Pro-Abortion still on the aganda!!!

[Overaged]

Given this official contrast one can only conclude that the church considers the destruction of a perfectly healthy unborn human being of less moral consequence than the dusting of a six pack of Miller Lite!If ,in fact,they knew elective abortion was murder, then why did they recommend that whether to murder or not should be a decision best made within the context of a healthy family relationship? Does anyone have difficulty understanding where the SDA founders stood on this issue? Why is it out of line to question why our present "guidelines" are lacking the same clarity?

Maybe if you were to put it all in a more accuarate perspective; it wouldn't be so "wrong" to question. Maybe if this whole thing were in a more realistic perspective; guys like you & Nic would be spending twice this much energy opposing ones like Alice Cooper, who has for years sang his "famous song" about how "Dead Babies Can't Take Things Off The Shelves."

I have never seen such blame fired where it doesn't even belong. I still think the Church's approach to abortions is quite sound, and that because you and Nic have not said a word about where the real root of the problem actually is. Since you have been totally silent in opposition to Alice Cooper, then, going by Nic's and your own rules, you are guilty of supporting and promoting murder. This is exactly what Nic is trying to do to the Church; and so far, neither he or anyone that supports him has made one itota of sense.

[aldona]

Quote:

I do think a local church body would be justified in disciplining a member that uses abortion for choosing the sex of the child, birth control or convenience.

Do you think that if a church member had an abortion, for any of these reasons or any other reason, that the church board or anybody else would have the slightest idea?

Nobody announces even a normal pregnancy before 3-4 months in case something goes wrong. Most abortions are performed well before this time. The church would not even have a clue that the church member was pregnant. And she would not be stupid enough to tell anybody "hey folks, guess what - I was pregnant, but we decided that we could not cope with another child so I went ahead and had an abortion."

Anyway, the church board would be too busy disciplining her friend - the church member who got pregnant out of wedlock and decided NOT to have an abortion.

AJ

[Nic Samojluk]

I believe that the person who said this about Wilson should have said what else he said about this subject, instead of lifting one sentence out and making it say this. Context would likely shed a whole new light on that person's comment.

Here is what Neal Wilson said in its proper context:

*********

The Wisdom of Solomon”?

by George Gainer

Responding to David Larson’s call for papers on abortion, George Gainer wrote a pro-life document dealing with abortion entitled “The Wisdom of Solomon?” It was presented at the “Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options” conference on abortion held in Loma Linda in November, 1988.

The total number of documents presented on said occasion was 36, but only sixteen of those were included in the book edited by David Larson bearing the same title as the conference. Gainers submission was not included, [33] but eventually Spectrum Magazine published an abridged version of Gainer’s article [34] in 1989.

Gainer started his article with the story of a non-Adventist pastor and his wife who were in search of a Christian physician and landed in the office of a Takoma Park, Maryland, Seventh-day Adventist obstetrician who, after confirming the woman’s pregnancy, asked the couple: “Do you want this baby or do you want an abortion?” The pastor and his wife looked at each other with shock and disbelief. They got up, said “We are sorry. We must be in the wrong place!” and walked out.

Responding to a question from his audience in which he related this incidence, the pastor made the following statement: “I am sorry to tell you that the Seventh-day Adventists are aborting hundreds of babies in their hospitals.” Six months later, a Washington Adventist Hospital [WAH] nurse complained to Gainer: “Some doctors treat us like their own private abortion clinic.”

This was confirmed by a Washington Post report claiming that 1494 abortions had been performed between 1975 and 1982 at the WAH according to information provided by the SDA hospital. The article was prompted by a pro-life manifestation in front of the Sligo Church and the WAH.

Gainer’s investigation into the SDA position on abortion revealed that a great step towards the liberalization of abortion had taken place in Hawaii, following the repeal of the State’s abortion laws in 1970. Castle Memorial Hospital [CMH], an SDA institution, had previously performed therapeutic abortions when pregnancy was the result of rape, incest, or when there was a threat to the physical or mental health of the patient.

