Is our Adventist Policy on Abortion due for a Review?

[Nic Samojluk]

There is a situation which worries me a great deal. I joined the Adventist Church over six decades ago when our church was definitely prolife and in full agreement with the example set by the early Adventist pioneers. This attitude towards the value of human life was altered back in 1970 when the then North American Division announced that our church was leaning towards abortion because there was too much hunger and too many people in the world.

This announcement was eventually followed by the creation of our Guidelines on Abortion which provides a list of circumstances under which killing an unborn baby is justified, including when the health of the pregnant woman is affected. This opened the way for abortions on demand--which is condemned by our guidelines--and created a confusion in the minds of many Adventist health practitioners; and it explains why the alleged architect of our guidelines on abortion reported some years ago that five of our Adventist hospitals were providing elective abortions to their patients in violation of our already very liberal guidelines.

This is explained by the fact that most Adventists are familiar with the “Roe v Wade” U.S. Supreme Court ruling, but forget the companion “Doe v Bolton” one which permits abortion beyond the point of viability when the unborn baby is able to survive outside of the womb, and defines the term “health” as including the following: “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age” as “relevant to the well-being of the patient.

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

Following our Adventist adoption of our “Guidelines on Abortion” which was approved by the Annual Council in 1992 several, leading pro-life Adventists left the church for fear of being guilty by association in the shedding of the blood of innocent babies. This is compounded by the fact that people I know are planning to leave the Adventist community of faith right now as I write this to you. This worries me and other Adventist pro-lifers I know a great deal. We are also concerned by the fact that recently the legal department of the General Conference decided to shut down the “Adventist for Life” Facebook page owned by Mark Price and forced the original owner of said domain to de-register.

Given all of the above, would you support the following:

1. Asking the General Conference that the issue of abortion be taken up by the next general session of the Adventist Church?

2. Petitioning the Adventist leadership that our church move out of the abortion business, except when the life of the pregnant woman is in serious danger—which was the policy of our Adventist pioneers and the accepted norm of the Christian Church for two millennia prior to the sexual revolution of the sixties and the legalization of abortion in 1973?

3. Requesting the General Conference to divorce itself from all Adventist medical institutions which elect to continue providing abortions on demand in direct violation of our Guidelines on Abortion, thus letting them to function as independent ministries similar to “The Quiet Hour” and “3ABN”?

What is your opinion?

[Dr. Shane]

1. Asking the General Conference that the issue of abortion be taken up by the next general session of the Adventist Church?

[John317]

2. Petitioning the Adventist leadership that our church move out of the abortion business, except when the life of the pregnant woman is in serious danger—which was the policy of our Adventist pioneers and the accepted norm of the Christian Church for two millennia prior to the sexual revolution of the sixties and the legalization of abortion in 1973?

What is your opinion?

I would support this. I'm personally opposed to abortion except where a woman's health is involved, but I support the right of the woman to decide the issue, even if it's a wrong decision. I believe it's a matter to be decided between a woman, her husband, the doctor and God.

[phkrause]

I would support this. I'm personally opposed to abortion except where a woman's health is involved, but I support the right of the woman to decide the issue, even if it's a wrong decision. I believe it's a matter to be decided between a woman, her husband, the doctor and God.

The bolded area I agree with 100% John. I'm with you on this.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: John317

I would support this. I'm personally opposed to abortion except where a woman's health is involved, but I support the right of the woman to decide the issue, even if it's a wrong decision. I believe it's a matter to be decided between a woman, her husband, the doctor and God.

The bolded area I agree with 100% John. I'm with you on this.

This is a position I have never quite understood. In the context of the life and death of another living human being,the decision as to whether that person can continue to live at the risk of no short or long term danger to it's mother,is left up to the parents,the Dr.,and God? Are we waiting for God to make up His mind? Is the parents' decision to be predicated on what the Dr. agrees to do? Is it not the duty of the church to give clear instructions as to the will of God regarding the protection of human life? Does the consciencious SDA allow the same freedom to those who would smoke or drink? Why do we have so much difficulty with the question of one's body being the temple of the Holy Ghost when one is pregnant but not when one is addicted to alcohol,drugs, or tobacco? Is the unborn baby merely a synonym for unclean meat? Is there consistency in our current "position" that allows an SDA hospital to spend tens of thousands of dollars in order to save the life of an unborn child because the mother considers it valuable while the same hospital extinguishes the life of another unborn child because the mother doesn't want it? Is there any reason why SDA hospitals should be a part of the abortion business apart from it's mission to save lives?

