mother of Jesus, and he responded that he would have had no problem performing an abortion for her had she requested one. Another leading SDA recently published an article stating that the unborn has no right to life until he has taken the first breath. This attitude flies in the face of everything Scripture stands for. Jesus told us that anybody who offended any of these little ones would do well to hang a stone around his neck and jumped into the sea.
The Bible tells us that children should not be put to death for the sin of their parents, yet we justify abortion that results from the sin of adultery. The Catholic Church is wrong about the Gospel, about the Sabbath, and about the state of the dead, but it is right about the state of the living! Which is morally worse, to worship God on the wrong day of the week or to be responsible for the death of innocent human beings? Do not forget that Sabbath keepers were the ones who took the life of the most innocent being in the entire universe: Jesus Christ. Not long ago, the leaders of the German and Austrian SDA Church apologized for their cooperation with the Nazi genocide [http://sdaforum.com/page47.html], and now we are making the same mistake about the genocide of the unborn. Fortunately, there is one person at the General Conference who seems to share my concerns about this atrocity: James Standish [http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/?p=58]. God bless!
*********
On June 1st, 2008 nicsamojluk says:
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Cliff: Let me suggest that you fail to see the connection between abortion and Rome simply because you refuse to see the larger picture. It it true that your blog is about Rome, but you wrote it in response to David Pendleton's experience who abandoned the SDA Church and joined the Catholic communion of faith. Evidently you feel that he made a mistake, and that the Adventist Church is destined to be more faithful than the one he now embraced, while Rome is doomed to play the role assigned to it by prophecy. My guess is that you are misinterpreting the true role of prophetic utterances.
I see prophecy as a warning about what might happen if people and institutions do not repent, while you tend to look at divine predictions as means by which we can read tomorrow's news events. Jesus told the story of two sons. One of them willingly said he would work in his father's vineyard, while the other refused. At the end the opposite took place. Jacob, the patriarch, predicted that the descendants of Levi would be dispersed in Israel as a result of Levi's misbehavior. That prediction became a blessing for Levi's descendants instead of a curse because Levi repented of his sin. I suggest that you would do well not to assume that because the Catholic Church played an evil role in the past that it is destined to do so till the end. As far as persecution is concerned, it may play said role again, or it may not.
In the past the Popes persecuted the innocents, today they are protecting them. How can you fail to see the connection between Rome and the abortion issue? It is crystal clear to me! Contrast this with our own "Remnant" Church. Our pioneers condemned abortion in the strongest terms, while we justify the genocide of the unborn. Our church was never tested with absolute power like the Popes of Rome. In Germany, our church failed the test during the Nazi regime, and had to apologize later on. If we failed then, and are failing now again by condoning the current genocide, can you guarantee that we will be faithful at the end? The Bible says: "If running against men has wearied you, how will you race against horses?"
*********
On June 1st, 2008 Clifford Goldstein says:
Nic-- I don't want to get in a debate over this: what I want to show, and what I want to challenge ANYONE on is our interpretation of the last power in those three prophecies. That is the issue; not the SDA church's stand on abortion. Clifford Goldstein
*********
On June 3rd, 2008 nicsamojluk says:
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Cliff: I understand.The Bible makes it very clear that the last persecuting power is the "Beast of Revelation." There is no argument over this! The question is: How do we identify this enigmatic "beast: " By its number, its historical connection, or by its character? If we as a church do what beasts of prey do, kill and justify the killing of innocent human beings, then we partake of the image of the beast. I just finished reading the article you wrote for "Signs of the Times." In it you identify the "Remnant" as those who keep God's Commandments. One of them prohibids the shedding of innocent blood. If we justify the shedding of innocent blood, we can't claim to be God's Remnant! That's all!
*********
I think that Bush's doctrine of a "Preemtptive Strike" is a very dangerous policy. It has resulted so far in the death of over 3,000 American soldiers, and the death of hundreds of thousands or Iraqis. The money spent on this war could have alleviated the suffering of millions of people in the undeveloped countries of the world.