Shortly after the repeal of the abortion prohibition was passed by the State of Hawaii, a man who had donated $25,000 for the construction of the hospital came demanding that the hospital perform an elective abortion for his 16-year-old daughter. He produced the copy of a brochure that read as follows: “This hospital will be a full service hospital and will provide every service that is needed by the residents of the community.”

The hospital administrator contacted the office of the Pacific Union, and the query eventually reached the General Conference in Washington. It was discovered that the SDA church had no official position on the abortion issue, and the hospital decided to issue a temporary ruling allowing elective abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Soon after the General Conference officers appointed a committee to study the abortion issue, and on March 17, 1970, Neal C. Wilson, the President of the North American Division made a public statement announcing that the church would neither promote nor support the legalization of abortion, with the following clarification: “Though we walk the fence, SDA’s lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted with big problems of hunger and over-population, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population.” [35]

On May of the same year the General Conference officers approved the “Suggestive Guidelines for Therapeutic Abortions,” but the plan to submit this to a vote by the 1970 General Conference session was dropped.

Some felt that the guidelines were not liberal enough, and thought that the right solution was to allow SDA hospitals to provide abortion on demand. The pressure came from half a dozen non-Adventists CMH physicians, and the hospital administrator feared that those doctors would likely take their patients to other competing hospitals in the event they were not allowed to perform said abortions on demand at CMH, which would mean a loss of revenue for CMH.

He also felt that the SDA hospital should align their policies with the wishes of the community–which had contributed approximately one million dollars to the hospital–and the laws of the state.

He had one problem, though: the rest of the doctors at the hospital were opposed to the liberalization of the abortion policies, for which reason he finally appealed to the General Conference requesting for a ruling on the matter. Several committees studied the problem and much confusion ensued. The result was that during the rest of 1970 and 1971 two divergent versions of the guidelines on abortion were circulating, and each hospital was allowed to interpret those guidelines at wish, which allowed CMH to offer abortion on demand.

The stricter version of the guidelines was used for public consumption, and the liberalized version for the use of the SDA hospitals. “Not until 1986 did any church publication print for church members the more permissive 1971 guidelines.” After citing several pro-life quotations on abortion by SDA pioneers such as James White, J.N. Andrews, and John Henry Kellogg, [36] George Gainer ended his article with the following comment:

The difference in the position on abortion between the founders of Adventism and our present policy, and the difference, all too often, between our policy and actual practice in our Adventist hospitals understandably leads to a rising concern among a growing number of Adventists. Should a church that claims to “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” continue to remain confused or even neutral about abortion? Perhaps a sign carried by a protester in front of Sligo Seventh-day Adventist Church on October 5, 1985, sums up the urgency of this issue for the church. It read: “Adventists–Remember the Sixth Commandment too!”

[34]George Gainer, ““The Wisdom of Solomon”?” Spectrum 19/4 (May 1989): 38-46. Accessed from http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/issue/vol_19_no_4_may_1989 on 18 Oct. 2010.

http://letsfocusonlife.com/?page_id=733

[John317]

...Gainer started his article with the story of a non-Adventist pastor and his wife who were in search of a Christian physician and landed in the office of a Takoma Park, Maryland, Seventh-day Adventist obstetrician who, after confirming the woman’s pregnancy, asked the couple: Do you want this baby or do you want an abortion? The pastor and his wife looked at each other with shock and disbelief. They got up, said We are sorry. We must be in the wrong place! and walked out.

I had exactly that same experience when my wife and I went to a public, non-SDA clinic. As soon as they confirmed my wife's pregnancy, the very next question was whether my wife wanted an abortion. I was shocked for the doctor to ask us that same question, so I can imagine how much more shocked I would be if an SDA doctor asked me that. My 22 year old daughter and her husband are really glad that we accepted her and didn't throw her in the trash with all the other aborted babies.

If people could see a picture of all the dead babies after the day's abortions, they would feel sick and there'd be no more need to tell them how horrible abortions are. And there'd also be no more denial that they are babies.

