.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
News
January
|
La Sierra University Accused of Collaboration with an Abortion Promoter
Submitted: Jan 31, 2013
By AT News Team
A web operation that has dogged La Sierra University for allegedly teaching about evolution in ways that contradict Seventh-day Adventist Church doctrine is now accusing the university of collaborating with “a notorious abortionist.” The story has been picked up by a web site that promotes anti-abortion politics and is not affiliated with Adventists.
Dr. Edward C. Allred is a La Sierra alumnus, a physician who graduated from medical school at Loma Linda University and went on to four decades of practicing medicine and developing a successful business career in California. In 2010 he gave La Sierra University a grant to create a center in its business school that teaches entrepreneur skills to high school students in the Riverside, Calif., area. This donation is the key element of the accusation by ADvindicate.com that has been republished in Life Site News.
The original story was produced by David Read, a Los Angeles attorney who writes regularly for ADvindicate.com. It includes some statements that seem, on their face, to be unlikely. For example, that Dr. Allred “personally” aborted “hundreds of thousands of fetuses.” That would translate to at least 200,000 abortions and over 40 years that is 5,000 per year or 14 per day, assuming he operated 365 days a year.
What is on the record is that Dr. Allred has had a practice in obstetrics and gynecology for many years and he started Family Planning Associates Medical Group in 1969, which now has 20 clinics throughout the state. California has always had a liberal abortion law and the practice has included legal abortions. After the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court, the group practice expanded. Its web site acknowledges that it is often picketed by anti-abortion activists.
The Advindicate.com article also assails Dr. Allred for his involvement in horse racing, describing it as having “strong ties to the gambling industry.” The doctor started his involvement with horses at age 14 and over the years became the owner of the Los Alamitos racetrack. According to CorporationWiki.com he owns an interest in a number of businesses, including some that are related to horse breeding and racing.
If accepting money from Dr. Allred is a moral weakness on the part of the university, the same may be true of the anti-abortion cause. The public record of political donations linked to CorporationWiki.com lists numerous donations by Dr. Allred to candidates that are on record in opposition to abortion, including a $1,000 donation to Michele Bachmann in 2010, a presidential candidate in the Republican Party in last year’s primaries, and $4,800 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign in California. He gave much larger donations to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Republican National Committee in 2010, both on record as solidly anti-abortion. He supported the McCain-Palin campaign with two gifts totaling $53,500 in the 2008 presidential election cycle, and Senator John McCain is well known for his “at the moment of conception” statement in response to Pastor Rick Warren’s question about abortion. In fact, there are very few donations to candidates who are pro-abortion in the record that goes back to 1999.
The Life Site News story did include a statement from a university spokesman. “La Sierra University benefits from the generosity of a wide range of donors [and] students continue to learn important economic principles through the programs operated by the Center for Financial Literacy and developed by School of Business faculty members,” said Larry Becker, university relations director.
It is unclear if Advindicate.com will become an Adventist affiliate with the anti-abortion movement. “Is this a real concern, or just another stone to throw,” one La Sierra alum asked when contacted by Adventist Today for a comment.
________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
http://www.fpamg.net/about-us
"none of them did it for the reasons that are considered acceptable by the SDA guidelines (they were all unmarried women at the time). I can only assume that there exists a much higher number of SDA women having abortions...."
At least you you admit that it's an assumption. And what are the "acceptable" reasons for abortion? Do you wish to have other people: a church or physician making very personal decisions that must be approved when you have surgical procedures or prescriptions?
There have been a number of Repulican senators of ill repute who have adopted to make all decisions for women's reproductive health without their consent or knowledge. I don't recall God every telling us humans that we should defer our private judgment and conscience over to others. We, and we alone are responsible, and take fully responsibility for our own very personal decisions.
The SDA church has wisely not adopted an official position on a number of iissues encroaching upon personal liberty in which they showed great wisdom. How else could God hold us to answer for our actions if they were approved or rejected by other humans, just like us?
Where is you substantiation for this statement:
"A medical doctor and practitioner of abortion would not be permitted through the door in most other Bible believing churches in this country."
There is no command from God about abortion; there is a command against bearing false witness.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/seventh-day-adventist-university-names-new-economics-centre-after-abortioni."