[Woody]

Why should our policy change? God doesn't change.

[Dr. Shane]

What scares me are those that want top-down control on our hospitals. I would much rather see a grassroots control or bottom-up. That means that church congregations discipline those that violate our Abortion Guidelines instead of someone at the GC deciding who gets disciplined.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “No, that sounds like it could get way too political and cause us to take our eyes off from our mission.”

Nic responds: Do you consider that killing innocent human beings is an integral part of our mission? What was Jesus’ mission? Didn’t he say: “I have come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly”? How can the unborn have this life Jesus came to offer more abundantly if we dismember their tiny bodies or poison them to death?

[Nic Samojluk]

John said: “I would support this. I'm personally opposed to abortion except where a woman's health is involved”

Nic responds: Health? Are you aware that Roe v Wade which legalized abortion was refined by the Supreme Court twin Doe v Bolton ruling which declared that the term “health” included not merely physical health but the following: “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient”?

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

“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."

“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”

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

Quote: “The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined health as follows:

Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. 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 well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.” [the emphasis is mine]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

Have you considered what this means? It means that a woman faced with un unwanted pregnancy can say: “This pregnancy is ruining my life: I am an emotional wreck, I can’t sleep at night, and this is affecting my mental and emotional health;” and bingo, another innocent baby is deprived of life. And you are suggesting that it is morally acceptable for the church to act as executioner of this moral crime?

John said: “but I support the right of the woman to decide the issue, even if it's a wrong decision. I believe it's a matter to be decided between a woman, her husband, the doctor and God.”

Nic responds: Are you saying that if the woman makes the wrong decision to destroy innocent human life the church will be free from guilt if it carries out the sinful and erroneous decision made by her? Is the church’s mission to act as accomplices in the commission of immoral acts?

Can you apply this principle that you defend to other sinful acts like burglary, grand theft, rape and sexual abuse of children? If a person decides to use his freedom to steal, rape, or kill, is the church supposed to help him in the commission of his crime?

[Nic Samojluk]

Woody said: “Why should our policy change? God doesn't change.”

Nic responds: What is wrong with changing our policy on abortion to what it was before the sexual revolution and before the government decided that killing innocent human beings was morally acceptable? If God doesn’t change, why did we dare to change to please the sinful desires of human beings?

[Nic Samojluk]

What scares me are those that want top-down control on our hospitals. I would much rather see a grassroots control or bottom-up. That means that church congregations discipline those that violate our Abortion Guidelines instead of someone at the GC deciding who gets disciplined.

The church does discipline those who use the name ”Adventist” without permission. If the name of our church is sacred and it should be protected, is human life less sacred than the name of the church?

If the church has the moral right to discipline those whose mission is to save human lives, why should the church look the other way when dealing with those whose mission is to destroy human life? Isn’t the church penalizing misdemeanor and overlooking grand theft?

[Dr. Shane]

I guess we could elect Nic Samojluk as the pope of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

[phkrause]

I guess we could elect Nic Samojluk as the pope of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Wouldn't that be something. :)

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I guess we could elect Nic Samojluk as the pope of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Wouldn't that be something.

It would be even more something if Shane could explain how his pope comment was appropriately related to the discussion.

[Dr. Shane]

It would be even more something if Shane could explain how his pope comment was appropriately related to the discussion.

I am glad you asked. I was hoping someone would.

The Seventh-day Adventist church is a "we" church. Not a "me" church. Some people have the attitude that if the church doesn't make decisions according to their personal understanding of Scripture, that the church must be wrong. They do not give room that they may be wrong and the church right. They take the attitude that their understanding of the Scripture is superior to the understanding of the church. Thus they set themselves up as a human authority over the church, much like the pope does.

[phkrause]

I am glad you asked. I was hoping someone would.

The Seventh-day Adventist church is a "we" church. Not a "me" church. Some people have the attitude that if the church doesn't make decisions according to their personal understanding of Scripture, that the church must be wrong. They do not give room that they may be wrong and the church right. They take the attitude that their understanding of the Scripture is superior to the understanding of the church. Thus they set themselves up as a human authority over the church, much like the pope does.

That's what I understood you saying.

[teresaq]

Me too...

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

It would be even more something if Shane could explain how his pope comment was appropriately related to the discussion.

I am glad you asked. I was hoping someone would.