Once, at a debate on abortion during the early 70s at a university, the pro-life side simply showed slides of dead babies who'd been aborted, and you could have heard a pin drop. My side-- pro-choice-- never even got back up when our turn came for rebuttal. There was no use. Even they realized there was something wrong defending what we saw in those trash cans. What were words against the reality, which no one felt like denying after seeing those dead bodies, at least one of which I remember still had its thumb in its mouth.

[Overaged]

Once again Nic; you are only quoting sympathizing sources, basically your own material, and you are not giving evidence of any official church teaching or guidelines. Spectrum publishes lots of "annotated" materials, and until you learn to put your ideas in accurate perspective with official church teachings; you can't be taken seriously in anything you are trying to accomplish.

[Overaged]

Gainer's "story" is anecdotal at best; it is not "evidence" of official church teaching or guideline.

[Dr. Shane]

Do you think that if a church member had an abortion, for any of these reasons or any other reason, that the church board or anybody else would have the slightest idea?

Private sin can be dealt with privately. Public sin is that which requires the church to act. If no one has the slightest idea, than there is no reason for the church to act.

However it is a mistake to think that no one would have the slightest idea. There are those that do not believe abortion is wrong. I had a married friend whose wife decided to abort their fourth child because they were not going to have four children. It was no secret. She didn't think she did anything wrong. (They were not Adventists) If that sort of scenario were to happen within the church, administering discipline would be appropriate.

[Tammy]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

...Gainer started his article with the story of a non-Adventist pastor and his wife who were in search of a Christian physician and landed in the office of a Takoma Park, Maryland, Seventh-day Adventist obstetrician who, after confirming the woman’s pregnancy, asked the couple: Do you want this baby or do you want an abortion? The pastor and his wife looked at each other with shock and disbelief. They got up, said We are sorry. We must be in the wrong place! and walked out.

I had exactly that same experience when my wife and I went to a public, non-SDA clinic. As soon as they confirmed my wife's pregnancy, the very next question was whether my wife wanted an abortion. I was shocked for the doctor to ask us that same question, so I can imagine how much more shocked I would be if an SDA doctor asked me that. My 22 year old daughter and her husband are really glad that we accepted her and didn't throw her in the trash with all the other aborted babies.

If people could see a picture of all the dead babies after the day's abortions, they would feel sick and there'd be no more need to tell them how horrible abortions are. And there'd also be no more denial that they are babies.

Once, at a debate on abortion during the early 70s at a university, the pro-life side simply showed slides of dead babies who'd been aborted, and you could have heard a pin drop. My side-- pro-choice-- never even got back up when our turn came for rebuttal. There was no use. Even they realized there was something wrong defending what we saw in those trash cans. What were words against the reality, which no one felt like denying after seeing those dead bodies, at least one of which I remember still had its thumb in its mouth.

Thank you for sharing your testimony, John 3:17. I do believe pictures are far more powerful than words....

The picture on our brochure speaks volumes....

Abortion & The SDA Church Brochure

[Overaged]

No body is defending what's in those trash cans. And not everyone sees the Church as "neutral" on this issue either. The offshoot "ministry" you linked to for the brochure has been around for a while with their special brand of truth - like so many others. I just did a preliminary check of some of their quotes in their abortion brochure, it gets pretty interesting to see them in proper context instead of their biased views. It's easy to do what they do and make the testimonies or Bible say what they want. No one here has been able to show any convincing evidence that the church supports murder/abortion, unless it is somehow connected to or affiliated with Nic and what he is trying to do in his smear campaign.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The picture on our brochure speaks volumes....

Abortion & The SDA Church Brochure

That picture on your "brochure" - or the explanation for it - must be contrived. Saline does NOT burn skin!!!! Have you been in the ocean lately? Did it burn your skin?

The ocean itself has a salinity of roughly 35% (35 g/L). Saline solutions given by IV in the hospital are 0.9% at the maximum.

Scientific experiments can be done with approximately 58g/L. I've spilled it on myself. It didn't burn me.