So are the allegations true? The Dec. 24, 2001 Forbes' article on Dr. Allred says that he "runs the nation's largest privately held chain of abortion clinics" and "owns the Los Alamitos Race Course": http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1224/040.html. It says, "But Allred, 65, knows how to make lemonade out of lemons. 'I've been known as a scrapper,' Allred smiles from his favorite Friday-night perch at his trackside club, where guests dine on blackened halibut and place bets from tabletop wagering terminals. Unlike many other suffering horse tracks, Los Alamitos has seen its daily handle, or total betting, increase 3% to 5% a year to $1.3 million .... Allred credits that to his decision to simulcast races to other tracks."
Friday night?
The article also says he was preparing for a stiff fight to bring in slot machines. But that was way back in 2001, and people change. Has Allred since 2001 left behind the vice of gambling, and ceased running "the nation's largest privately held chain of abortion clinics"? (We're certainly not talking about small time when Forbes makes those kind of claims about a guy.)
Another disturbing statement in this article is the apparent accolade of Dr. Edward C. Allred’s “successful business career.” Dr. Allred “is a La Sierra alumnus, a physician who graduated from medical school at Loma Linda University and went on to four decades of practicing medicine and developing a successful business career in California.” I hope Dr. Allred’s successful business career isn’t his practice of performing abortions. It is hard to see how abortion is viewed as medicine at all, especially from the perspective of the unborn who are losing their lives to this form of “medicine.” There is no healing being done in this practice at all. And for the mother involved, being pregnant is not a disease, so what is the doctor “treating” her for? This is not medicine.
What is much more important than Read's article is the policy of the SDA Education Department with respect to accepting grants. Does the Department examine the beliefs and lifestyles of donors? What exactly is the criteria of the Education Department and its educational institutions with respect to accepting grants? Anyone know?
Receiving funding does not in any way condone approval of how the money was made. The G.C. has hundreds, probably thousands of investments in the stock market. Does anyone believe that none of them have ties that individuals might find repulsive? It is almost impossible to find stocks that are based on only one company. One of the most profitable (as Warren Buffet as a long-time investor) is P&G. Can anyone identify each company that includes?
Or, about the McKee Bakery that has contributed hugely to SAU. These are foods no SDA would recommend, loaded with sugar and empty calories. Has SAU ever turned those financial gifts away?
I assume the replies to this will be extreme.
Naming a Seventh-day Adventist campus building after a man who "runs the nation's largest privately held chain of abortion clinics," owns a gambling establishment, and watches horse races at the track on Friday night amidst those addicted to the vice of gambling, that really should raise a lot of eybrows.
Moreover, I found it difficult to understand how Larry Becker could in good conscience spin the situation positively.
"However, the evolutionary purpose is clear," Stefoff writes. "Infanticide" keeps the group from spending "energy and resources" to raise a chimp that wasn't fathered by a male of that group. And also the female whose baby was killed can then mate sooner within the group so that the next infant will be one of that group's males' own.
"However, the evolutionary purpose is clear." So, from within an evolutionary paradigm, which allegedly is the paradigm that certain LSU teachers have operated within, there must be an evolutionary purpose for Dr. Allred's "largest privately held chain of abortion clinics" to engage in so much pre-birth infanticide, or fetuscide, or whatever the right term is. Are these and other clinics helping craft a master race by eliminating those descendants least likely to thrive economically, physically, and socially?
I don't believe in evolution, and so I don't believe that either abortion or Dr. Allred's clinics serve an evolutionary purpose. Rather, I think we merely have illustrated for us the depths of degradation sin has brought us to, whether in nature where chimps commit infanticide, or in (in)human society where men and women slay their own unborn children.
The only connection I see between evolution, and abortion and gambling is one of spirituality. Embracing one of these might lead to tolerance of the others.
Good thinking, Jim. I have often thought about that text and agree with you. Extremists on the subject will likely pillory you but twas ever thus. My way or the highway even though there is no clear Biblical injunction on the matter.
Maranatha
Ancient Church Fathers -- who all opposed abortion, but not because of fetal value, but rather they oppose all contraception -- disagreed about the status of the fetus. For instance, Gregory of Naziansus, discussing the "spirit" part of "Holy Spirit" commented that the fetus (embryon) does not become a person (anthropos) until it takes its first breath.
These, of course are views expressed long before I existed. The point I was trying to make, is not what I believe (I'll get to that in a moment), but rather to get it through some very thick skulls that this issue is far from settled either in the Chtristian context, or the context of Biblical studies.
But, you'll always find a translation that will tell you what you want to hear, if you search hard enough.
