Abortion and the ELCA

[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! )

 

[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?

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.
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)

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. Cute as a button too
She is having the 1st of 3 operations on her mouth next month so any prayers would be appreciated.
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 .

Abortion is one of the "controversial topics" specified in section 4.2 of the CF rules and as with all the controversial topics explicitely listed in rule 4.2, it may be discussed only in Philosophy and Morality , Liberal Theology , or Christian Philosophy and Ethics -- 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.

Regards,
Pamela