The Seventh-day Adventist church is a "we" church. Not a "me" church. Some people have the attitude that if the church doesn't make decisions according to their personal understanding of Scripture, that the church must be wrong. They do not give room that they may be wrong and the church right. They take the attitude that their understanding of the Scripture is superior to the understanding of the church. Thus they set themselves up as a human authority over the church, much like the pope does.

Of course your analogy and criticism breaks down when you have to apply it to tens or hundreds of thousands of other SDA's who hold the same opinion as Nic.Particularly when he (and they) have called repeatedly for the church to both reconsider it's non-committal position and to bring it's final abortion postiton to the GC in open session. Hardly pope like. Only I reserve the right to determine official church policy by ex-cathedra decree!! Nic is relegated to merely offering his suggestions.

[Dr. Shane]

Of course your analogy and criticism breaks down when you have to apply it to tens or hundreds of thousands of other SDA's who hold the same opinion as Nic.

I don't think that many Adventists are as extreme as Nic. I consider myself to be pro-life. I think most Adventists that identify themselves as pro-life are much closer to my position than Nic's.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Of course your analogy and criticism breaks down when you have to apply it to tens or hundreds of thousands of other SDA's who hold the same opinion as Nic.

I don't think that many Adventists are as extreme as Nic. I consider myself to be pro-life. I think most Adventists that identify themselves as pro-life are much closer to my position than Nic's.

Think again. Consider that the guidelines were dictated by a committee, in private, and most SDA's are confused or just plain ignorant as to what they mean or how they are to be applied. That the majority of the world church outside of the U.S. does not practice elective abortions would indicate that they are more in harmony with Nic's(and my)extremist position.That most SDA's are unaware that elective abortions may be offered in an SDA hospital should also contribute to the fact that there is so little discussion of our policies.I gave a 20 minute talk on the history of abortion in the SDA tradition to a local congregation a couple of years ago. The response was a continual series of ooh's and aah's when they actually were informed on what the church was involved in. Lay the facts before the people and the majority will not be satisfied with today's status quo.Let the college of Cardinal's (select committee)decide the issue,vote it in by leadership,make a proclamation that it is finished, declare it good,and of course any good Catholic must trust that God will not speak in any other way.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't buy into Nic's whole conspiracy theory. The guidelines are great. Those that don't abide by them will be judged by God. That's not on me. Nic doesn't want a woman to be able to have an abortion even in cases of rape and incest. You can't get any more extreme than that. Most Adventists that claim to be pro-life are not to that extreme.

[doug yowell]

I don't buy into Nic's whole conspiracy theory. The guidelines are great. Those that don't abide by them will be judged by God. That's not on me. Nic doesn't want a woman to be able to have an abortion even in cases of rape and incest. You can't get any more extreme than that. Most Adventists that claim to be pro-life are not to that extreme.

I think that you're misreading what Nic is saying. It's natural that when the "exception" cases are introduced in the discussion that those of us who view abortion as the taking of innocent human life will respond with our objections. This,however, does not mean that we necessarily will demand that it's my way or the highway.At this point the guidelines are vague enough to allow abortion on demand and that is not only the theme of this thread but also the main concern of many pro-lifers.I also object to allowing rape and incest exceptions as do many well thought and loyal SDA's.THere are very good moral reasons to oppose those exceptions but they are most often used as an excuse to justify all abortions. Other SDA,and non-SDA organizations have formulated their own policy recommendations that address those hard cases. If the taking of the life of an innocent unborn human being is on an equal moral plane (a comparison which the guidelines seem to avoid)with tobacco,drug, and alcohol use then why does the church have such difficulty in pursuing it's compliance? And why are those who demand answers to these questions deemed "extremists"?

[Nic Samojluk]

I guess we could elect Nic Samojluk as the pope of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

If Nic were elected as the Pope of the Adventist Church, he would use his influence in order to try to undo what both the Pope of Rome and the Adventist Church have done to God’s Commandments.

Rome replaced the Sabbath with Sunday, and we Adventist Church has watered down the Sixth Commandment thus making it of no effect in order to please those who want total sexual freedom. Do not forget that the legalization of abortion was the result of the sexual revolution of the sixties.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I guess we could elect Nic Samojluk as the pope of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

If Nic were elected as the Pope of the Adventist Church, he would use his influence in order to try to undo what both the Pope of Rome and the Adventist Church have done to God’s Commandments.

What color is the smoke?

[hch]

What is your opinion?