I believe that the embryo and fetus gains value as it develops. I assign no value to undifferentiated stem cells, or to "unique" genetics (What, are identical twins really only one soul, not two?). My ethical response begins with the develoment of a central nervous system, and grows with the complexity of that central nervous system. A viable fetus does have the value of an infant, and late-term abortions should be limited to extreme medical situations.
So, I have no problems with the pill, Plan B, or various early abortifacients. Surgical abortions should be legal and safe (or they WILL happen in back alleys), and rare (which happens when birth control is well presented and available). In fact, abortions are on the decrease, but not because crusaders are closing abortion clinics. They are decreasing as birth control becomes better known, especially among teens (remember, not all teens grow up in churches), and more widely available.
Did MBA or the CCC pay tribute to the benefactor by naming a building after him? If not, then LSU is handling the situation differently than they did, whether differently enough or not. ADRA doesn't name projects or wells after bartenders who happen to give an Ingathering donation.
Did it come up as well about his deep involvement in the vice of gambling?
Incidentally, I find it interesting that in http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130102083615.htm it describes a study which showed that by 10 weeks before birth a baby is learning from its mother the peculiar speech sounds of its native language (such as vowel sounds). This was shown by babies as soon as 7 hours after birth showing more interest in speech sounds from other languages than from their own.
If God refuses to accept it, should we?
TXalchemist, if you check out the story abit more, you'll find that when the Israelites went asking for gold and silver before leaving Egypt, they were collecting their back wages lost after being illegally enslaved by the Egyptians. They weren't taking up an offering for a church building fund.
In any case, it is a true statement that God's tabernacle was built with jewelry taken from heathen Egyptians. Or as Ex. 12:36 says, "And so they plundered the Egyptians." I think the back wages argument is something you are dredging from EGW; I don't see it in the context of Ex. 12:36 itself. To the contrary; the account of the "donation" of jewelry to the Israelites immediately follows the death of the firstborn in every house in the land and the Egyptians urging the Israelites to leave before ALL the Egyptians should die.
Did Christ accept the offering of very expensive perfume in an alabaster box by a prostitute?
Where does all the G.C. money go that is put in investments? Why not check on that and there may be surprises.
If anyone wishes to give money to fund and help pay for Christian education, where in the Bible are we instructed to refuse?
As for abortion: the Bible says that God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he became a living soul. It is not called the "breath of life" without meaning. In addition, if a fight causes a woman to miscarry, her husband should be paid, but nothing is said about a "person."
Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion rendered in Roe v. Wade had this statement:
"the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."
There is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute when she anointed Jesus' feet. The MH quote isn't talking about former liquor dealers who repented and got out of the business.
Looks like Justice Blackmun was wrong after all, based on that recent study about babies learning the sounds of their native language before birth. It takes more than a mere blob of tissue to learn like that.
Would it not be true that unborn babies still have the breath of life, only getting it through the umbilical cord rather than their nostrils? Or would you say that people having surgery that are on heart-lung machines are no longer living souls since they aren't breahing in through their nostrils and lungs anymore?
I find your commensts a little puzzling. First off, you seem to think that the firstborn slain on Passover night were only children. Why are you excluding the adults and the elderly?
Second, I don't find anywhere in Exodus where Moses said he exceedingly feared and quaked. If I have to "dredge" that idea from Paul in Hebrews, what difference would that make?
Third, why are you saying that God "murdered"? Execution of judicial sentences by God certainly isn't a violation of the 6th commandment. And in this case the Egyptians should have had an opportunity to apply the blood to the doorposts just like the Jews did. We know the mixed multitude had that opportunity. If the vast majority of Egyptians apparently chose not to, how then can we blame God for their negligence?
What is really sick is to note the celebration that is going on for those who are thrilled with the continued killing of these innocent lives at the 40 year mark. Check out this 40th aniversary video produced by pro-choice advocates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2QXzzBFlCc
Until the SCOTUS changes Roe v. Wade, it is irrelevant what we might propose.
And as long as freedom of conscience is embraced, rather than force, abotions will continue. Thankfully, there are fewer every year, thanks to contraception, but the same Christian fundamentalist who fight abortion also fight contraception. We have not been given judicial powers and the term "religious liberty" should be honored for without it people would be forced to obey whatever religious group chose to enforce. If that is nation some want to live under, there are countries right now that practice religious authority.
In which Bible translation are you find that statement?
<<A "rabbinic tradition" is NOT a standard to which we are called to serve the creator.>>
Not exactly my point. My point was that this tradition was based on very close readings of this text -- a text desperately contested by Evangelicals -- and this close reading was done in Hebrew, not in translation, by experts in Hebrew. That does not make it infallible, but it does make it consequential.