It is true that Saddam, the "Butcher of Baghdad," killed thousands of his own people, and that his sons were guilty of untold crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, we as a nation have also killed our own people--not by the thousands, but by the millions. I am talking about the fifty million of innocent babies we have slaughtered for their crime of waiting to be born.
When Abraham Lincoln decided that it was time to put an end to the unjust slavery institution, Seventh-day Adventists did approve of such a move, and many of them provided sanctuary for the blacks running away from their masters. Our early SDA pioneers had a correct sense of justice. They also--by the way--condemned in the stongest terms the practice of abortion.If you have any doubt, I suggest you take the time to read my doctoral dissertation entitled: "From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Change of Seventh-day Attitudes Towards Abortion." The Internet link is: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13 .
By contrast, when back in the 1970 the State of Hawaii legalized the practice of abortion, the SDA leader of the North-American Division defended the practice of abortion by arguing that there were too many human beings in the world and much hunger.This is how several of our SDA hospitals embraced the practice of offering--not only the so called "therapeutic abortions"-- but elective abortions as well. This action by the SDA church represented a 180 degree turn around on this issue. And don't forget that abortion is no therapy for the unborn baby. Would those defending such therapy accept the same therapy for themselves?The SDA church in North America is not growing, and we are closing SDA schools.
No wonder, at the rate we are aborting the future generation of Adventists, we can no longer afford to keep half empty schools. In many countries where abortion is still illegal, our church is growing and we are building schools and churches like crazy.I believe that it is time for us to vote for a candidate interested in putting an end to the murderous practice of abortion. We have several options: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and others. It is time to free those destined to the slaughterhouse. This is what our SDA pioneers would do if they were alive today.
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/polls/2008/01/03/point_my_favorite_democrat_or_republic_candidate_u_s_president ]
Nic, I can see that you feel very strongly about the matter of abortion and that you have actually done something about it by researching the development of the SDA stace on the subject. Regretfully I was unable to access the site on which your paper is displayed.
While I do take your point about the tradegedy of abortions, one has to be careful of supporting a candidate simply because he is against abortion. George Bush is strongly against abortion, but look at what he has unleased in Iraq, and the consequences that are flowing from it. His policy on the use of corn as feedstock for ethanal production is also one of the chief causes in the spiral of grain prices around the world, that will result no doubt in the death by starvation of millions of people around the world.
Just be careful what or who you vote for.
There is only one candidate that is pro-life when it comes to abortion, and has also opposed the idea of preemptive war and the Bush policy in Iraq. He has always remained consistent with his policies (something that none of the others can claim.) He also is the only true constitutionalist and is a huge supporter of personal freedom, which should be significant to SDA's. The only person I could possibly vote for is Dr. Ron Paul. If you haven't heard of him check him out on the web and you will see that he is the only real hope for our country.
The correct url for Nic's dissertation is: http://sdaforum.com/page13.html
Dare one have the audacity to ask what institution granted Nick his PhD?
Elaine: I received my Doctoral degre from "Andrew Jackson University," the only university I could locate at the time that was offering a Ph.D. program in religion by distant learning. This was the only way I was able to do this, since I could not afford to close my real estate business. The university phased out the program the year I graduated. Had I waited, I would have missed the boat.It took me ten years to complete all the coursework and to write the dissertation on a part time basis.
I would get up at 5:00 AM, study till 8:00 and go to work. Then in the evening I would work till 9:00 or 10:00. It wasn't easy, but I am glad I did this. I wish I could name Harvard as my alma mater, but that was the best I could do. It cost me a fortune in real estate business lossess, and I do not expect to land a teaching job anywhere. I sacrificed time and business opportunities for the sake of the unborn. My reward will be to meet sometime a mother who might say: "Here is my son/daughter who would have been aborted, had I not read what you discovered about abortion."
