Nic Samojluk Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Between 1971 and 1996 I counted 95 Readers’ comments and articles dealing with abortion in the pages of our “Ministry” magazine. The readers’ interest in this controversial issue was so great that on July 1988 David Newman wrote the following: “Our articles on abortion have touched a sensitive nerve. We are receiving more email on this subject than on any other recently published article. The letters are running 10 to 1 in favor of the church adopting a stricter standard.” Then suddenly, a few years following the publication of our current Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion” a long silence ensued on the pages of this periodical. What happened? Why the sudden silence? Did the interest in abortion diminish, or was this the result of an intentional desire by the pro-choice elite and the liberal leadership to silence the pro-life opposition whose opinions were running, according to Newman, 10 to 1 in favor of the church adopting a stricter standard? We cannot be 100 percent sure, but the timing of the comments on abortion blackout is rather suspicious! I did perform an exhaustive investigation about this topic and discovered that two third of our Adventists who were active in expressing their opinions in our publications were on the pro-life side of the issue, while two third of the Adventist leaders and article writers were favoring a pro-choice agenda. The church granted the power to draft our guidelines on abortion to the latter group, and they prevailed in this moral controversy. My guess is that the members of the Adventist intelligentsia must have realized that if the freedom of the press was allowed to continue, their favored views on abortion might eventually be in danger of collapsing under the weight of those who were making their voice heard loud and clear through the pages of our Adventist periodicals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 A good example of the strong defense of the pro-life position on abortion can be seen in an article written by George Gainer, who described in minutest details the history of how our church moved from a pro-life position to a pro-choice/pro-abortion one. His article was published by Ministry on August 1991 with the following title “Abortion: history of Adventist guidelines.” Here is a short review of some of the salient points included in it. Gainer’s article started with the following anecdote related by a non-Adventist pastor who chose our Washington Adventist Hospital for pre-natal care. His wife was pregnant, and this pastor wanted his wife to be cared for by an Adventist physician. The first question this doctor asked the couple was: “Do you want to keep this baby?” The pastor and his wife could not believe their eyes. They got up and left the office with the following explanation: “We must be in the wrong place.” This is how this Christian couple discovered that this Adventist hospital was offering abortions on demand and not the so called “therapeutic” kind resulting from rape, incest or malformation. Next, Gainer relates the historical position of the Adventist pioneers regarding this issue which was labeled by the founders of the Adventist movement as plain murder and the direct and unmistakable violation of the biblical injunction against the killing of innocent human beings and the shedding of innocent blood. James and Ellen White, as well as Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the founder of the Adventist medical work, demonstrated in their writings a high regard and respect for the value of human life from the moment of conception. Then the author of this article proceeded to detail the events which led the Adventist Church to engage in the profitable business of abortion. It started in Hawaii following the legalization of abortion in said Sate in 1970. The Adventist Castle Memorial Hospital was staffed by Adventist and non-Adventist physicians. A man who had donated $25,000 for the construction of said medical institution came asking for an abortion for his pregnant daughter. Then the non-Adventist physicians demanded the right to offer elective abortions to their patients and threatened to take their patients elsewhere in the event their petition was denied; the church leadership was made aware of this anomalous situation, and our Adventist leaders caved in for fear of loosing business to competing public medical institutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 “On March 17, 1970, Neal C. Wilson, president of the North American Division, made a statement on abortion that was carried by the Religious News Service. He predicted that when the denomination met at Atlantic City in June it would steer a middle-of-the-road course.” And he rationalized such a morally devious course of action with the following explanation: "Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean toward abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population." Did Wilson have in mind the Adventist lay members whose views were described by David Newman as ten to one opposing abortion or the liberal leaders of our church and those connected with our medical work who had a conflict of interest regarding this issue? You decide! The math doesn’t seem to have been on his side, or perhaps he was blinded by financial considerations. Think about this: This incredible declaration was made in the richest country of the world at a time when the Unites States of America was also the largest creditor on earth—not the largest debtor as today—and the largest producer of food and clothing. Of course, we need to also remember that this declaration was made at the time when the Atomic Clock was pointing to three minutes before midnight. The fear of a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was matched by the fear of the uncontrolled demographic growth in the Communist country of China. The fear of God was set aside by the fear of a nuclear annihilation of the human race from planet earth. Moral detours are usually taken at a time of great fear of an impending catastrophe. I am not attempting to justify the action of the Adventist leadership, but simply trying to understand the complexity of our moral failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 These events gave rise to the need for the development of guidelines for the provision of abortions in Adventist medical institutions. A separate set of guidelines were drafted, one