Incidentally, what about the New Testament silence on abortion? Abortion was widely practiced in the ancient Roman Empire, both through drugs and surgical means. Church Fathers railed against abortion (and contraception) from very early. How significant is the New Testament silence?
Wayne Wilson's statistics are interesting. From 1500 back alley abortions per year to 1.375 million abortions per year. How many deaths and physical or mental disabilities resulted from the 1500 in comparison to those resulting from the 1.375 million, as far as the mother goes? It wouldn't surprise me a bit if abortion-caused deaths and disabilities are higher now than they were when abortion was illegal.
If out of the 1500 impairment or death occurred in 1375 cases, then to match that number today one would only need something to go awry in 0.1% of the time. But I don't know what the relative risk really is, or what the death and impairment rates were or are. Can anyone enlighten me?
The verses say nothing about preaching or forewarning those who were destroyed in the flood unless you can explain who Peter was referring to "He (Christ) made proclamation to the spirits now in prison."
Christ preached to them by the Holy Spirit through Noah. Vs. 20 refers to the "longsuffering of God." So you have Noah preaching while God is being longsuffering. The only way I see to understand that is to say that God was giving them an opportunity to repent. 2 Pet. 2:5 calls Noah "a preacher of righteousness," so he definitely was preaching. And:
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
The way that building the ark would "condemn" the world is that Noah by thus building showed that he believed God when He said that He would bring a flood, in contrast with the world that refused to believe the warning. Thus, the world must have first been warned, and that too indicates that there was an opportunity to repent, just like Ninevah had.
(a) What God did was ask Pharaoh to let His people go. If Pharaoh had said, "Sure!" no one would have died. (b) I know you didn't write anything about Moses fearing and quaking. You apparently missed my point, which was that according to the Bible a divinely inspired prophet can add non-contradictory details that weren't in the original account. So if you want to object to a detail found in the Testimony of Jesus, you really first need to explain why Paul couldn't add that detail in Hebrews. (c) I am uncomfortable with your calling what God did "ugly," but maybe I'm missing your point.
Back to your original point: If you have a restaurant and Osama bin Laden stopped by and bought a meal, and you then tithed on the profits and paid taxes, does that mean that bin Laden's money is paying for the salaries of both your preacher and President Obama? I don't think most people would use such logic, and thus I don't think your original point will resonate with most people.
The Israelites used their own assets to build the sanctuary. They obtained those assets from the Egyptians after working without adequate pay for perhaps centuries. And God is sovereign. As Gen. 15:14 points out, God "judge[d]" Egypt and the Israelites then "[came] out with great substance." I don't think anyone is going to claim today that God has determined that 1.375 million unborn babies must die each year. What is going on today is because man has forgotten God's sovereignty, not because of it.
Those are amazing stats. I assume they are within the USA, where Roe v. Wade is the law. If so, that means one in a hundred women in the USA have an abortion every year!!! Really? Does anyone believe that? Should anyone believe that? And how does anyone even come close to guessing the number of back alley abortions that were performed before Roe? That number sound more like the number of known complications from back alley abortions as registered by medical practitioners.
possibility, but it should never be coerced. Who would try to preempt another person's individual conscience? Where is God-give freedom of choice? If and when the "morning after pill" is widely available, and birth control pills are provided for the poor, there will be fewer abortions as they are decreasing yearly.
Per the Guttmacher report ten years ago, some statistics which likely are far more accurate than the ones listed above: estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.
One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.
Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.
These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.
A clear racial disparity is evident in the data of mortality because of illegal abortion: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.
Even in the early 1970s, when abortion was legal in some states, a legal abortion was simply out of reach for many. Minority women suffered the most: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died. Furthermore, from 1972 to 1974, the mortality rate due to illegal abortion for nonwhite women was 12 times that for white women. racial disparity exists in abortions today; whereas 11 in a thousand white women will choose abortion, 28 Hispanic and 50 blacks women per thousand per year abort.
Timo,
My husband spent two years in LA County hospital during his schooling, and four years there in a residency before abortions were legal. There were many septic abortions treated there and also many deaths from them.
Because there will aways be abortions, I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare. And they are decreasing with the availability of contracpetion, but there are still religious believers who fight the use of any form of contraceptions AND abortion. God gave women, as well as men, freedom of CHOICE. No human or government should come between her conscience and her beliefs, whether religious or not.