After reading David’s article and the comments that followed, the temptation to respond with a few comments of my own is too great to ignore, especially because my name is included among the comments. I am glad for the opportunity of speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak and plead for their own life. Can I remain silent when the life of millions of innocent unborn babies is sacrificed on the altar of convenience for the crime of not having taken the first breath?
Can I remain silent when my own church, who has from its inception labeled itself to be the God’s “Remnant” church on earth with the ”last message to a perishing world” and “keeping God’s Commandments,” has made an 180 degree turn from the example set by its early pioneers, and decided to bless what they, including James and Ellen White, did curse? Can I remain silent when, according to a survey, five Seventh-day hospitals were offering elective abortions to their clientele? Can I remain silent when, according to SDA historians, the first SDA hospital to offer elective abortions did so for financial reasons?
Can I remain silent when non-Adventists protest in front of a SDA institution carrying placards reading: “Remember the Sixth Commandment!”?Can I remain silent when a former SDA president of the North American Division, and later president of the General Conference publicly declared in the richest country of the world, that the SDA church was leaning towards abortion because “there was too much hunger and overpopulation in the world”? Can I remain silent when a former SDA religious liberty argued that the unborn do not acquire their right to life until they take their first breath? Can I remain silent when the only SDA official document dealing with the abortion issue [Guidelines on Abortion] states in fine print that Jesus died to restore our “freedom of choice”?
If this is so, then perhaps Jesus also died to restore the criminal’s right to rape, steal, and abuse little children!To Bob I say: Take heart. There is a new Pharaoh in town, and the trend on this issue, with God’s grace, does have a chance to force the SDA church to consider the wisdom of returning to the example set by our SDA pioneers who condemned the practice of abortion in the strongest imaginable terms, and labeled it as “murder” instead of “pregnancy interruption,” and “therapeutic abortion.” There is nothing therapeutic about abortion for the baby, but rather pure poison and a violent execution. Would those defending the practice of therapeutic abortion accept such treatment for themselves?
Pay attention to what James Standish, a new Daniel in the GC king’s court, had to say about abortion on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the legalization of abortion: "But on this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, it is hard to ignore the reality around us. This year more than 1.2 million American babies will be aborted. Of these, approximately 92% will be healthy babies conceived consensually to healthy moms. Over 500,000 of these babies will be at or past the point of development where they have little faces, arms, legs, fingers and toes. ..." [To read his entire article and the comments that followed, click on the following link: http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/?p=58#comments. Curiously, the chance of posting additional comments on Standish article was closed! Can you guess why?]
To the others I say: Why is it wrong for men to straighten what nine unelected justices of the court twisted over three decades ago? Should not men undo the harm done by other men? Should pro-lifers carry a watermelon for nine months before acquiring the right to come to the rescue of those destined for the execution chamber? Yes, nature does do strange things. It destroys innocent human lives through tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. Does this mean that we should imitate nature? Does the fact that science cannot see the faces of the unborn in the first five weeks of pregnancy with the present technological instruments mean that we should be free to destroy human life in its early stages of developments? Should we not rather err on the side of caution?
Is it wise to discard the Hippocratic Oath which served the Christian church for two millennia quite well? Is it fair to sacrifice one of the victims of rape while letting the guilty live? If our thirst for human blood is so strong, why not shedding the blood of the guilty instead? The “mother should decide”? Since when a life and death decision should be left to the whims of depressed and mentally unbalanced individuals? Is it safe to play God by arguing that some of the unwanted children will later be neglected, unloved, abused, and perhaps killed by their parents?
Don’t we realize that by so doing we are also killing those who will be loved and live a life which will bless humanity? Yes, some clever politicians argue that abortion should be “legal, safe, and rare.” Does this make sense? Could we also argue that “rape, burglary, and child abuse should be available, legal, safe, and rare”? What happened to our human common sense?May I encourage my SDA fellow believers to look at the life of Mother Theresa, who set a brave example for all to follow in this respect, and the example of the one who said: “Since you have done this to the least, you have done it unto me.” Mother Theresa could see the face of Jesus in each neglected human being. Can Adventism produce a saint like this? Shame on us.
