The Washington Post, Adventists & Abortion

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “Obviously they haven't wavered too far.”

Nic responds: They haven’t? According of a Washington report, the Washington Adventist Hospital terminated the lives of 1494 innocent unborn babies in seven years. How many millions do they need to kill before you say: “That’s way too far”?

Shane said: “You are not God. Just because something the church does doesn't meet your standards, doesn't mean it doesn't meet God's standards.”

Nic responds: I haven’t set any new standards! You and those who wrote guidelines have. The Lord proclaimed his standards a long time ago, and they are very clear. I am not the author of the Ten Commandments and I did not write the many warning against the shedding of innocent blood. The Lord has. Open your eyes! The Lord is wiser than men. We need to listen to him instead of the world’s pronouncement which tend to obscure the clear teachings of Scripture.

Shane said: “God has set up a church structure and it isn't up to Nic to correct the church.”

Nic responds: Nic does not do the correcting. He is simply pointing our eyes to Scripture which does the correcting.

[Nic Samojluk]

Why do you keep trying to cook this tired old red herring. Do you not understand what is being advocated? This approach has already been addressed but let's try to apply it's principle equitably. The church, according to your definition(GC in open session) has not spoken so how can Nic's standards be wrong. Even the church hasn't decided that and that is the point. Nic speaks for tens of thousands,if not more, of SDA's who feel that the church(GC in open session)should address the issue and not merely be forced to abide by a series of statemets issued by the Annual Council. Let the church actually stake a position in the debate that is unequivocally clear and concise so that the world (and it's members)can see how the SDA body values the unborn human life. The fact that the "guidelines",their meaning,and their authority is so hotly contested and differently interpreted is proof that the church has failed to do it's job.Simply blaming Nic, and those who feel the same way,for not accepting the status quo as God's will for Adventism, (and your personal interpretation of the guidelines)may be an effective method of silencing debate on the issue but it is not honest.

Excellent reasoning and an outstanding post. Thanks!

[Nic Samojluk]

And who is the conscience of the SDA church? Are you suggesting that the GC structure is an unerring,sinless entity? Are church leaders incapable of making wrong decisions?If not then how do you know that God will not raise up the rank and file to call out for Him? How do you know for sure that God has not called Nic to represent the sentiments of hundreds of thousands (or more)who "sigh and cry over the abominations done in Israel"? Or is the example of Cain and Able lost on you?

Keep it up, my friend!

[Nic Samojluk]

So now we have sinful, fallible Dr.'s determining God's will for the emotionally distraught? And God's solution for that person may be simply be to destroy the living being within her body? In violation of the very laws that He created for the developement of the human race? Out of sight,out of mind? And now her spirit will begin to heal and her conscience at peace forever??? And we are supposed to believe that Ellen White would also be cool with that(but not with a pregnant woman having a couple of Buds a day)?

Yes, physicians' mission is to heal--not to kill! Abortion is a perversion of the Gospel. Jesus' Gospel is redemptive and redemption includes the life and well being of both the woman and he unborn child. Anytime we exclude a group of human beings from God’s redemptive love, we are siding with “the Destroyer.” The Devil has been “a murderer from the beginning.” He will never change. In contrast, we can change with God’s power and help.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “The problem with Nic is that he has already decided what God's will is”

Nic responds: God’s will is contained in his Word, and not in Nic’s writings. We need to exalt what the Lord has revealed instead of the wisdom of prone to err men.

Shane said: “He is not willing to submit the issue to the organized church unless the organized church agrees with him and his extremist position on the issue.”

Nic responds: Nic is willing to abide by whatever the Lord has revealed in Scripture. God’s will is very clear. The Bible states: “Choose life.” If the General Conference in session decides according to what Scripture teaches, I will accept. That was the position of Luther, the great reformer. He appealed to the Sola Scriptura and refused to bend to the opinions of theologians and politicians.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “Is Nic claiming prophet status?”

Nic responds: No! Neither did Ellen White claim to be a prophetess. Yet she did have a lot of messages for the church. Nic does not compare himself to Ellen White or any other prophet. He simply calls Adventists to return to the sure foundation set by the Lord. Regarding the issue of taking the life of innocent human beings, we have no need for special revelation from above, nor for visions or messages from angels.

