Abortion and the ELCA

[cableguy]

Seems this issue is heating up with the confermation of Roberts to the supreme court. The ELCA's possision, like it has with many other conterversial things, put sort of a wishy washy statement about the abortion issue...I guess in the effort not to offend anyone.

I know how many conservatives in the ELCA feel about this, what realy interests me is how the more liberal side of the ELCA feel about this issue. IS abortion murder? Only under certain circumstances? Should the church have a stronger possision about this issue either for or against?

I myself believe life is a gift from God. Used to be more liberal on this point, tell my first daughter was born. Looking at her I knew she was a gift, and I had a responsibility towards her. Anyway, I know this is a hot issue, but another thread that sort of touched on this issue got me thinking, as well as the Roberts confermation.

[KagomeShuko]

I put "right only under certain circumstances," but that doesn't really address my views completely. It was just the closest thing that I could put to what I believe. I believe that the only time abortion can be consider "right" is when the mother's life is in danger. I don't believe abortion is right if the child is going to mentally ill. I don't believe it is right if the child is going to have a physical handicap. (I find these are actually some of the most special, most loving, most well-behaved people in this world as it is!) I don't believe it is right to have an abortion if the pregnancy resulted from being raped. Rape is a horrible thing, but the life itself is still a gift.

It's ONLY when the mother's life is in danger. I mean, you are either going to lose one or two lives in that case. So, abortion is the "best wrong" choice, really. It's basically where the option is not having the right choice whatsoever because of this broken and fallen world.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Protoevangel]

Like you said, as a conservative, you already know my position. But since the question is presented, I gotta say, it is always murder.

When is it acceptable to kill a six year old child, or a full grown adult? There is no ontological difference between these and a child that is still in her mother's womb.

That being said, what Bridget said above also holds true. If there is a situation where one must die, or they both certianly will, there is a tragic decision that must be made, and the mother should not be made to feel guilty for choosing to live. In no way, though, does that minimize the fact that an innocent child has lost her life, and this should be grieved.

[Melethiel]

I agree with Bridget.

[AngelusSax]

Gotta go with Bridget on this. I'd say 99.6999999999999999999999999999999% of the time it is unacceptable, but if there's a choice between losing mother AND child, or only child... it may be the least of the 2 evils to lose the child only.

But that's pretty much the only scenario I can turn a blind eye to abortion.

[RedneckAnglican]

Like you said, as a conservative, you already know my position. But since the question is presented, I gotta say, it is always murder.

When is it acceptable to kill a six year old child, or a full grown adult? There is no ontological difference between these and a child that is still in her mother's womb.

That being said, what Bridget said above also holds true. If there is a situation where one must die, or they both certianly will, there is a tragic decision that must be made, and the mother should not be made to feel guilty for choosing to live. In no way, though, does that minimize the fact that an innocent child has lost her life, and this should be grieved.

ditto...my wife was born on 1-24-73...I believe the day Roe Vs. Wade was passed...her biological mother was 16 years old and had been looking for a way to abort...I'm kinda glad she couldn't...

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

ditto...my wife was born on 1-24-73...I believe the day Roe Vs. Wade was passed...her biological mother was 16 years old and had been looking for a way to abort...I'm kinda glad she couldn't...

actually it was one or two days after roe v wade...think that was jan 22 or 23,,,and I haven't asked Holly (my biological mother) if she would have....frankly that's not a question I'd really want the answer to... but I do know she drank & smoked durring her whole pregnacy (and not just cigerettes.) and possibly dropped acid early on.