Abortions caused by saline solution occur because the saline promotes contractions.

http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/pregnancy/weeklypregcalendar/index2.php

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002220.htm

http://www.odu.edu/sci/cqfe/world%20of%20fishes/salty%20ocean/salty_ocean.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/POISO014.HTML

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saline_abortion

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/OBGYN/medstudent/media/documents/MethodsforInducedAbortion.pdf

Good honk. Why can't people do their due diligence????

[Nic Samojluk]

And these quotes don't even include the ones from a thread involving a doctoral thesis on abortion and its questionable research, ethics, professionalism, and lack of university accreditation.

I have a few questions for you:

1. What does Tammy have to do with my investigation about abortion? Tammy related what she and her husband heard Neal Wilson say about abortion. How does this relate to my research? Would questioning my work invalidate Tammy’s independent testimony? I have never met Tammy and learned about her views about abortion years after I completed my work.

2. On what basis do you assert that my research is questionable? I had one main objective when I started my investigation: To discover whether my church was still truly pro-life like our Adventist pioneers. I concluded that our church was no longer pro-life but rather pro-choice. Do you doubt the veracity of my conclusion?

3. Are you also questioning my ethics? Can you be more specific? Where is the evidence that I have acted in a dishonest fashion? Is it ethical for you to accuse your opponent without providing the evidence needed to support your contention?

4. Where is the evidence that I have acted in an unprofessional manner? Can you be more specific instead of simply hurling unfounded accusation against one who disagrees with you on abortion?

5. University accreditation? Did I ever claim that my university was accredited? You know better than to repeat an unfounded accusation. We did debate this on another forum, and you know quite well that Andrew Jackson University was seeking accreditation for the doctoral program in religion when I applied for it. The university did disclose this fact to me, and I did disclose this to Dr. Gerald Winslow who was in charge of the Loma Linda University religion department, and whose advice I sought at the time.

He warned me that there was a chance that the accreditation the university was seeking could be denied. I responded that, given my age, and the fact that this was my hobby and not my profession, I was unconcerned about the outcome of the accreditation.

6. Are you saying that no individual is entitled to investigate this topic unless he is in possession of a Ph.D. from an accredited university? How about media reporters who do engage in a large number of investigations who do not have a university diploma? Does the lack of a university diploma invalidate the result of their work?

7. Is it ethical for you to attempt to destroy the reliability of my thesis by attacking what could never negate the fact that the Adventist Church did in fact depart from the pro-life attitude of our church founders and have adopted the pro-choice position on abortion. If my thesis is in error, then provide the hard evidence.

8. I have provided the evidence in support of my contention that the Adventist Church has in fact departed from the strictly pro-life position on this issue. Where is the contrary evidence you have to deny this? If you have no contrary evidence for my thesis, then stop beating around the bushes!

[Nic Samojluk]

Nic's research has been shown to be questionable. His doctoral "thesis" was unprofessional and rambling.

Read my previous response to you. Questionable on what basis? Am I wrong in concluding that the Adventist Church has departed from a strictly pro-life position on abortion and has replaced this with an undeniable pro-choice one? I did provide the hard evidence in support of my thesis in a 300 pages document, while you have not. If you have it, share it with us!

[Nic Samojluk]

It is worse than "heresy" if you ask us to believe something like this on an internet forum without one other shred of evidence to support it. It is breaking one of the ten commandments to say things that are not proven to be true; and the Bible says if you break one; you break them all. Welcome to the club of those who support murder, adultery, and the whole lot of them!

Worse than heresy to relate what a person has heard with one’s on ears? Would you use this argument in a court case? Defendants are routinely either condemned or exonerated on the basis of personal testimony when this can be confirmed by similar testimony from other witnesses. I know of three individuals whose testimony agrees on what Neal Wilson said. Jesus did testify that two witnesses is all that is required.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Tammy

What other commandments do you think it is not necessary to keep, besides, "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?

I shall be forever damned. I swatted a stinkbug yesterday.

Are you comparing the dismemberment of an unborn baby with the killing of a "stinkbug"? Do you think that this is funny?

[Overaged]

Regarding point number six, no one has said that, and you know it. You have got to be the greatest master of red-herrings I have ever seen. You keep referring to your "work" as a "dissertation;" when it actually isn't one, thereby being unethical in the claims you make, or try to imply. So why don't you quit beating around the bush?

