Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[Guest]

Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

by Nic Samojluk

The Question. Two and a half years ago the president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists publicly declared that the Adventist church is pro-life. [1] My question is: Is this a factual statement? Is our church entitled to be described as pro-life? Have we been acting as truly pro-life organizations? Do we deserve the pro-life label? Could it be that the opposite is true?

Perhaps we should consider some hipothetical situations first before trying to answer this question. Suppose a young man never ever mentions anything about his girlfriend. Should we conclude that he has serious intentions towards the young woman he is dating? Or just imagine a man who never ever talks about his wife and family, should we conclude that his home life is uppermost in his mind and affection? Or imagine a tribe leader who sets specific guidelines detailing which members of his clan should be allowed to live and which ones could be killed at will. Would we be safe in concluding that such a chieftain really cares about the community and about the right to life of its members?

The Evidence. You may wonder what this has to do with the question at hand. Well, the answer is quite simple. Our church president claimed that our church is pro-life, but we never talk about the main pro-life issue in our sermons and magazines. We avoid the subject as if it were a plague, and we have officially adopted a set of Guidelines on abortion [2] which specify which members of our community could be deprived of life with impunity. Of course, I am including the unborn as an integral element of our community. The unborn represents in fact the future of our church. We complain that our church is not growing in the U.S. How can our church grow if we are decimating its future?

If you have heard the topic of abortion discussed by our leaders in our sermons or our leading magazines, then please let me know, because I can only hear myself talking about this topic, and for all practical purposes it is rather a monologue. Some years ago the editor of the local SDA church newsletter wrote an editorial criticizing the activities of pro-lifers. I asked for equal time to respond. The answer I got was that the topic was controversial. Well, isn't this the case with other topics dear to our heart like the Sabbath and the addiction to tobacco products? Have we kept silent on those issues because they are controversial?

We have used a ton of ink on those issues, ignoring in the process that some individuals might take offense. We have championed the fight against smoking with the aim of extending the life of smokers by four or five years. Have we ever considered that by fighting abortion we could extend the life of the victims by their entire life span? We have filled our books and magazines with the topic dealing with the Sabbath. Tell me, how many lives have been lost as a result of worshipping the Lord on the wrong day of the week? How does this compare with the 50 million lives lost to abortion?

The Official Guidelines on Abortion. Someone may wonder whether our president had read our official Guidelines on Abortion before making the pro-life pronouncement I quoted above. I think he did, but he might have missed the fine print. If you read the document, you will discover that human life is described as a magnificent manifestation of God's creative power and that it deserves to be protected. Well, this in fact sounds very much like pro-life--no doubt! It is the list of exceptions and the fine print that messes things up. The list of exceptions is rather long, and I will not attempt to replicate it in an exhaustive manner here. A few examples should suffice:

If the father of the unwanted unborn baby is a certain type of sinner, then the criminal can be executed? No way! The document says that in that case--not the guilty--but rather the innocent baby may be killed! Likewise, if the pregnant woman is underage. But this is not all. The document also includes a mental exception, which is what abortionists have been fiercely fighting for. All the depressed woman needs to do is to find a sympathetic physician willing to authorize the execution of the innocent. Of course, that is precisely the mission of abortionists. This is where their profit is. Why should they refuse to solve the poor girls problem? Does Jan Paulsen still believe that our church is pro-life? We don't know, but a follow-up call to the General Conference by Theresa Beem revealed that, according to Dr. George Reid, the church is not pro-life, but rather "pro-choice but under strict guidelines." [3] And you think that these guidelines can be adequately described as strict? Really?

The Fine Print. If you are still wondering, then consider some details found in the fine print of these guidelines. You will find there a reference to Jesus death, coupled with the argument that Jesus died to restore our "freedom of choice," which is the abortionists mantra. Freedom of choice to do what? I ask. Freedom to take the life of innocent unborn children? Is this what our Savior died for? Perhaps we should also argue that he died to insure our freedom to steal, fornicate, and sexually abuse young children! Do I need to say more? Do you think that our president was right in referring to our church as pro-life? If you do, then let me tell you about a great real estate deal I have for you! I can sell you the Eiffel tower for a bargain price, and I can add the London Bridge on top!