now for my views.....1st and for most I want to say that I could not under any cirumstances do this(and I pray I never have to be put in a possition to choose)
I don't think it should be illegal (and before I get jumped on for that keep reading I don't agree with it, and I think it is a barbaric thing to do.) I think that it should be more regulated...and before the person gets one they have to have an ultrasound (see the baby's heart beat...) and be told in graffic detail exactly what will be done (preferably while getting the ultrasound) manditory 24 hours waiting after the ultrasound (the baby should be humanized,,,for after all that is what the baby is a human). the only reasons that I feel are acceptable are life of the mother (really big one....the only reason I would consider) rape or incest (but in these cases I do feel that there should be charges brought against the culprits...if known...atleast a police report and besides if the rape is reported right afterwards there would more than likely be little risk of pregnacy...I say these two cases not that I would do...could do it, but I could understand the feelings that would make someone want to do it...) if it was made illegal that would not stop people from getting them, it would just make the conditions a lot worse when they do.
Having said that let me stress that I do not think late term abortions should be legal...except life of the mother... esspecially the horrific thing they call partial birth abortion...that is MURDER any way you look at it!!!!(my understanding...and having a premie I do have a little bit of an understanding from the reasearch I have done... is that it is possible for a baby to be born as early as 25 weeks and surrvive...and even possible for them to have little or no disablities...although the earlier they are the greater the possiblity for disablities...but there is a chance for disablities no mater when the baby is born...even a full term baby can have serious problems...the baby is viable...there for if aborted murdered) I DO NOT think abortion is a type of birthcontrol...if you don't want a child there are other ways to keep from having one...including abstinance!!!!
I am still a little upset that the paperwork that I signed when I had my D&C done May 2004 had the word abortion on it...it said something about missed abortion...

[Protoevangel]

Hi purpleunicorn_Andi,

I don't want to "jump on" you, RedneckLutheran might not take too kindly to a lemur gnawing on your kneecap. ;)

I know that you have come to your conclusions based on how much you really and truly care for people. It shows. But maybe we can take a look at some of your reasoning for thinking abortion is acceptable, and discuss them. Would that be ok with you?.

the baby should be humanized,,,for after all that is what the baby is a human
If we take a potential victim of a serial killer, and make the serial killer get to know the potential victim before he kills her, does that make the serial killers actions any more acceptable? I know it sounds like a completely different situation, and not marally equilivant. But you just admitted that the baby is human. No human has the right to take the life of another innocent human do they? No matter how much they know the victim.

rape or incest
If the baby is human, as you said, how does the circumstances of her conception take away from her right to not be murdered, at least long enough for her to be put up for adoption? As incredibly tragic and heartwrenching as the situation may be, does it justify the murder of an innocent baby? If we allow the woman to kill anyone, we should allow her to kill the man who raped her!

if it was made illegal that would not stop people from getting them, it would just make the conditions a lot worse when they do.
Making rape illegal hasn't stopped people from doing that either. It just makes conditions a lot worse when it does happen. Should we apply the same logic you are using to justify killing babies, to rape? Set up safe, sanitized areas where men can bring their unwilling victims, to have their violent and foul way with them. This relieves them of having to kill the women as often, to avoid being caught. It's just the compassionate thing to do.

I trust you see how utterly absurd and deplorable the very idea is. It is never ok to make something acceptable just because some people will do it anyway. If that were the case, there would be no rules for anything.

Are African Americans human beings? Do they deserve to have freedom, or can they be owned as property, with their owners having the right to do whatever they want with them? That's just about one of the most ludicrous questions on the face of the planet, isn't it Andi? But believe it or not, not that long ago (1856), the Supreme Court of the United States told Dred Scott that they had no right to intervene on his behalf. You see, Mr. Scott sued for his freedom, and the Supreme Court ruled that the choice to own slaves was an individual decision, that every "person" had a private right to choose. Even though you disagree, can you really tell someone else that they can't own their own?

I hope this hasn't upset you. That was not my intention here. I know you are thinking with your heart, and I don't want you to feel bad about that, but I do want to help you see that this whole issue is just a matter of concistency; if the unborn child is not a living person, then no excuse for abortion is necessary. If it is, then no excuse for abortion is adequate.

[ctobola]

I'd go along with Bridget, although from what I've read, the cases where it comes down to the baby's life or the mother's life are extremely rare.

The date of the Roe v. Wade decision was January 22, 1973.

The problem I have with this issue is the extremes of anti-abortion movement uses so much hate (not anger -- hate) as a motivation. If we are to be people of peace, if we are to share our lives and our resources to dissuade any woman from having an abortion... we will never do it by hating.

Abortion represents the death of a child -- no question. Be we must also remember that the life of that child is in God's hands -- even after death -- and that God calls us to be people of peace, to be people of love. Hate has no place in the Christian faith -- we are called to "love the hell out of people," not scare/hate/correct/condemn the hell out of people.