for the Adventist hospitals and the other for public consumption. The net result of all this led M. C. Midkiff to make the following declaration: "I believe if you do a bit of research you will find that the majority of Adventist hospitals permit abortion on request." An article authored by Gerald Winslow revealed that five of our hospitals did report as offering elective abortions to their patients, but according to George Gainer, “The American Hospital Association Guide to the Health Care Field,” 1986 lists 12 of the 56 Adventist hospitals in the United States as offering "abortion services," including "a program and facilities." The hospitals identified by said entity included the following Adventist medical institutions: “Castle Medical Center, Hadley Memorial Hospital, Hanford Community Hospital, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Porter Memorial Hospital, Portland Adventist Medical Center, Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, Shawnee Mission Medical Center, Sierra Vista Hospital, Walla Walla General Hospital, Washington Adventist Hospital, and White Memorial Medical Center.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 And let us not forget that Adventist were in the forefront in the legalization of abortion, since our Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii started offering elective abortion services back in 1970—three years before the practice was legalized in the U.S. mainland. This is incredible. The Remnant Church of God with the last message to a perishing world engaged in the extermination of innocent unborn babies by the thousands for the sake of expediency and profit. If our Adventist pioneers were to witness this terrible deviation from moral duty inside the medical institutions they worked so hard to establish, they would writhe in anguish and pain. As God’s people on earth, we need to repent of this terrible sin, publicly acknowledge our moral depravity and ask God to forgive us for veering off the right path and plead for a revival of the faith delivered to the saints. The brief description of George Gainer’s report I have included here contains merely some of the salient events he talks about in carefully documented details. If this issue is on interest to you, I encourage you to read the original document published by the Ministry magazine. Here is the Internet link to it: http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/...#at_pco=cft-1.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 “On March 17, 1970, Neal C. Wilson, president of the North American Division, made a statement on abortion that was carried by the Religious News Service. He predicted that when the denomination met at Atlantic City in June it would steer a middle-of-the-road course.” Hmmmm,middle of the road on abortion? Now where have I heard that before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Then suddenly, a few years following the publication of our current Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion” a long silence ensued on the pages of this periodical. What silence, I don't hear anything?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 And he rationalized such a morally devious course of action with the following explanation: [color:#3366FF]"Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean toward abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population." Odd that the NAD, and soon to be GC, president would publically affirm abortion as an acceptable form of birth control. Over population was one of the scores of left wing myth's foisted upon the U.S. population at the time. I remember it being a big deal when I was still in grade school. I think it was the forerunner of global warming, second hand smoke,aids in the heterosexual community,ect...ect... Perhaps President Wilson was just too busy to examine the issues of the day from a rational and Biblical perspective. deja vu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 The brief description of George Gainer’s report I have included here contains merely some of the salient events he talks about in carefully documented details. If this issue is on interest to you, I encourage you to read the original document published by the Ministry magazine. Here is the Internet link to it: http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/...#at_pco=cft-1.0 Actually, your brief description here is a brief description of Gainer's brief description briefly described in the Ministry's brief description of Gainer's not-so-brief description(over 40 pages including footnotes)that he published in his original description not so briefly entitled: "The Wisdom of Solomon? Or The Politics Of Pragmatism: The General Conference Abortion Decision 1970-71" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 doug yowell wrote: “Perhaps President Wilson was just too busy to examine the issues of the day from a rational and Biblical perspective. déjà vu.” Yes, it reminds me about what took place in Germany when Hitler was exterminating the Jews, the gypsies, the handicapped, the unproductive members of society, and the veteran amputees. What did we Adventists do to protest these incredible moral atrocities? Nothing! Actually, we decided that compromise was the most logical response. We compromised on the Sabbath as well and on participating in an unjust war. Something similar took place in Rwanda. Do you think that we learned anything from history? Zero! In 1970, when we faced the prospect of loosing revenue from the abortion business at our Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii, we showed the same lack of moral courage to stand for what is right. What a way to prepare ourselves for the big test we are expected to face when the death decree will be issued against Sabbath keepers! If we failed the moral test in time of peace, are we going to be strong to remain faithful “though the heaven fall”? I can understand why Neal Wilson sided with the abortionists. The cold war was at its climax. The atomic clock was pointing to three minutes before midnight. The Chinese Communist population was mushrooming at a high speed. Wilson must have felt that abortion was a reasonable way to stop the impending catastrophe. This is what happens when the fear of the future is chosen in place of the fear of God. The Bible tells us: “Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come.” Unfortunately, when faced with the fear of men, we choose to compromise with evil and with sin. We certainly need a revival and reformation. Unless this takes place, we are doomed to fail the final test! