Adventists, Abortion, and Principled Integrity

Camarillo, Ca.

You know that rock formation you see in all the commercials, where a car (name almost any make) is driving along a sweeping curve of the PCH, with a mountain to its right and the ocean on the driver’s side?

That’s Point Magoo which was about 15 minutes from the apartment we rented.


It really is difficult to overstate the beauty of the place, the weather and the available distractions all with in driving distance,

But then again the guy who said “getting there is half the fun” never tried to get from our place to Mount Palomar (or any place, for that matter) on a Saturday morning!!!


I’ll also finish with this: My daughter is a ballet instructor who learned to dance and then started her own, technique-oriented studio in Virginia. So the transition from that to teaching competition-focused dance in a place where most of the dance moms are on some sort of medication (either physician or self prescribed) and virtually all of whom are convinced that their child is an undiscovered Shirley Temple, did nothing to endear her to the state and more specifically, the suburbs of LA!

We have been given a wonderful and dangerous gift - the freedom to choose.

AND we have been encouraged to pray “Thy will be done.”

Who is your god?

How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God follow him, but if Baal is God follow him.

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee? It is to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.

The big public debate right now is about a woman’s right to choose abortion and many related questions and issues. Obviously the unborn child cannot choose.

I am going to upset many on both sides when I offer my opinion.

I believe God (the Creator) has given all of us the right to choose. We can choose to follow Him or we can choose to follow a different god.

Our choices have consequences.

It is easy for some of us to think we know best for everyone else. We are ready to judge others from our experiential thrones.

I have been reminded right here in this public forum that I do not have a uterus. Therefore, I should keep my opinions to myself.


We really do live in a complicated world. “One size” does not fit all.

I believe women really do have a right to choose. I am not going to judge their individual choices.

We are each invited into a personal one on one relationship with God. He is clearly pro-life in a world where everyone dies. He could remove death with the snap of His divine fingers, but He respects our right (God given right) to choose.

How should we deal with the complexities of pregnancy? Rape, incest, serious birth defects …?

What will happen if we outlaw and criminalize abortions? What will be the consequences? What will desperate women do? What will frightened and shamed teenage girls do?

He who is without sin, throw the first stone. I can give my opinion, but I am not without sin.

Jesus was without sin and chose to not throw stones or even to accuse. He chose to continue to love.

We are called to leave our sinful choices behind. We are not called to judge the deep and personal battles that others fight.

Who is your god? Even if you are an atheist, you have a god. Your god is the person or power or philosophy that you acknowledge as the ultimate authority in your life.

Perhaps your god is YOU. Perhaps it is the group think of a political power or a human religious leader. Perhaps it is the pursuit of financial independence.

We all have a god! Who or what will we follow?

And Jesus said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”

Once again I acknowledge that I have more questions than answers. My prayer is simple, “God, help me to see your WAY.”


To everyone who keeps bringing up the constitution when discussing abortion,
you do realize, I hope, that this document was written when women were considered property, they couldn’t vote, they couldn’t hold public office, they weren’t allowed education, they couldn’t even own property in many parts of the country. Women were powerless to have any input into what happened to their own bodies.

It is simply something that is often overlooked in this discussion. It also points out how Alito’s comments about it not being in the constitution are totally bogus. Too bad that many of you probably missed the SNL opening piece. It made the point far better than I could.

Like I said earlier, Ben Franklin published a how to perform a chemically induced abortion in a book he wrote. So, it was something that was discussed at the time. The irony was that women, in many parts of the country, were not allowed to even be educated, so they could not even read this how-to piece. It does demonstrate that highly intelligent people like Franklin, understood the importance of the issue.

The whole idea of using the constitution to espouse principals that were based on scientific principles that were completely unavailable at the time, applying them to what we know factually today, is the height of absurdity. But the principal argument against overturning Row vs Wade is still the fact that most of the people voting on or adjudicating this issue are old men, who will never have to actually deal with it because, thank God, they were not given the ability to become pregnant.


Thank you for this presentation. I must admit I am surprised that this topic is still being discussed on a piece about abortion, but so be it.
It was such a good rundown on California that I saved it in my documents.

Jon Stewart presented a piece a few years ago about the taker states and the provider states, this is those states that supply more money to the federal government than they get back and those that get back more money than they give. Most BLUE states are provider states and most RED states are taker states. This is well documented. I wish I had saved the actual statistics, but I am sure it’s online somewhere. A simple fact is that states who take better care of all of their constituents, most importantly their under-privileged, are more productive and better self-sustaining than those who don’t take as good care of their under-privileged.

1 Like

Maybe I missed a memo but I thought Jesus frowned on pharisaic stuff….

Good points on abortion, though.

I suspect if pregnancy were something that could happen to menopausal “church ladies” or old white guys like me there’d be a lot less interest in allowing the government to decide the best course of action….



No need for tears… except tears of laughter!

1 Like

I worked up some charts on this very topic a few years ago. The reporting and data is a little old now, but I doubt much has changed:


Next time you hear one of the Republican delegates from these states in Washington decrying ‘pork belly’ and ‘government spending’ and ‘government handouts’, remember they’re from a state that mooches off the Federal teat - which is paid for by the giver states. Which are mostly blue.

Note that the way the math works New Mexico looks like a big taker, but that is because it has such a huge military presence in the state and a relatively small population.


Maybe we should get a tax cut and they should pay more?

The problem with that is they are also the poorest states:


Oh, and also the least educated states:



For once we agree…

Thanks timteichman, that is exactly what I was looking for. I have saved that in my documents as well.



And yes, I admit this is way off topic.

But you and Jon Stewart have a different definition for “giving” than mine.

I call paying taxes “rendering to Caesar” while you prefer to think of it as a “donation”.

If it somehow makes you feel more noble, or holier than those reprehensible citizens in the stereotypical red states, that you consistently vote to play Robin Hood by taxing the rich and “giving” to the poor, that’s your self righteousness interpretation.

But I still see your citation of “cherry-picked” statistics as being intentionally polarizing, disparaging of those “takers” whom you ostensibly “only want to help”, and as pharisaic as @Lindy ‘s previous comment.

IOW, just as you are unimpressed by a four year old Forbes article, I find an even older report by an avowed partisan such as Jon Stewart utterly laughable and hopelessly biased.

Also, I’m sure Uncle Sam and Gavin Newsome don’t see your “gift” of paying taxes as being in any way voluntary which means that it is not, by definition, a gift! In fact, I suspect their definition of taxes is much closer to mine than yours.


But once more, Lindy is right. The topic was Adventism and abortion. I’m not SDA, have voluntarily recused myself from commenting on abortion for the reasons cited previously and am not overly interested in disputes about something as inevitable as taxes. So again I’m an idiot who acknowledges that he doesn’t know anything for certain and admit it was unpardonably wrong for me to say anything in this thread. Thus, I repeat my intention to respectfully bow out of the conversation in the interest of that third topic mentioned in the name of the article; “principled integrity”.

What? Well… no. I’ve no idea where you got that.

I think you’re pushing the limits of incivility allowed here.

I didn’t cherry pick anything. I never wrote that I wanted to help anyone.

That’s fine. I didn’t base anything on anything Jon said.

I didn’t refer to anything as a gift, nor do I see taxes as a gift. Not sure where you got that idea.

1 Like

indeed. Why dad had a beach house a couple of miles from here, on the coast. When he died we foolishly told it! But I did enjoy it for many years.

But you can! Just go to Mexico, and take asylum across the border! Millions have done, clamoring to enter this country of systemic racism. Baffles me. But a little swim gets you across to Texas. I assume you can swim?

This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.