In Christ, -Cloy

[SPALATIN]

I'd go along with Bridget, although from what I've read, the cases where it comes down to the baby's life or the mother's life are extremely rare.

The date of the Roe v. Wade decision was January 22, 1973.

The problem I have with this issue is the extremes of anti-abortion movement uses so much hate (not anger -- hate) as a motivation. If we are to be people of peace, if we are to share our lives and our resources to dissuade any woman from having an abortion... we will never do it by hating.

Abortion represents the death of a child -- no question. Be we must also remember that the life of that child is in God's hands -- even after death -- and that God calls us to be people of peace, to be people of love. Hate has no place in the Christian faith -- we are called to "love the hell out of people," not scare/hate/correct/condemn the hell out of people.

In Christ, -Cloy

Cloy,

The problem I have is that these babies will never have the opportunity to be baptized and yet the parent has the opportunity to let them be born and have the opportunity. Indeed we are putting their salvation into God's grace, but the baby could be allowed to be born and put up for adoption as Dan suggests and at least have the opportunity for Baptism. THis is unlike a situation in which a child has been stillborn and there was absolutely no opportunity for the child.

How do we know that because the child was aborted that it didn't get thrown into eternal damnation on account of it's parents decision to abort?

Baptism saves and if we cut off their ability to get baptized because of our sinful desire to keep it from being born physically it also won't have the opportunity be born spiritually as well.

Their blood like that of Abel cries out to God from trash bags in the operating room and the Doctor replies. "Who am I? my brothers keeper"

It saddens God and it should outrage us that abortion is allowed at all with this in mind. The mother can ask for and receive forgiveness for her actions, but the baby is still born into sin. The mother has lived her life, let the baby have a chance to live it's life. Any mother worth her salt would rather that the baby live over and above her own.

[ctobola]

I have no disagreement with anything you wrote, Scott.

My only comment is that when you have to deal with woman or a family in a post-abortion situation, when you find yourself being moved to violence by the abortion holocaust, when you find yourself absolutely at the end of your rope intellectually with regard to the senseless disregard for the life of the unborn... it is important to remember that God holds us all in His hands, the born and the unborn. He is indeed in control, and He can bring forgiveness and redemption in greater measure than we can even imagine.

We cannot be complacent in the face of abortion; but when we feel we are losing the battle, we can know that our Lord reigns... even when things look darkest.

In Christ, -Cloy



Cloy,

The problem I have is that these babies will never have the opportunity to be baptized and yet the parent has the opportunity to let them be born and have the opportunity. Indeed we are putting their salvation into God's grace, but the baby could be allowed to be born and put up for adoption as Dan suggests and at least have the opportunity for Baptism. THis is unlike a situation in which a child has been stillborn and there was absolutely no opportunity for the child.

How do we know that because the child was aborted that it didn't get thrown into eternal damnation on account of it's parents decision to abort?

Baptism saves and if we cut off their ability to get baptized because of our sinful desire to keep it from being born physically it also won't have the opportunity be born spiritually as well.

Their blood like that of Abel cries out to God from trash bags in the operating room and the Doctor replies. "Who am I? my brothers keeper"

It saddens God and it should outrage us that abortion is allowed at all with this in mind. The mother can ask for and receive forgiveness for her actions, but the baby is still born into sin. The mother has lived her life, let the baby have a chance to live it's life. Any mother worth her salt would rather that the baby live over and above her own.

[Protoevangel]

Unfortunately, we live in a culture that tells women that unborn babies are not really people. Our fight isn't against the poor women that have been fooled into thinking that what they do isn't really murder; and believe it or not, it isn't even against the "doctors" who do the dirty deeds. The real fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12). Or as Eugene Peterson puts it in "The Message", "This is for keeps, a life-or-death fight to the finish against the Devil and all his angels".

[ctobola]

Dan,

I agree -- and for a scared teenage girl who is pregnant and afraid to tell her parents, an abortion sounds like an easy out.

I do think that many abortion doctors are in it for the money -- there's big bucks in running an abortion clinic. Run through dozen girls a day at $500 and you're taking about serious money. That brings to mind the theme of most of the minor prophets -- the rich and powerful oppressing the poor and hopeless.

