The SDA church and Abortion

[tabletalk]

(From the Seventh-day Adventist world church official guidelines on Abortion. October 12, 1992)
"Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation."

None of the reasons given are justification for killing the unborn child.

 

[brakelite]

(From the Seventh-day Adventist world church official guidelines on Abortion. October 12, 1992)
"Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation."

None of the reasons given are justification for killing the unborn child.

I'm a seventh day Adventist, and I agree with you.

 

[shnarkle]

(From the Seventh-day Adventist world church official guidelines on Abortion. October 12, 1992)
"Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation."

None of the reasons given are justification for killing the unborn child.

When the mother's life is in jeopardy, the child would very well die along with the mother, I could see how that might be a good reason. To save her life when the child would die anyways seems like a good reason. The problem with the debate in society is that the exception becomes the rule for justifying it under any circumstance.

 

[brakelite]

When the mother's life is in jeopardy, the child would very well die along with the mother, I could see how that might be a good reason. To save her life when the child would die anyways seems like a good reason. The problem with the debate in society is that the exception becomes the rule for justifying it under any circumstance.

Taking to doctors though one forgives that a situation where the mother is in danger is extremely rare.... And never is it necessary to kill the child to save the mother.

 

[shnarkle]

Taking to doctors though one forgives that a situation where the mother is in danger is extremely rare.... And never is it necessary to kill the child to save the mother.

Well thanks for providing us with your fine imagination, but the fact is that not only is it something that still happens, I happen to personally know people who have gone through it. A friend of mine lost his wife in childbirth because she refused to abort. He has twins now. She was told to abort long before she was due to give birth; somewhere between the first and second trimester. So, yes, sometimes people choose to abort to save the life of the mother. Yes, it's rare, but it still happens. My cousin was told that his first daughter was going to have birth defects, and to abort. They politely declined, and when it came time to have an echo for their second pregnancy, they declined to even have an echo because they weren't going to abort for any reason. There was nothing wrong with either of their daughters. There are reasons to have an echo because sometimes they can see something wrong with the pregnancy and operate to save both the baby and the mother's life; sometimes they lose the baby in the process though. it not only happens, but sometimes it's necessary.

 

[Enoch111]

The problem with the debate in society is that the exception becomes the rule for justifying it under any circumstance.

This is not about *society* but about a conservative Christian denomination. They did not need to say anything especially when they are committed to the Ten Commandments.

 

[brakelite]

Well thanks for providing us with your fine imagination, but the fact is that not only is it something that still happens, I happen to personally know people who have gone through it. A friend of mine lost his wife in childbirth because she refused to abort. He has twins now. She was told to abort long before she was due to give birth; somewhere between the first and second trimester. So, yes, sometimes people choose to abort to save the life of the mother. Yes, it's rare, but it still happens. My cousin was told that his first daughter was going to have birth defects, and to abort. They politely declined, and when it came time to have an echo for their second pregnancy, they declined to even have an echo because they weren't going to abort for any reason. There was nothing wrong with either of their daughters. There are reasons to have an echo because sometimes they can see something wrong with the pregnancy and operate to save both the baby and the mother's life; sometimes they lose the baby in the process though. it not only happens, but sometimes it's necessary.

I stand corrected.