It is now largely in in the states where abortion restriction is legislated, although against the public's wishes. Placing impossible barriers for women is unconscionable in the arrogant desire to control them.
I saw a video of former abortion providers, at least one of whom claimed that at her clinic a botched abortion which resulted in perforating the uterus was written up as an actopic pregnancy, as I recall. So somehow we need to figure out what today's figures really are, which might be as challenging as figuring out what yesteryear's figures were.
During 1988-1997, the overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100000 legal induced abortions. The risk of death increased exponentially by 38% for each additional week of gestation. Compared with women whose abortions were performed at or before 8 weeks of gestation, women whose abortions were performed in the second trimester were significantly more likely to die of abortion-related causes.
There are further studies which suggest maternal risk of death increases after abortion, and not directly related to the abortion itself. Depression which includes psychotic features is more than casually linked post abortion, which may cause self-care neglect all the way to successful suicide is suggestive that the work to stem the tide is great.
Adding shame and guilt to a mother to be who feels no viable options is certainly not effective overall, although those vociferously posturing such pro-life vitriol may feel good about their grandstanding. Anyone who has worked in the trenches has some sense of this.
It seems to me that if we go down that road, we'll be adverse to calling any sin by its right name, no matter how vile it be. Certainly a mother murdering her child qualifies as being "without natural affection" (Rom. 1:31), and must be why God illustrated just how bad things would get with such crimes as are mentioned in Deut. 28:54-57.
Those stats on "botched abortions" should be compared against "botched deliveries." There are no error-free surgeries, but experienced physicians have a high rate of success from errors.
As for mental impairment: Consider the devastating affects of postpartum depression which is now recognized as a clinical condition. Women are so fortunate to live where abortion is safe and legal. In many parts of the world, abortions AND childbirth have very poor prognosis and high infant mortality.
That really sounds odd, Elaine, to in effect say that women are so fortunate to live where murder is safe and legal. Are you sure you want to say something like that?
Whether a first, 2nd, or 3rd trimester abortion is the same as murder is hard to prove biblically. As Elaine mentioned, Exodus 22 would argue that it is not.
Abortion should be a personal choice between the woman, her doctor, and her God. Belief that a 2-celled fertilized egg has the same rights as a newborn baby is just that - a belief, not a proven fact.
I don't see why it has to boil down to one's religious beliefs regarding when life begins, since no one out there is going to argue that a zygote is dead rather than alive. Some religions believe in child sacrifice, and yet we do not as a society permit them to carry out their religious beliefs without penalty.
Certainly abortion is a personal choice between the woman, her doctor, and her God, but that doesn't mean that there should be no consequences for infanticide motivated by economics or sex selection or convenience.
How about gametes? Are they living or dead? Are they human? Every month a woman doesn't get pregnant, her body kills off a living human gamete. Every time a man ejaculates, even if it results in a pregnancy, he kills off millions of living human gametes.
Living human zygotes come from living human gametes. Living human embryos come from living human zygotes. Living human fetuses come from living human embryos. Living human babies come from living human fetuses. The question still remains, at what point does this living human material become a person?
Genetically speaking, at conception. That's when the new being first becomes genetically distinct from its parents, and first contains all the genetic components necessary for all the self-sustaining biological processes that make up life.
Gametes are living cells, as long as they are alive, but they are part of a person rather than a person in and of themselves.
As for life, okay, a zygote has life in the same way that a germinating seed, an impregnated cat ovum, or a metamorphosing caterpillar. Is that level of life equal to and entitled to the same rights as the newborn and why is what you believe in the matter more infallible than what I believe? Again we go back to Exodus 22 for the closest biblical example.
I'll deal with it if she tells me she was raped. But that's rather rare, isn't it, as far as abortions go? What percentage of women seeking abortions or women being urged to get an abortion by their parents or irresponsible boyfriends are doing so because they were raped?
Deut. 22:23-27 might be of help. There God did not accept and Israelite society was not supposed to accept a claim of rape if it was said to have occurred in the city, UNLESS the woman cried out for help. If it occurred in a field, then it was assumed that the woman had cried out, and no evidence was required. But if it happened in the city, then evidence was required, evidence that she cried out for help.
There are a number of important issues where the Scripture gives us narratives and laws that trouble us. I just don't like simplistic answers.
To Wayne, I agree with Elaine on this one. I miscarried twice, and neither time did I say, "I lost the baby." I told those who had known I was pregnant that I lost the pregnancy. One pregnancy was planned, one was not, and I grieved for the loss of both, but my grieving was certainly far less than if one of my children should die before me.