God will not alter what he has made patently clear in Scripture. We have no need for guidelines designed to obscure what is crystal clear in the Bible. All we need to do is to remove this rubbish and let the Word of God shine through this darkness which is enveloping the world and now includes Gods Remnant Church.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “In your extremist view, that is true.”

Nic responds: My extremist views? Are you forgetting that I copied the data from the page you asked me to review? Said document which you chose, states that 98 percent of abortions a elective, and the architect of our guidelines reported that five of our hospitals were offering elective abortions to their patients. If our guidelines prohibit 93 percent of abortions, how come the church allows five of our medical institutions to provide elective abortions, which according to your own source represent 98 percent of all abortions?

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “The study the guidelines are based on characterizes the pro-choice position as a minority opinion so one can hardly make the honest assertion that the committee was heavily influenced by pro-choice advocates.”

Nic responds: Let me share with you what I discovered as a result of my investigation. The study I performed revealed that two thirds of the general Adventist public were pro-life; while two thirds of the Adventist leaders, professional and writers were pro-choice.

The GC delegated the responsibility to write the guidelines to the Loma Linda University, which is dominated by liberal minded individuals, and the result was as expected a liberal minded document. When it came to voting at the Annual Council the liberals prevailed.

Had the GC chosen Andrews University with the task of drafting the guidelines, the result might have been different. Asking LLU for this task was akin to the government asking the tobacco industry to write the guidelines regarding the sale of tobacco products. In my view, there was an evident conflict of interest. Asking a kid to guard the cookie jar is not a good policy.

Shane said: “The guidelines are themselves pro-life.”

Nic responds: The introductory material is pro-life, but the rest of the document is pro-abortion. It’s like saying: “Stealing is wrong, but here is a long list of circumstances under which stealing is acceptable; raping a woman is also wrong, but here are all the circumstances under which rape is morally neutral; sexually abusing a young chilld is wrong, but here is a list that explains when it is alright to sexually abuse a child.”

Shane said: “The guidelines condemn over 90% of the abortions in this nation.”

Nic responds: “The guidelines condemn over 90% of the abortions” but condones 98 percent of the same. What good is it if we condemn a behavior with our mouth but condone it both with our speech and our behavior? Jesus explained this kind of behavior this way:

Quote: "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”

Shane said: “I think if an online petition proposed that the abortion guidelines be made part of the church manual, the issue could end up in front of the General Conference in open session.”

Nic responds: Church manual? I hope this never happens! Replacing what God wrote with his own finger with guidelines which openly negate what the Lord has made so clear would be equivalent to what Rome did with the Sabbath. I am for dismantling the guidelines brick by brick or else by calling the wrecking crew. Personally, I prefer calling the wrecking crew!

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “There are many that have had abortions they shouldn't have and are in need of forgiveness and ministry. So we must be careful how we speak about the issue so that we do not lose the chance to minister to one in need of healing.”

Nic responds: You can’t improve on the method used by Jesus Christ. He said to the woman who had sinned: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” In contrast, we say to sinners: Here are the circumstances under which sinning is acceptable. We are very good at telling sinners: “Neither do I condemn you,” but forget to tell them: “Go and sin no more.”

There is a prerequisite to forgiveness: repentance. How can women who have had an abortion repent if we tell them that they have done nothing wrong? With this attitude, we deprive women of the need to repent of their sin and to seek forgiveness.

[Dr. Shane]

we say to sinners: Here are the circumstances under which sinning is acceptable.

I have never met anyone in the Adventist church that said anything resembling that. I certainly haven't posted anything like that in this thread.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “The issue of mental health is a strawman.”

If the mental health is a strawman, then it follows that the “Doe v Bolton” Supreme Court decision is a strawman as well. Have you forgotten that the Doe v Bolton ruling specifically included the mental health as an integral part of women’s health? Do I need to post this here again?

DOE v. BOLTON, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)

Quote: “MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. … We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=179

“APPENDIX B TO OPINION OF THE COURT … (2) Justifiable Abortion. A licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes there is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother”

[Dr. Shane]

If the General Conference in session decides according to what Scripture teaches, I will accept.