The Elective Abortions Dilemma. If you think that I am done, you are wrong! My doctoral dissertation dealt with the role our church played in the legalization of abortion, and I discovered that one survey revealed that at one time five of our medical institutions were offering elective abortions to their patients. And I am not talking about therapeutic abortion, but rather elective ones, where the babies in question presented no abnormalities of any kind. And, by the way, I have a question for you: Since when abortion has become a therapy for any patient? Such therapy ends with a dead baby. How dare we call this "therapy"? Would the defenders of therapeutic abortion accept such therapy for themselves?

And I must add that the first Adventist institution that dared to offer elective abortions did so under financial pressure. The non-adventist staff of said institution demanded the right to offer such services under threat of taking their patients elsewwhere, and the church caved in for fear of loosing the coveted revenue needed to survive financially. How did this happen? A man who had donated a large sum of money for our Castle Memorial Hospital [4] in Hawaii requested an abortion for his daughter. This was coupled with the demand by the non-Adventist physicians in said medical facility for the privilege of offering elective abortions. These demands were sent to the North American Division of the church, and our SDA leaders yielded to the pressure.

A 180 Degree Turn. My investigation into this topic revealed that the church has recently made an 180 turn as it relates to our official attitude towards abortion. Our Adventist pioneers were adamantly oppossed to the destruction of the unborn. James White, the founder of our publishing work and president of the General Conference os Seventh-day Adventists described abortion in the strongest terms, labelling such practice as "murder."[5] Some have argued that Ellen White, the most influental writer in our denomination, never used the word "abortion." True, she never did; nevertheless, she referred to the neglect of the unborn as "almost murder." [6] I ask: what is the difference? If neglecting the need of the unborn is almost murder, then what is the actual posisoning or dismembering of the baby in utero? Wouldn't it be murder? Would she call it "therapy"? Other SDA pioneers used even stronger language.

The Broken Blueprint. How did we manage to make such a drastic turn in our attitude towards the value of human life? The answer is found in a book written by Vance Ferrell entitled "The Broken Blueprint." [7] In it, he documents how two influential SDA leaders ignored a basic element of Ellen White's blueprint for the future of the Adventist movement. She advised them not to yoke themselves with the world. In spite of the Kelloggs fiasco, like this talented physician, they thought that they could improve on the isnpired plan for the church, and started hiring non-adventist physicians and teachers. This is how the theory of evolution got infiltrated into the Adventist schools, and as I have described above, it is the way we made a complete turn around and embraced both therapeutic and elective abortions.

A North American Phenomenon? It is interesting to notice that the pro-choice/pro-abortion attitude towards abortion manifested by the SDA church seems to be mainly a North American phenomenon. Some may wonder why I place both the pro-choice and the pr-abortion in the same category. The reason is simple: They represent the same enchilada with a slightly altered name. I grew up in Argentina, and even today abortion in said country is illegal. Pregnant women who are not ready to raise a child have only one option: adoption, instead of abortion. Recently I received an electronic communication from Dr. Ronald Noltze who assured me that there were no abortions in the hospitals that were under his care in South America, Africa, and Europe while he was in charge of those SDA medical institutions. [8] There are many countries in the world where abortion is still illegal, and in fact, for two thousand years physicians were bound by the Hippocratic Oath, which forbade the practice of abortion. This medical practitioner's oath was discarded by the SDA church two years before the legalization of abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Recent Adventist Apology. You mignt be aware that not long ago the German and Austrian Adventist leaders publicly apologized for the role the church played during the Nazi extermination of the Jews. They acknowledged the church's cooperation with the Nazi regime, and apologized for its lack of moral power to stand for what was right. [9] My question is: Should we not as a church avoid the need to issue a similar apology in the future by admitting that we erred as a church on the issue of abortion? We have granted our denominational hospitals todal freedom regarding the killing of the unborn. Each medical institution is free to issue their own guidelines on abortion. This means that said agencies of the church are free to ignore even the liberal official guidelines described above and set their own version of them and set their own policies. And, by the way, consider the following: Would we need any guidelines if we were truly pro-life? Neither the Southern Baptist nor Catholics have any abortion guidelines. They simply do not deal with abortions.

My Personal Aim. You may wonder why am I taking the time to write this, and why I did devote thousand of precious hours in order to get my doctoral study and to prepare my doctoral dissertation about this topic, time I could have employed in my business. The reason is very simple. I neither have nor do I expect any renumeration for my expensive investment which almost bankrupted my personal finances. My concern was and is for the plight of the unborn, and for the church I love. I am a second generation Adventist, and I have no present plans to leave the Adventist Church. My past and future seems to be welded to this unique movement which has blessed my family and the families of my relatives.