-Cloy


Unfortunately, we live in a culture that tells women that unborn babies are not really people. Our fight isn't against the poor women that have been fooled into thinking that what they do isn't really murder; and believe it or not, it isn't even against the "doctors" who do the dirty deeds. The real fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12). Or as Eugene Peterson puts it in "The Message", "This is for keeps, a life-or-death fight to the finish against the Devil and all his angels".

[AngelusSax]

How do we know that because the child was aborted that it didn't get thrown into eternal damnation on account of it's parents decision to abort?

A loving God wouldn't condemn someone to hell because of absolutely no fault of their own.

"You were aborted. Not your choice, but you couldn't be baptized... I now therefore must send you to hell because you decided not to fight the abortion hard enough."

Not the loving God Scripture shows me.

[SPALATIN]

A loving God wouldn't condemn someone to hell because of absolutely no fault of their own.

"You were aborted. Not your choice, but you couldn't be baptized... I now therefore must send you to hell because you decided not to fight the abortion hard enough."

Not the loving God Scripture shows me.

THe loving God is also a just God and by the Parents action of aborting he would have every right to condemn them. Perhaps if people had the understanding that the child they were aborting was going to hell because of the abortion that there would be less abortions.

I didn't say that he would, but that he has the right to do it because he is God. We know he is not a capricious God, but a merciful one so we know that there is a good chance that he won't condemn the aborted children, but we have to rely on his grace for this. We have no assurance that these babies that were not given the opportunity to be baptized will be allowed to heaven.

that is what I am saying.

[AngelusSax]

THe loving God is also a just God and by the Parents action of aborting he would have every right to condemn them.

What kind of Justice is it to condemn a person to hell because of someone else's actions? A very perverse and anti-Godly justice.

Obviously God can do anything he wants. But I don't believe he wants to send aborted babies to hell, since they were never given a chance to stop rejecting Him.

[Protoevangel]

What kind of Justice is it to condemn a person to hell because of someone else's actions? A very perverse and anti-Godly justice.

Obviously God can do anything he wants. But I don't believe he wants to send aborted babies to hell, since they were never given a chance to stop rejecting Him.
Hi Angelus,

The point is, it would not be because of the parent's actions. We are all sinners and deserve Hell, from the moment of our conception, it is only because of God's good and superabundant grace that any are saved. I don't understand it perfectly either, we can only understand in small part. Only God knows perfectly, and only God knows what is truly Just. That is why it is so important to walk by faith and not by sight, and to not lean to our own understanding. The fact is, we do not know the fate of the little ones (we can still hope... and we should), but we do know that we are called to defend the lives of the helpless.

[SPALATIN]

What kind of Justice is it to condemn a person to hell because of someone else's actions? A very perverse and anti-Godly justice.

Obviously God can do anything he wants. But I don't believe he wants to send aborted babies to hell, since they were never given a chance to stop rejecting Him.

I wasn't saying he would do that, but saying that he would have every right to do it. We honestly don't know the spiritual ramifications of this, but are the parents of this aborted baby repentant? There are many times that the father doesn't even know that the child was aborted until after it was completed.

To me it is Murder. I don't care what anyone thinks about womens rights to their own bodies. Women are God's creation so therefore their life is his gift to them and their bodies are created for the purpose of bearing children. I don't think it is right for any man to violate them by rape, but they compound the problem by aborting any child conceived in that violation.

[AngelusSax]

I wasn't saying he would do that, but saying that he would have every right to do it. We honestly don't know the spiritual ramifications of this, but are the parents of this aborted baby repentant? There are many times that the father doesn't even know that the child was aborted until after it was completed.

Ah, good. Yes, I agree he would have the right to do that, as he's God... he's got the right to do anything he wants. He can make time flow in reverse if he wants to.

I think we're in agreement then.

[cableguy]

Okay. Looks like most people think it's right under certain circumstances...a bit of a loaded poll. It sounds like everyone who responded agrees that the casual abortion that happens in this country is wrong. It also sounds like a lot of you aren't quite onboard with what the ELCA Social Statement on Abortion states.

So why aren't we more up in arms about this issue? If we really believe innocent life is being taken away in this country at an alarming rate in the form of abortion that is not life threatening for the mother, is it not our responsibility to stand up for that innocence?