You mean if they agree with your extremist interpretation of Scripture. If the GC becomes as extremist as the pope, than you will accept it. Or, perhaps the pope isn't extreme enough for you.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane said: “Is Nic claiming prophet status?”

Nic responds: No! Neither did Ellen White claim to be a prophetess.

So Nic is claiming to be on the same level as Ellen White.

[Dr. Shane]

My extremist views? Are you forgetting that I copied the data from the page you asked me to review? Said document which you chose, states that 98 percent of abortions a elective...

Exactly, you arrive at the 98% number by excluding abortions performed due to health reasons of either the baby or the mother. Quite extreme! Most people do not consider abortions done due to the mother's or baby's health to be elective abortions.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “This type of attitude is why you are so ineffective Nic.”

Nic responds: My long term study revealed that two third of Adventists were pro-life. These people take what I stand for seriously for the simple reason that it reflects what the Bible teaches regarding the value of human life. The liberal crowd have consistently rejected my position on this issue and closed the door to my input on the issue. In North America, liberals have a monopoly on the Adventist media.

Some years ago, the “Pacific Union Recorder” published the views of John Stevens Sr. in which he argued that unborn babies have no intrinsic right to life until they have taken the first breath. I submitted my pro-life response which was rejected with the following explanation: The PUR does not engage in controversial issues. The issue evidently must have not been controversial when they published the pro-abortion article, but it became controversial overnight when I submitted my response.

The issue of abortion has been dominated by the Loma Linda Adventist crowd, and it is almost impossible to get a word even edgewise in defense of those destined to the execution chamber. I had in my office the dean of our “Universidad Adventista del Plata,” Argentina, and when I related to him what was taking place in some of our hospitals, he was very sad; and he assured me that in his country Adventists were definitely pro-life. Our hospitals there do not perform abortions.

I also have a friend in Germany who assured me that while he was in charge of our medical work in Germany, Africa, and South America, abortions were not allowed in the medical institutions under his care. As you can see, the statement you made about me is negated by the evidence. It is true when dealing with liberal Adventists, but definitely not true with reference to those who have the Bible in high esteem.

I suggest that you read some of the reports which are coming from countries like Peru, where the church is growing by leaps and bounds and compare this with our own country where the church is no growing. How can the Lord bless our work when we obscure with our human pronouncements what the Bible has made so clear?

Yesterday we got a telephone call from a friend of mine who is retired now. He was the founder of “Una Luz en el Camino,” an extremely successful radio program in his country. He wrote an evangelistic book with an appeal to the masses. Our publishing house there printed ten million copies, and they had to immediately print two million more. They are being distributed like hot pancakes.

Someone made the following comment: “You must be a millionaire now,” to which he responded: “I have no kept a single penny of the royalties. I have donated every penny to the Adventist cause.” This is the type of Adventists we have there, and they are truly pro-life. And don’t forget that he is not rich. He is leaving on his retirement income. My major professor when I was a student there did exactly the same with the royalties he received from his books. He donated every penny to God’s work. Can you improve on that?

Personally, I have been employing half of my working time for the mission the Lord has laid on my heart for over a decade now, and I am not rich. I am almost 80 and I still have a mortgage to pay. Had I elected to use that time in my business, I would be travelling by now around the world and enjoying the rest of my life like many others my age are doing. I am doing the work my pastor should be doing and for which he is being paid with my tithes and offerings. You have chosen to criticize the wrong person, and I forgive you, because you don’t know what you are doing!

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk “…we say to sinners: Here are the circumstances under which sinning is acceptable.”

Shane said: “I have never met anyone in the Adventist church that said anything resembling that. I certainly haven't posted anything like that in this thread.”

Nic explains: That was my paraphrase of the main message of our Guidelines on Abortion. I suggest that you keep reading said document until you realize that my paraphrase reflects what we have been saying to the world about abortion in black and white and with our behavior. I have read the guidelines probably over 20 times.

[Dr. Shane]

My long term study revealed that two third of Adventists were pro-life.

Each time I am asked I claim to be pro-life too. I financially support Care Net. However my views are no where close to as extreme as yours are. I suspect that the two thirds of Adventists that claim to be pro-life are much closer to my views than extremist views like yours.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “You mean if they agree with your extremist interpretation of Scripture.”