My Debt of Gratitude. When my father accepted the Adventist message, one of my uncles decided not to join. He liked drinking and smoking, and he died childless at a young age as a result of his unhealthy lifestyle. My father, on the other hand, left a large progeny, many of them serving the church in positions of significant responsibilities. This means that I have a heavy debt of gratitude towards the church that fed me spiritually throughout the years and whose spiritual milk I drank with my mother's milk. This sense of indebtedness to the church I love has led me to try to do something for the religious movement that has blessed me so much. This is why I invested over a decade to this important topic on a part time basis and am now ready to share with you what I learned. As far as I know, I am the only Seventh-day Adventists who has ever done his doctoral dissertation on the topic which I have entitled: "From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The dramatic Shift of Seventh-day Adventists Towards Abortion." [10]

*********

[Woody]

The position of the church is to not dictate. Thus it is pro-choice.

[phkrause]

Richard I believe the church is for Life, not sure about pro-life. Again like I've mentioned in many posts I don't believe in labels and being pro-life or pro-choice are just that, just labels. God created us with a right to choose. For me personally I'm against abortion, but each person has the right to choose for themselves, and its between them and God, no one else's business, period.

pk

[Guest]

Did you read what I posted?

[Nic Samojluk]

God created us with a right to choose. For me personally I'm against abortion, but each person has the right to choose for themselves, and its between them and God, no one else's business, period.

pk

Would say the same about rape, burglary, and sexual abuse of little children? Would you say, "I am againt rape, burglary, and sexual abuse of little children; but each person has the right to choose, and its between them and God, no elslse's busines?"

Notice that in the case of rape, the victim can eventually heal and lead almost a normal life. In the case of abortion, the victim will never recover from the ordeal. And we are talking about either dismemberment or poisoning and without the benefit of anesthesia.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

God created us with a right to choose. For me personally I'm against abortion, but each person has the right to choose for themselves, and its between them and God, no one else's business, period.

pk

Would say the same about rape, burglary, and sexual abuse of little children? Would you say, "I am againt rape, burglary, and sexual abuse of little children; but each person has the right to choose, and its between them and God, no elslse's busines?"

Notice that in the case of rape, the victim can eventually heal and lead almost a normal life. In the case of abortion, the victim will never recover from the ordeal. And we are talking about either dismemberment or poisoning and without the benefit of anesthesia.

I'm going to have to agree with you there Nic.

[SivartM]

That's interesting. I didn't know that our church was officially pro-choice. That makes me disappointed in us. :(

[Tom Wetmore]

The flaw in your thesis and in that of far too many in the so called pro-life movement is that respecting another's right (and it is currently a legal right, and if one understands moral free will/choice it is arguably a moral right...) to choose is not... let me repeat that... is not the same as pro-abortion.

And do not get me started on the wide-spread hypocrisy among a large percentage of the so-called pro-lifers that stridently advocate for and support capital punishment, war-mongering, and give far less attention, if any, to the genocides of the world, poverty and world hunger each of which kills multiple millions more innocent lives than abortion ever has or ever will.

[Woody]

That's interesting. I didn't know that our church was officially pro-choice. That makes me disappointed in us.

Well ... personally I think that letting people decide for themselves is a good ol' Christian ideal.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I agree with Redwood.

[Jeannieb43]

I'm pro-life. Pro-The MOTHER'S life. She has the right to CHOOSE, after consultation with her doctor, whether or not to end the pregnancy. And that choice is never made frivolously; the agonizing thought which goes into it is something which nobody else will ever understand.

For you MEN to try to arbitrarily decide a woman's fate is abysmally abhorrent. Almost obscene.

[teresaq]

well, thank God for some of these posts!

my sister above, unfortunately there are just as many women who are quite vocal on taking away their fellow womans right to choose.

each person has to answer to God for the decisions we make and i would just as soon leave it that way.

my bible emphasizes taking care of what is here, the poor, the orphan, the widow, the oppressed.

i have yet to read where it says to force people to bring more children into this world.

sorry!! but i would probably be more impressed with the pro-lifers if they had supplied every child sitting in orphanages, the street, and wherever they might be, with loving homes and food and care, before trying to force more into this world.

[Nan]

The only terminations of pregnancy I have personally performed have been when the baby

has major abnormalities. I do not have any moral problem with that action, if others do,

then that is their problem.

I am pro-choice, but if women come to me exploring the option of termination then I usually ask

them if they think that they will be comfortable with the decision 5 and 10 years down the track.