We allow our SDA institutions to practice the killing of human life, while the Catholic institutions refuse to do so! The Pope may be wrong on the state of the dead, but he is right on the state of the living![If anyone is interested in reading my doctoral dissertation on this issue, please click on the following Internet link: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html You can also read the pro-life material I have on my web site by clicking on http://www.sdaforum.com/page2.html, and http://www.sdaforum.com/page11.html ] May the good Lord bless his church!
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/column/2008/02/07/give_me_five_weeks_pregnancy ]
*********
Nowhere in your multitudinous comments did I recognize any recognition to the woman who is carrying the fetus. She is the one and only individual that has possession of that potential child. Only when a baby can be safely incubated in vitro from conception to full-term viability, should there even be a question who owns and protects that beginning of life. To suggest otherwise is to make of a woman a "Brave New World" incubator, forced by law to submit to the will of those who dominate her. To promote such surrogate mothers is to denigrate woman to the position of a plant: useful only for bearing fruit.
To those who abhor abortion at all times and all conditions and under any and all circumstances, they should "put their money where their mouth is" and willingly support financialy every child they would rescue from abortion. Sustaining a child through the age of 18 would demonstrate, much more effectively, their position. Simply viewing the cost analysis, an abortion would be far less than 10% of the sustenance required for a child until reaching majority. Throw in a requisite college education, will increase that figure quite dramatically.
Either let your actions follow your words, or promote better sex education WITH contraceptive advice. Those states offering both have seen a drop in abortions; those offering abstinence only have not seen the same results. This administration has refuseed to fund programs that offer contraceptive advice if they also perform or mention abortions, a very small part of their practice. As a pragmatist, solutions are to be preferred that recognize and address the problem. In a perfect world there would never be a need for abortions. Who would dare say that is the world we now inhabit?
Vital question: If you are the father of a daughter, or daughters, what would you say or do if she confided to you, at the age of 15, that she was pregnant? Unless you have daughters, you should exempt yourself.Another question: What do you do if you pregnant wife, following proper testing, has discovered that she is carrying an anencephalic fetus? (Happened to a ob-gyn's wife in my town).
There are many other examples that could be given.
ElaineYou won! Tom
Elaine,
Nic had a daughter but she was killed in a car accident. I don't know if he has any others.
Tom: The comments I am about to post are probably of no consequence, since you have already awarded the Oscar prize to Elaine. I hoped you would be a fair judge and at least wait for my response before issuing your final verdict!
Elaine: For me to accept your arguments in defense for the practice of abortion would require that I ignore the following: God’s injunction against murder, the Old Testament prophets’ prohibition against the shedding of innocent blood, Jesus’ declaration stating that he came that we might have life [instead of death], his warning that our eternal destiny will be based on how we treat the “least of these,” James White’s outright condemnation of abortion as “murder,” Ellen White’s declaration that when a man ignored his pregnant wife’s health he is almost guilty of murder of her unborn child, Mother’s Theresa’s statement that those nations who favor abortion are the poorest [morally speaking], and General Conference James Standish’ lament of the tragic death of 50 million of unborn children since abortion was legalized [Did you read his article referred to in my previous posting?]
This is a high price for me to pay for agreeing with your position. I will rather stick to the old Hippocratic Oath which served Christianity for two millennia instead of falling prostrate in front of this modern abortion Moloch idol.You claim that the unborn is the pregnant woman’s possession. I will rather believe Saint Paul who tells me that said woman does not even own her own body, which belongs to God. You state that pro-lifers should put their money where their mouth is. I have done that! And if you think I have not done enough, let me know. For the last twelve years, I have devoted half of my time to the pro-life cause without any hope or expectation of being compensated for my sacrifice of time and money. Had I invested said time into my real estate business, I would be rich today, which I am not. I have neglected my business for the sake of the unborn, and you are asking me to put my money where my mouth is? You are talking to the wrong guy!
