Yes I know. I read it last week. This is the part that I find unacceptable:
“The Salvation Army recognizes tragic and perplexing circumstances that require difficult decisions regarding a pregnancy. Decisions should be made only after prayerful and thoughtful consideration, acknowledging the tremendous pressures that occur during an unexpected pregnancy. There is a responsibility on all involved to give the parents of the unborn child, particularly the woman, appropriate pastoral, medical and other counsel. The Salvation Army believes that termination can occur only when
Carrying the pregnancy further seriously threatens the life of the mother; or
Reliable diagnostic procedures have identified a foetal abnormality considered incompatible with survival for more than a very brief post natal period.
In addition, rape and incest are brutal acts of dominance violating women physically and emotionally. This situation represents a special case for the consideration of termination as the violation may be compounded by the continuation of the pregnancy.”
So basically, the SA is pro-choice. They have sugar-coated it a bit, but that’s the bottom line.
Thanks for the confirmation. No more money for the Salvation Army.
The phrase saying that abortion is OK if the baby “threatens the health of the mother” is precisely the phrase that NARAL and Planned Parenthood came up with when they first pushed abortion on demand on an unsuspecting populace. It turns out that that includes the mother’s “mental health.” So, if the prospect of having a baby might make her feel bad, go ahead and abort it.
NARAL is a bit more open about it now, but I’m afraid that the Salvation Army is now on the same page with them.
I would agree. However, I know people who hold these positions who consider themselves pro-life.
The abortions listed are about 1-2% of all abortions.
I can see no reason to kill the baby because the mother’s life is allegedly at stake. My understanding is most issues do not occur to effect the mother don’t occur until after 25 weeks, so why not deliver the baby and try to save them, rather than kill them.
As far as rape and incest, the baby is innocent of the crimes of the father, why should that be a death sentence for the child.
Babies that will not live long after birth should be killed why? how about old ladies and men who will not live much longer due to alcoholism, drug abuse, obesity, etc. Should we spare the country the additional cost of their healthcare by terminating theirs lives early?
I would agree to terminating the life of the person who committed these acts of rape and incest but I do not understand why an inncent baby should be put to death.
It appears that the Salvation Army is now just a fund raising organization and has gotten away from the salavation. I would think that salvation of the innocent and infirm what they were all about. Now, it appears that they are just another lefty organization. How sad.
So basically, to you, Jesus didn't need to come at all. He might have sugar-coated the Ten Commandments a little bit, but they're still the bottom line. Fail, go to hell. What else does God need? The rest of that love and forgiveness stuff is just fuzzy liberal thinking.
Go get em', tiger.
That kind of statement wraps a mantle of prayer around killing a pre-born baby. If someone prays and then kills a pre-born baby, they were praying to their own murderousness.
acknowledging the tremendous pressures that occur during an unexpected pregnancy.
That is the "society must have made her do it" path that way too many pro-lifers race down via their refusal to acknowledge the moral culpability of adult women who walk into abortion clinics and sign their names to make the abortion happen.