Nic responds: So, according to your views, speaking on behalf of the innocent is extreme; but defending the right to dismember or to poison innocent babies waiting for the chance to take their first breath is not extreme. Reading the Bible as it reads is extreme, but obfuscating the clear command of the Lord is not extreme.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “You mean if they agree with your extremist interpretation of Scripture.”

Nic responds: So, according to your views, speaking on behalf of the innocent is extreme; but defending the right to dismember or to poison innocent babies waiting for the chance to take their first breath is not extreme. Reading the Bible as it reads is extreme, but obfuscating the clear command of the Lord is not extreme.

May the Lord have mercy on a church which needs a long confusing document in order to explain what is crystal clear in the Bible. Those who are willing to obey have no need of any guidelines. The Bible condemns the killing of innocent human beings. There are no “ifs” nor “buts.”

This is why the Southern Baptists have no guidelines on abortion. Thy simply do not perform abortions. We invented the guidelines because we wanted the profits form this bloody business. Read the sorry history of how we got involved in the lucrative business of abortion written by George Gainer. It will do a lot of good to your soul!

[Dr. Shane]

So, according to your views, speaking on behalf of the innocent is extreme...

No. I am pro-life. However there are circumstances where the believer must be free to prayerfully decide whether or not to abort without seeking approval from the pope or Nic Samojluk first. I do believe there are situations involving a mother's health or severe birth defects where mothers need to be free to abort without having Nic Samojluk judge and condemn them.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane posted the following:

Quote:

Shane said: “Is Nic claiming prophet status?”

Nic responds: No! Neither did Ellen White claim to be a prophetess.

“So Nic is claiming to be on the same level as Ellen White.”

*********

Nic responds: A text without its proper context is a pretext. I knew that you would be tempted to misquote me in order to score a point. Inadvertently, I set a trap for you, and you fell into it headlong. Now read what I said in its proper context:

Nic responds: No! Neither did Ellen White claim to be a prophetess. Yet she did have a lot of messages for the church. Nic does not compare himself to Ellen White or any other prophet.

If you had read what I stated with the proper attitude, you would have understood what I was tying to convey: That, if even a true prophet like Ellen White denied being a prophet, how can a midget like me make such a claim? I hope this helps!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane said: “Is Nic claiming prophet status?”

Nic responds: No! Neither did Ellen White claim to be a prophetess. Yet she did have a lot of messages for the church. Nic does not compare himself to Ellen White or any other prophet. He simply calls Adventists to return to the sure foundation set by the Lord.

Notice the underlined sentence. That was the same calling of Ellen White. So please clarify. Do you consider yourself on the same level as Ellen White or are you just as likely to be mistaken as me and the other mortals alive today?

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “Exactly, you arrive at the 98% number by excluding abortions performed due to health reasons of either the baby or the mother. Quite extreme! Most people do not consider abortions done due to the mother's or baby's health to be elective abortions.”

Nic responds: Do you realize what you just did? You labeled as extreme the calculation and the opinion of the source you provided for me. That was not my data, but your own source! The source you provided to convince me that my numbers were wrong. If you add the hard cases estimated by your source: “cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%.” you get 1.8 percent, or roughly 2 percent in round number. The remaining, according to your source is 98 percent attributed to elective abortions. Here is a copy from your source:

Quote: “Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.

Source: Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “Each time I am asked I claim to be pro-life too. I financially support Care Net. However my views are no where close to as extreme as yours are. I suspect that the two thirds of Adventists that claim to be pro-life are much closer to my views than extremist views like yours.”

Nic responds: You made a valid point. Nevertheless, you evidently have not read the study I conducted regarding this issue. I invested an enormous amount of time analyzing all the comments made by readers of our main publications in which participants debated the issue of abortion between 1970 and 2006. There was no reason for those readers to pretend to be something they were not. Of course, you might have made a different count, and you can still do; nevertheless, unless you take the time to do this, your opinion has little weight unless you provide contrary evidence supported by credible data.

[Dr. Shane]

You have to look at the internals of the study Nic. The study is neither extreme nor balanced. It is just data. According to the internals of the study, 3% of abortions were performed because "mother has health problems" and another 3% were performed because "possible fetal health problems". The Adventist guidelines that you so detest would allow the believer to make a prayerful decision in those cases. You would not.