My church's position on abortion
Apr. 12th, 2009 05:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
twirlgrrlI was researching my church's doctrines on other issues today and came across their position statement on abortion. I've thought about posting it before but finally decided to today.
I think people have a hard time integrating the fact that I belong to a conservative church, one that can be considered fundamentalist (in the sense of Biblical interpretation, not in the evangelical/"religious right" sense--we don't do that stuff.) I understand why this is confounding, and if you've read my LJ for any length of time you will probably know why I don't consider myself exactly orthodox or mainstream SDA. To say the least! LOL. New people, don't ditch me yet!
But I think that this position statement on abortion illustrates something about my church. I consider the church entity a scholarly, reasoned, precise and individualistic concern. There is no one between the individual believer and God; there is no confession; there is a lot more room than most people (even most members) realize for individual interpretation of one's own spiritual path. It's very Protestant that way. Adventists are known for things like lifestyle restrictions, but these are not heaven-or-hell rules, they are guidelines, and they are not intrusively enforced. For instance, Adventists are advised to be vegetarians, but I'd bet that the majority are not, and no one is going to go to hell for eating whatever s/he wants. I find it fascinating how adept the official church language often is when advocating a conservative lifestyle without advocating any particular political position.
(For the Adventists and/or former Adventists reading this, I'm talking about my experience exploring church doctrine on paper, not my experience with actual members of the church. I'm well aware that a lot of them get this all horribly wrong. Also, I can think of at least one other position statement that I'm not so enamored of, but I think they're probably wrong about that one.)
OK, well, anyway, here is the statement excerpt I'm talking about. Notice that every word was carefully chosen, and notice what is NOT said.
--------------
Abortion: The SDA takes a position between the strict pro-life and strict pro-choice alternatives. A set of "Guidelines on Abortion" was approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee on 1992-OCT-12. It says in part:
"The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. 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. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships."
---------------
Isn't that interesting? I don't think it would please either a pro-life person OR a pro-choice person entirely.
There's a lot of interweb craziness out there about SDAs, and I can't get the site that I trust to come up, so I can't quote the rest of the statement right now. But I remember that it emphasizes love and support to the woman who has to make such an unfortunate decision. The whole thing is kindof like "Yeah, abortion is a bummer, and we'd rather that it didn't have to happen at all, but if it does happen it's a private thing, and the woman facing the decision needs support." There's nothing about politics, or laws, or hell, or kicking anyone out of the church. And "not condoned" is not the harshest thing they could have said about abortions "of convenience." Y'know?
I'm interested in the thoughts of anyone who wishes to express them, but I recognize that this is a very sensitive subject and I didn't post this to start any fights. So I'm screening comments. If you choose to comment let me know if you want it unscreened, otherwise it will stay screened.
I think people have a hard time integrating the fact that I belong to a conservative church, one that can be considered fundamentalist (in the sense of Biblical interpretation, not in the evangelical/"religious right" sense--we don't do that stuff.) I understand why this is confounding, and if you've read my LJ for any length of time you will probably know why I don't consider myself exactly orthodox or mainstream SDA. To say the least! LOL. New people, don't ditch me yet!
But I think that this position statement on abortion illustrates something about my church. I consider the church entity a scholarly, reasoned, precise and individualistic concern. There is no one between the individual believer and God; there is no confession; there is a lot more room than most people (even most members) realize for individual interpretation of one's own spiritual path. It's very Protestant that way. Adventists are known for things like lifestyle restrictions, but these are not heaven-or-hell rules, they are guidelines, and they are not intrusively enforced. For instance, Adventists are advised to be vegetarians, but I'd bet that the majority are not, and no one is going to go to hell for eating whatever s/he wants. I find it fascinating how adept the official church language often is when advocating a conservative lifestyle without advocating any particular political position.
(For the Adventists and/or former Adventists reading this, I'm talking about my experience exploring church doctrine on paper, not my experience with actual members of the church. I'm well aware that a lot of them get this all horribly wrong. Also, I can think of at least one other position statement that I'm not so enamored of, but I think they're probably wrong about that one.)
OK, well, anyway, here is the statement excerpt I'm talking about. Notice that every word was carefully chosen, and notice what is NOT said.
--------------
Abortion: The SDA takes a position between the strict pro-life and strict pro-choice alternatives. A set of "Guidelines on Abortion" was approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee on 1992-OCT-12. It says in part:
"The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. 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. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships."
---------------
Isn't that interesting? I don't think it would please either a pro-life person OR a pro-choice person entirely.
There's a lot of interweb craziness out there about SDAs, and I can't get the site that I trust to come up, so I can't quote the rest of the statement right now. But I remember that it emphasizes love and support to the woman who has to make such an unfortunate decision. The whole thing is kindof like "Yeah, abortion is a bummer, and we'd rather that it didn't have to happen at all, but if it does happen it's a private thing, and the woman facing the decision needs support." There's nothing about politics, or laws, or hell, or kicking anyone out of the church. And "not condoned" is not the harshest thing they could have said about abortions "of convenience." Y'know?
I'm interested in the thoughts of anyone who wishes to express them, but I recognize that this is a very sensitive subject and I didn't post this to start any fights. So I'm screening comments. If you choose to comment let me know if you want it unscreened, otherwise it will stay screened.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 01:38 am (UTC)I actually find their stance fairly progressive, in the grand scheme of things. I would be shocked if there was a church doctrine (in ANY church) that supported the right to choose for any reason, so I can't say that I am disappointed that this doctrine doesn't. What I do like is that they say that women facing this decision need support and love, not condemnation. I think that is a very loving stance.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 01:46 am (UTC)I do think that the tone of the thing is in the eye of the beholder, though. I'm sure that many people (SDAs who are staunchly pro-life or secular people who were determined to cast SDAs as right wing fundies) would come away thinking that the text specified that abortion was only acceptable in the case of rape, incest, terrible congenital defects or the health of the mother, and that the woman should yield to the opinion of her family.
(Also, I have no idea what the tone of the Baptist or Catholic Church is on the subject on paper...is this careful positioning unusual?)
I don't mind being unscreened.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 11:49 am (UTC)I had no idea you were SDA. Of course, it makes no difference to me as I like you because of *you*. I am fascinated by different religions and probably would have drilled you by now had I known ;)
My feelings about abortion do not differ all that much from what your church believes. I am personally pro life in that if in a situation where I was faced with a pg that would result in a child with *issues* or was a product of rape...I would not terminate. This does not mean I would be able to keep a child of rape, but a child with medical/physical challenges...I believe children choose their birth parents for a reason. If I got pg. 'by accident' well, shame on me for not taking appropriate precautions.
Politically, I am pro-choice. I do NOT believe anyone has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Though *I* do not believe in abortion, does not mean I will judge or force my beliefs on another. We all have to make the decisions that are right for us, and then we have to live with those choices. That is between you, your concious and your Higher Power.
:)