You ask me what I would have done if my 15-year-old daughter had informed me that she was pregnant. I would have prayed for wisdom to convince her to carry the baby to term, and we would have helped her raise the child! I grew in a country where even today abortion is illegal, and women have only one alternative if they are unable to raise their child: adoption. You argue that the financial cost of raising a child should include a college degree. I got my college degree by hard work and sweat instead of parent’s largesse. At the age of ten I was already working to pay for my school's tuition.Are you saying that without a college degree life is not worth living and that all those without one should have been aborted?
Had this been done, most of the world’s population would have never made through the loop! What kind of morality are you preaching? Evidently, you believe that anencephalic babies should be deprived of the little life God has granted them. I disagree. I had a niece born with spina bifida. She was loved and cared for until her death a few weeks after birth, and she was given a decent burial. There was no regret for having allowed her to be born, and no guilt associated with killing your own child. You suggest that pro-lifers should mind their own business. I believe that you are wrong! Life is Jesus’ business, and we are merely caretakers. We have no right to destroy what belongs to him.
NicYou certain win on passion if not logic. Strange you didn't cite God killing all the first born in Egypt or commanding that Saul kill all: man, woman, and child, even the cattle, the puppies, and kittens and the mothers heavy with child. Over that God took the kingdom away from Saul because of his disobedience. My point is why is it always the woman? If men would behave, there would be a lot fewer unwanted babies. I recall a tent mate coming back from a paid sexual encounter cursing a father for selling him a 13 year old girl for his pleasure. I said, the family was starving what is your problem? I don't believe in abortion. But I also don't believe in interfering if I am not willing to support, protect, nurture, and educate the issue. There are only two options. One would hope that education and self control would reduce the number of feral children around the world.
Tom
Tom: Evidently you missed one extremely important detail. God did destroy the pre-flood generation and he will destroy the wicked at the end. Does this mean that I can do the same? We belong to God, and he can do what he feels appropriate, but I can't. He knows the future, but I don't. Do you see the difference? Regarding men's responsibility connected with the abortion business, I entirely agree with you. In fact, I would venture to say that a great deal of abortions are done at men's instigation, and it were nine men who got us into this mess which has claimed the lives of 50 million babies already. Had they been allowed to live, they would have been leading productive lives today, and our retirement fund would not be on the verge of bankruptcy.
Nic, are you really complaining that abortion is threatening you of your retitrement?
NicYou left out all the back alley coat hanger deaths that were prevented by nine old men! The argument of the "right to privacy" was a strech. But I agree that unless the state wishes to take on parental duties from the womb to the tomb, it had best allow individual choice. Since you like examples take a look at Rio de Janeiro and the thousands of feral children running wild in the steets--because of a Romon Catholic ban coupled with an uncaring government.
My point is making demands on others leaves the demander with unending responsibilities. If a mother chooses to abort, her responsibility is to God. If one prevents abortion that one is responsible to the mother, the child, and to God. The fact that I am pro-choice does not mean I favor abortion. It simply means I do not have the emotional nor the financial resources to take responsibility for the consequences of an unwanted birth. Dick called you on your non sequitur on retirement. A better argument--we need all the babies we can get to pay for Bush's war.
Tom
Hi Nic!Haven't seen you for a while. I hope you're flourishing!Maybe you can come to this week's Provonsha Lecture. I believe that Bob Orr, who was with us for 10 years before he went home to Vermont, is speaking on profoundly malformed fetuses. You've touched on that issue here.I don't recall whether we've discussed the moral status of the preemplaned embryo with respect to stem cell research. More than any other, I think that this may be the issue that prompted the theme for this year's series. I'd be interested in any thoughts that you may have on this particular question above and beyond your more general position on abortion.Oh, yes, I also wonder about Social Security funding. I think that's a new one on me. I need to see you more often!