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 May I suggest you consider Ministry Magazines position of silence and follow suit. I get the distinct impression, from your posts on the subject, that extremists in regards to right to life issues cannot be reasoned with. As such, I will move away from supporting that side of the issue. Thanks for helping me make a decision, I am now decidely pro-choice. Will I have to worry about snipers outside my kitchen window now? Will I have to worry I might be attacked by some mob of angry pro-life supporters? Some have to worry about these thing, radical pro-lifers are clearly an unstable bunch. Where will it end? How far would you go? Would you turn the other cheek when a pro-lifer kills an abortion doctor, because, in your opinion, he DESERVED death? Results such as these are the inevitable fruits of fanaticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted January 25, 2012 Moderators Share Posted January 25, 2012 I admire your zeal for a cause, Nic, but what is your solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted January 25, 2012 Members Share Posted January 25, 2012 I admire your zeal for a cause, Nic, but what is your solution? Good point Gerry, things will not change, there is no solution. It still comes down to choice. We will all be judged on those choice's, which only God knows why we made. Quote phkrause Obstinacy is a barrier to all improvement. - ChL 60 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: “May I suggest you consider Ministry Magazines position of silence and follow suit.” I did try to keep my mouth shut, but the Lord reminded me of what he had told Paul when he was in a similar situation: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.” [Acts 18:9] “I get the distinct impression, from your posts on the subject, that extremists in regards to right to life issues cannot be reasoned with.” Perhaps Jesus was an extremist as well! When Peter attempted to dissuade Jesus from allowing his enemies to kill him, he responded by saying: “Get you behind me.” He was determined to die in spite of his disciples opposition. The same determination was exhibited by Paul in his mission. And I will add the experience of Prophet Ezekiel whom the Lord encourages with the following promise: “I will make your forehead like the hardest stone, harder than flint.” [Ezek. 3:9] “As such, I will move away from supporting that side of the issue. Thanks for helping me make a decision, I am now decidely pro-choice.” I believe that you were probably pro-choice to begin with. “Will I have to worry about snipers outside my kitchen window now? Will I have to worry I might be attacked by some mob of angry pro-life supporters?” Most pro-lifers are pacifists. They preach and pray. They follow the example of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. “Some have to worry about these thing, radical pro-lifers are clearly an unstable bunch.” This is a false representation of the behavior of most pro-lifers and it doesn’t apply to what I have been doing! “Would you turn the other cheek when a pro-lifer kills an abortion doctor, because, in your opinion, he DESERVED death?” You seem to have been blinded by the distorsions and false accusations of the liberal media. Abortionists have exterminated 54 million innocent unborn babies. Compare this with how many abortionists have been murdered! Those who did take the law into their own hands do not represent the rest of pro-lifers. They are infiltrators or mentally unstable individuals. 99.999 percent of pro-lifers are law abiding pacifists who do not dare to take the law into their own hands. “Results such as these are the inevitable fruits of fanaticism.” Fanaticism is the behavior of those who defend murder and the violation of the Sixth Commandment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Jesus was not a fanatic. The false representation of this issue rests solely on your shoulders Nic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: “Jesus was not a fanatic. The false representation of this issue rests solely on your shoulders Nic.” I agree: Jesus was not a fanatic. He was simply faithful to his mission as a compass to the North Pole. I am humbly trying to follow in his steps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I admire your zeal for a cause, Nic, but what is your solution? Solution for what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 May I suggest you consider Ministry Magazines position of silence and follow suit. But why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 [color:#3366FF]I get the distinct impression, from your posts on the subject, that extremists in regards to right to life issues cannot be reasoned with. I think it would be well to try a reasoned argument before reaching that conclusion,Club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 As such, I will move away from supporting that side of the issue. Thanks for helping me make a decision, I am now decidely pro-choice. Normally you make choices based on the Biblical and moral value of the argument,Club, why change your MO now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 . Will I have to worry about snipers outside my kitchen window now? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Will I have to worry I might be attacked by some mob of angry pro-life supporters? Yes, angry Seventh-day Adventist pro-life supporters with Nic at their head. My advice, stay inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Some have to worry about these thing, radical pro-lifers are clearly an unstable bunch. Clearly, but all that will change once Nic gets used to using his walker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Results such as these are the inevitable fruits of fanaticism.Put down the N.Y.Times editorial section and try going to a couple of local pro-life meetings or better yet visit your local Crisis Pregnancy Center disguised as a young pregnant girl and then make an informed evaluation on the nature of the fruit.You may just change your mind about those fanatics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Based on Nic's post, nope, don't think that would change anything. There are fanatics on all sides of an issue, I'll take the middle of the road thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.