I'm not a bomb thrower by any means, but that ELCA social statement is an abomination.

[AngelusSax]

Cableguy--

I get the feeling that there are too many instances where, if someone disagrees with a synod's statement on something, they might fight it for a season and then just leave that synod when they don't get their way in a timeframe that they want.

Perhaps if more people stayed within the synod and continued fighting that which they are opposed to, the synod would have no choice but to at LEAST reconsider, and in all likelihood they'd have to allow some sort of vote... and if enough people stayed to fight and then vote, they'd get what they wanted. May take a few more seasons than many want to give it though.

[Protoevangel]

Okay. Looks like most people think it's right under certain circumstances...a bit of a loaded poll. It sounds like everyone who responded agrees that the casual abortion that happens in this country is wrong. It also sounds like a lot of you aren't quite onboard with what the ELCA Social Statement on Abortion states.

So why aren't we more up in arms about this issue? If we really believe innocent life is being taken away in this country at an alarming rate in the form of abortion that is not life threatening for the mother, is it not our responsibility to stand up for that innocence?

I'm not a bomb thrower by any means, but that ELCA social statement is an abomination.


You are right, it was a loaded poll. I would have worded it a bit differently, but at least it got us talking!

You are also correct that it is an abomination, and it must be fought. It is a thousand times more important than the homosexual issue that is so close to making the church split.


One thing I do want to mention in response to AngelusSax.
I agree that people can tend to leave as soon as they find a problem or issue they disagree with. I absolutely despise the “church hopping” tendency so many people seem to have bought into. This is why I am still in the ELCA. Jeremiah didn’t leave the remnant even when they went down into Egypt, in direct rebellion to God's commands. On the other hand, leaving the ELCA is not necessarily the same as leaving the “Church”, and if people’s cannot, in good conscience, stay, then they should not be made to feel guilty, or have their concernes minimized because of that.
(Except if they are leaving for some neo-Evangelical church or something! ;) :D )

[IowaLutheran]

The complaint has been that the ELCA has become more of a top-down bureaucracy, which may be true, but my thought is that as long as congregations aren't required to pay a dime in benevolence to the synods or national organizations, I don't think that a local congregation should leave the ELCA because of a disagreement over a policy stance, unless it gets to the point where the local congregation and the national church agree on nothing.

[cableguy]

Cableguy--

I get the feeling that there are too many instances where, if someone disagrees with a synod's statement on something, they might fight it for a season and then just leave that synod when they don't get their way in a timeframe that they want.

Perhaps if more people stayed within the synod and continued fighting that which they are opposed to, the synod would have no choice but to at LEAST reconsider, and in all likelihood they'd have to allow some sort of vote... and if enough people stayed to fight and then vote, they'd get what they wanted. May take a few more seasons than many want to give it though.
Yeppers, I agree. I don't think I'll leave the ELCA any time soon, and I pray that I have the moral clarity to stand up for what I think is right, and stick to it. It just boggles my mind that this statement on abortion hasn't had more flak.

Does anyone know when the ELCA is going to look at this issue again? Are they ever? Is there anyone who can remember the general response toward this issue when it was first released by the ELCA leadership?


-Daniel the Cable Guy

[saami]

Okay. Looks like most people think it's right under certain circumstances...a bit of a loaded poll. It sounds like everyone who responded agrees that the casual abortion that happens in this country is wrong. It also sounds like a lot of you aren't quite onboard with what the ELCA Social Statement on Abortion states.

So why aren't we more up in arms about this issue? If we really believe innocent life is being taken away in this country at an alarming rate in the form of abortion that is not life threatening for the mother, is it not our responsibility to stand up for that innocence?

I'm not a bomb thrower by any means, but that ELCA social statement is an abomination.



The ELCA statement is a hard document because it tries to walk the middle of the road, teaching about the sactity of life of mother and child, and recognizing the mother's right to self defence of health, and perhaps even economic health.

Lutherans are fighting casual abortion, we have the largest adoption service through the LSS network, add to that local programs. In Minnesota - a very Lutheran state - the abortion number in 2004 was 13,000 - the lowest in 30+ years. REJOICE!

