The reason religion is so powerful

[John 6IX Breezy]

If I'm reading this correctly it appears that the 'concern' should be directed at the existing life and not the potential life.

Section 4 appears to be the most relevant portion, and the one I agree with the most. Particularly, but not limited to, the initial sentence:

"The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals..."

Which is evident given that I've never been asked to read or abide by these guidelines, which I presume are directed towards our hospitals. There also appears to be an update to the 1992 statement coming up, but I'm not sure if it's available yet:

https://www.adventistreview.org/church-n...n-abortion

[The Grand Nudger]

A person seeking an abortion needs a doctor, not the moral guidance of your silly church.

Your grievance is a religious disagreement. It is not subject to rational argumentation because it is not a rational product. It's a declarative statement of your notions of the sacred and the taboo.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Right; because statements such as "I have no issues with abortion being justified under some scenarios but not under others" are self-evidently not rational, born out of religious taboo lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, John, statements like.....

4) The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance.

.....make it manifestly and explicitly clear that the product of such guidance is a religious belief. This is a thread about the power of religious belief, your comments in thread have been a running example of it.

It continued, ofc, very bluntly and very explicitly - very much aware and clear of it's own claims. Elective abortions are verboten. Taboo. The Big Bad. Not To Be Done. Because God, full stop. If a person believes that we shouldn't kill babies because god, no debate or argument or evidence or proof or disproof about human rights, or concern for women, or even concern for children, will or even could approach it. It's not about that. The only relevant aspect of the act in a religiously predicated moral schema is that it is stands against the sacred. That is it's bad-making property.

The fetus is sacred, the mothers bodily autonomy is not.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Its a church—of course its religious. And individuals are free to seek its guidance or to reject it; that isn't a power dynamic. I've had some of the best pro-choice/pro-life debates with fellow Adventists, which can be found on either side of the political aisle.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Most of the time pregnancy and birth are the natural consequences of voluntarily* engaging in reproductive activities. No intervening force is required to interrupt the progression of events following the choice to be sexually active. Surgically removing a human being requires active force to intervene and avoid those consequences. So no. "Forced birth" is a perverse term because birth is what happens without the intervening violence of abortion.

*with notable exceptional circumstances like rape that deserve special consideration. I'm not ignoring it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Its a church—of course its religious. And individuals are free to seek its guidance or to reject it; that isn't a power dynamic. I've had some of the best pro-choice/pro-life debates with fellow Adventists, which can be found on either side of the aisle.

Yes..indeed, and yet you just had to see if it might be arguable, huh?  Now that we've found our baseline.  You are concerned that abortion is a violation of the sacred.  What fact or argument or debate could possibly convince you that your position on the violation of the sacred is wrong...? It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that can be wrong, as a declarative statement about what is right.

As to the natural consequences of voluntary acts...I seem to recall having had a hell of alot more sex than babies - is your experience different Neo? The natural product appears to be fun. A child is not a consequence to be draped around a persons neck as we tut tut over their voluntarism. Forced birth, is exactly what you will need to do to stop abortions. You will have to prevent women, somehow, from having abortions. They will try themselves, and do, at home, to gruesome consequences..since we're really concerned with consequences. This will be the consequence of the forced birth position, a necessity of violent intervention informed by your belief that a child should be the consequence of sex....and that, my friend, has nothing to do with nature.

It sounds perverse..because it is perverse, and was perverse..and we don't want to do it again..or, at least...some of us don't. Others believe, instead..that their silly churches should provide moral guidance.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You are concerned that abortion is a violation of the sacred.  What fact or argument or debate could possibly convince you that your position on the violation of the sacred is wrong...?

If I have raised such a concern, quote me. To the contrary, I have said: "We are not slaves to rules—even the Bible asks us to break them when better outcomes can be achieved (e.g. Jesus healing on the Sabbath, or David eating bread from the Temple)."

In case you're unaware, both the Sabbath and the bread from the Temple were considered sacred.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you not concerned that abortion is a violation of the sacred?

I recall a story about a rooster crowing.

[John 6IX Breezy]

"The fetus is sacred, the mothers bodily autonomy is not."

"Are you not concerned that abortion is a violation of the sacred?"

Christians regard life as sacred—that encompasses the life of the child as well as the mother. Note how this is reflected in my statements:

"Abortion (like most things in life) is a complex system with many moving and interacting parts. To simplify things into such absolute, one-sided, all-or-nothing terms is almost certainly to get it wrong. Every variable affected by an abortion ought to be accounted for and understood before ascribing ultimate value and importance to a single aspect."