I really haven't met anyone without a "Christian conscience" (though I admit I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that) who considered abortion a horror, and I have met many pro-choice Christians with more love for their neighbors than many of their radical pro-life brethern.
Is it collaboration when a wealthy donor gives money to the church? He is perfectly able to specify how and where it will be used and the instituion can also reject it. This is intimidation by very biased individuals who jump on their hobby horse at every possible opportunity.
You expect humans to be consistent? At my daughter's wedding dinner which had been prepared for vegetarians and non-vegetarians, the chef announced that the bride refuses to eat anything that had a face!
One can always justify his actions by "this is much worse than that," when it is all personal opinion not found in Scripture
The argument I am using here is not from the Bible, but it is consistent with the Bible. Even those who have no Christian conscience can plainly see abortion for the horror that it is. So why on earth would any truly born again Christian think that killing their unborn children is okay? By the way, the Adventist who defends this awful practice is actually okay with killing unborn Adventist children. Is that right? Infanticide has always been the practice of the heathen and ungodly, so check your status of being a truly born again Christian before giving your approval to something that the Canaanites practiced.
Wayne asks "What are we doing when we are performing abortions" and then gives his answer: "we are taking the life of an innocent human being who is still a baby."
That is neither a legal or biological fact. Even this from a Catholic hospital:
In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people | The Colorado Independent
So, when its financially convenient, Catholics believe that a fetus is NOT a person and has no rights.
But when it doesn't hit them in the wallet, Catholics support the "human rights" of the unborn.
The fetus will become a human being only when it able to live on its own outside the womb. This conforms to the Bible that when the breath of life enters the body it becomes a living soul. The fetus becomes a human only as an apple seed becomes an apple tree. Until that time, the mother should be the only one who should be concerned. Only she and her physician should make decisions regarding her health and that of the fetus.
The majority of both men and women agree with this: the government has no standing in this situation. This runs afoul of both the Fourth and Fourteeenth Amendment.
I really haven't met anyone without a "Christian conscience" (though I admit I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that) who considered abortion a horror, and I have met many pro-choice Christians with more love for their neighbors than many of their radical pro-life brethern.
I, too, had an abortion many years ago. A natural abortion, a.k.a."miscarriage in the common term. In medical terms, it is a TAB, or therapeutic abortion.
Although it was a planned pregnancy, from the first there was evidence something was very wrong, and eventually, the fetus was aborted. I had no grief, but relief that an anomaly (as evidenced by pathological exam) was nature's method of eliminating an abnormality. Few people are aware that approximately one-third of all pregnancies end in natural abortion.
Where are the sob sisters for all these naturally aborted "babies"?
This matter of abortion is about loving to our neighbors, but in this case our little neighbors are still in the womb, unable to fight for themselves. I contend that it is unjust and unloving to let someone kill them. We have to stand up and fight for them and it is not always pleasant to do, especially when the ones who want to turn a blind eye to their murder are sitting in the pew with you, suggesting that you are being unloving for protesting. I imagine that these unwanted children view that I am being more loving because I actually care enough to say no to their slaughter and fight for their right to be born. Just exactly how is it loving to stand by and do nothing about abortion other than saying that we shouldn't be judgmental of the practice? I have no problem being considered a radical pro-life Christian, and in my view it is shameful to be pro-choice. Those who think this practice should be legal have either had their conscious seared with a hot iron, or are simply too weak-willed to speak out against the practice of state sanctioned murder. How is abortion in any way acceptable?
I think Elaine held the record for repeats (assault browser?) until Nic and his itchy trigger finger hit again. Assuredly it is neither as Nic asserts a hardware PC problem anymore than "slowness in the site" as Elaine purports. The site responds to the first click; the BROWSER which the commenter is using is not refreshing fast enough to show the new post which IS there. Since you do not see it, some folks keep pounding at the enter key.
AFTER clicking "post comment" * O N C E *, press F5, on your keyboards top row,
or reload your Atoday page by clicking on the refresh tab in your browser.
Google chrome seems least problematic with this issue, at least for me.
Sometimes I use Mozilla Firefox as well as IE. Have not tried Opera or Safari much.
I am curious what the concensus is on this story. Does anybody here think that it is okay to let the child of this horrible act live, as terrible the circumstances are?
http://now.msn.com/girl-age-9-gives-birth-in-mexico