[Overaged]

Good point. And that's not all thats contrived on the brochure, or web site. This "ministry" has long prided itself in "correcting" the church, and over the years I have seen them say/do some amazing things to stay in "power." It's too bad Nic sees fit to keep quoting air-head sources that are so biased you can see them coming a mile away.

[Nic Samojluk]

I told you many times that I have read your so-called dissertation. I have it on my computer, and have had since you made it available.

[Nic Samojluk]

You yourself have brought up these other issues; not me or anyone else. When you can stick to the so-called "main issue" then maybe other people can too; but to try and pretend that abortion is all you are concerned about is just plain unbelievable. Your words, not mine.

In order for me to respond to this assertion of yours, I need to make sure I understand what are the other issues you have in mind. Please, identify them. Is it possible hat you have in mind one thing and I am thinking about something else. I am waiting for your response! I hope this doesn’t turn into another tower of Babel!

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Long list of beliefs? Are you looking through a magnifying glass perhaps? My main concern is the violation of one of the Ten Rules the Lord gave for humanity. Anything else pales in comparison with this issue. Are you trying to divert our attention from the main issue being discussed here? This kind of tactic has proved to be an effective weapon in the past when trying to silence an opponent. Can we stick to the main issue here?

You yourself have brought up these other issues; not me or anyone else. When you can stick to the so-called "main issue" then maybe other people can too; but to try and pretend that abortion is all you are concerned about is just plain unbelievable. Your words, not mine.

I am waiting for the long list of beliefs!

[Nic Samojluk]

It's that little word "abbreviated" that we can use as our evidence that something supposedly said 30 years ago by someone, (no matter who) is speaking officially for the Church today, and accurately saying what they believe

You need to consider all the independent pieces of the puzzle. Neal’s statement is one of those pieces. The main piece is what we find in the “Guidelines on Abortion,” the current practice of allowing some of our hospitals to offer elective abortions to their patients, and the undeniable motivation for participation in the lucrative abortion business.

Read the historical account referred to by Doug authored by Gainer. It was printed by Spectrum with the title of "The Wisdom of Solomon."

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

I don't have a "doubting hat." The truth depends entirely on evidence; and you are trying to tell us that the "truth" is some say so's from 30 years ago? Right.

You claim that you have read my dissertation, and yet in responding to Doug you are ignoring all the factual evidence included in said document which contains all the significant comments which have been published by the Adventist media in books, articles, and comments made by readers between 1970 and 2006 in publications such as “Ministry,” “Spectrum,” “Adventist Today,” and so on.

I cite hundreds of documented statements there made by those on both sides of the issue regarding the abortion issue. How can you brush aside all the voluminous evidence by a careless pen stroke?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

You keep forgetting that something even a Pastor says may not be officially speaking for the Church; and my point remains that IF this was in fact said by Wilson 30 YEARS AGO there is NO WAY a connection to todays OFFICIAL CHURCH POLICY can ever be made. The desperate clutching at 30 year old snippets of conversation reflects on the quality of "evidence" you & others seem bent on promoting. It amounts to you promoting a deliberate lie. Is that good natured enough for you Sir?

You assured me that you have read my dissertation containing hundreds of document confirming what Doug is saying regarding the church’s position on abortion. You must have suffered a momentary amnesia episode when you wrote this response to Doug.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

My issue is that the official church position on abortion is being deliberately distorted for various reasons.

You are long on making pronouncements, but short on evidence. Talk is cheap. Please provide the evidence for the alleged distortions. It is high time that you produce the goods if you have them.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

"ramblin'" is vernacular for "rambling"... the song was sung by the Allman Bros. in 1973 (a very good year). You would have been how old? late 30's, early 40's? I thought Shane's choice of song was very apt. "Apt" means "appropriate"..

I did figure that part. What I was interested in is the lyrics which to me were rather unintelligible. They seemed hilarious to you and others. Laughing is good medicine if you can figure out where the joke is.

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes! And without reservation.