Now lets go back to work - saving one mother at a time. Jerry Jenkins (Left Behind author) said it well - [paraphrased] Until we value mothers as much as babies we will not save the unborn.

Lutheran nations (church and state work together) like Sweden have legal abortion but VERY LOW rates. Other nations that have illegal abortion in all or most cases have very much higher rates of abortions. Lets do what works.

[Protoevangel]

Until we value mothers as much as babies we will not save the unborn.
Who dosen't? :scratch:

If someone said it was moral and right to murder mothers (under any circumstance), I would be just as outraged! To my own shame, I might be even more outraged.

What is being obfuscated is that what is being talked about is not valuing the mothers as much as the babies, but instead, valuing "choice" and economic status over life itself.

[KagomeShuko]

The ELCA statement is a hard document because it tries to walk the middle of the road, teaching about the sactity of life of mother and child, and recognizing the mother's right to self defence of health, and perhaps even economic health.

Lutherans are fighting casual abortion, we have the largest adoption service through the LSS network, add to that local programs. In Minnesota - a very Lutheran state - the abortion number in 2004 was 13,000 - the lowest in 30+ years. REJOICE!

Now lets go back to work - saving one mother at a time. Jerry Jenkins (Left Behind author) said it well - [paraphrased] Until we value mothers as much as babies we will not save the unborn.

Lutheran nations (church and state work together) like Sweden have legal abortion but VERY LOW rates. Other nations that have illegal abortion in all or most cases have very much higher rates of abortions. Lets do what works.

I know the position of most ELCAers is that of which has been stated. Abortion isn't right unless the mother's life is definitely at risk.

However, I think the social statement could've been written better than what it does state, especially when what we've written is the view of most ELCAers.

{I was not happy with our past interim pastor for a few reasons, and one of them was her views on abortion: she also stated it was okay if the child was going to be mentally retarded or physically handicapped and I certainly do not agree with such a thing!}

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ByzantineDixie]

Just curious...is this discussion still allowed here? Or does it now need to go to that special designated forum?

[setmefree]

My views.

Legal but extremely limited.

1.The U.S. has got a major hang up on welfare and socialized medicine. If given the choice of aborting a baby or having the mother and baby get good health care at the cost of the tax payer I will take the latter any day.
Come to think of it. If half the money the Pro and Anti crowd spend on politicians and TV ads actually went to helping pregnant mothers there may not be a tax burden.:scratch:
2. Reform the legal system so adoption is permanent. Make it almost impossible for the birth mother to change their minds after giving the baby up.

My older sister and her husband chose to a adopt kids from Russia for this very reason.( Niki and Anya are great kids btw 8 and 9 and speak fluent Russian, French and English):clap:

They consulted a lawyer to look at the laws all over Canada and the U.S. The bottom line is a birth mother can very often get her baby back even after years of being with adoptive parents. What adoptive parents would want to go through that gut wrenching experience?

My younger sister (43) got pregnant totally unexpectedly last year. From the start they were told the baby would not make it to full term and there may be defects.

Jade was born 15 weeks early and weighed under 3lbs. She also has a Cleft Palette.

Now at 8 months old she is a true blessing from God.:amen: Cute as a button too :D
She is having the 1st of 3 operations on her mouth next month so any prayers would be appreciated.:prayer:
keith

[pmcleanj]

This thread will not be re-opened, unless the decision is made to move it to the new Denomination-Specific subforum of Christian Philosophy and Ethics (http://www.christianforums.com/f538-denomination-specific-ethics.html) .

Abortion is one of the "controversial topics" specified in section 4.2 of the CF rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) and as with all the controversial topics explicitely listed in rule 4.2, it may be discussed only in Philosophy and Morality (http://www.christianforums.com/f40-philosophy-morality.html) , Liberal Theology (http://www.christianforums.com/f119-liberal-theology.html) , or Christian Philosophy and Ethics (http://www.christianforums.com/f459-christian-philosophy-ethics.html) -- and must comply with the special rules of those forums.

Anyone who wishes to continue the discussion of the ELCA's policy on abortion, may begin a thread on that topic in Christian Philosophy and Ethics (http://www.christianforums.com/f538-denomination-specific-ethics.html).

Regards,
Pamela