There are a number of babies alive today whose mothers were asked that question.

If the women want an abortion, there are readily available places to which they can go. I do not try to make them feel guilty if they choose that path.

This question is one which OBGYN's have to consider for themselves. Jesus did not come into the world

to force anyone to stop sinning. He came so that all who choose can live the abundant life He has opened up for us.

[Woody]

I'm pro-life. Pro-The MOTHER'S life. She has the right to CHOOSE, after consultation with her doctor, whether or not to end the pregnancy. And that choice is never made frivolously; the agonizing thought which goes into it is something which nobody else will ever understand.

For you MEN to try to arbitrarily decide a woman's fate is abysmally abhorrent. Almost obscene.

Ahhh. Come on. Lay it on just a little stronger to us men.

[SivartM]

I think the mothers should have a choice. But the fact that innocent unborn babies never have a say in the matter is what I have a problem with. God puts a child into the world, but it's inconvenient and the mother doesn't want it. Since it's HER choice, she can feel free to kill the baby. What a happy little system.

[Woody]

If it was from a rape ... was God responsible for that?

[Guest]

There's always adoption.

[SivartM]

If it was from a rape ... was God responsible for that?

If a living being was conceived, then yes. Unless babies that result from rape are created by Satan.

[Woody]

Well. That's all fine and dandy. But not all are at the same Christian or non-Christian level as you and I.

[Nic Samojluk]

That's interesting. I didn't know that our church was officially pro-choice. That makes me disappointed in us.

I spent an entire decade investigating this matter and my doctoral dissertation was entitled "From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Attitudes Towards Abortion." You can read this document online at the following Internet address: http://sdaforum.ipower.com/page13.html

By the way, there is hardly any difference between the "pro-choice" and the "pro-abortion" position. They are the same enchilada with a slightly different name. Both positions justify the killing of the unborn under a variety of circumstances, including when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy and the pregnancy is affecting her mental health. This means that all the woman needs to get her baby killed is to find an abortionist who will agree with her that her mental health is being affected. Of course, finding such a "health" provider is rather easy.

[Nic Samojluk]

The flaw in your thesis and in that of far too many in the so called pro-life movement is that respecting another's right (and it is currently a legal right, and if one understands moral free will/choice it is arguably a moral right...) to choose is not... let me repeat that... is not the same as pro-abortion.

And do not get me started on the wide-spread hypocrisy among a large percentage of the so-called pro-lifers that stridently advocate for and support capital punishment, war-mongering, and give far less attention, if any, to the genocides of the world, poverty and world hunger each of which kills multiple millions more innocent lives than abortion ever has or ever will.

For the unborn baby there is no difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." Both positions end with a dead baby. Both positions justify the killing of an innocent human being for the crime or selfishness of others. The baby did not ask to be generated nor did the innocent creature do anything to deserve the death penalty by dismemberment or poisoning.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, we need to distinguish between killing a criminal and an innocent human being. There is also a fundamental difference between the collateral damage in case of war where innocent people are killed and the intentional targeting of innocent human beings. I hope you see the huge moral difference. I am against the death penalty even of guilty individuals and I am also against wars; nevertheless, I think that we should not confuse these moral issues.

[phkrause]

I did read your post Richard, now I'm not sure what your getting at. Did I miss something?

pk

[phkrause]

First off Nic, I said I was against abortion. But having said that, its still a choice that God allows us to make, and than we will have to answer to God. Not to you or me or anyone else. Unless you think that we are the judge and jury. Right now from what I understand it is not a crime in this country to have an abortion, or am I wrong??? As far as those other things you mentioned, are they not crimes in this country or am I wrong about this too? And as far as I know they are also a choice! We can choose to kill, drink and drive, etc. but we have to be willing to pay the consequence's for our actions, here and the final judgement.

pk

[Nic Samojluk]

Well ... personally I think that letting people decide for themselves is a good ol' Christian ideal.

Redwood,

Yes, we are free moral agents. We are free to decide whether to kill our own unborn children, and we are free to rape, steal, or even shoot at a president, and some have done this and ended in jail or the electric chair. There are serious consequences in the event we make wrong moral choices. The shedding of innocent blood and the killing of innocent human beings is strongly condemned in Scripture. Jesus stated that our eternal destiny will depend on the way we treat “the least,” and it would be hard to imagine any other group of human beings more deserving of the “the least” label.

[Guest]

Amen