Should Adventists Get Out of the Abortion Business?

[doug yowell]

If you mean totally and without exceptions, then, NO!

And with exceptions?

[doug yowell]

It is a fact that Neil Wilson, as NAD President,made these comments.It is a fact that he believed that SDA'

s leaned towards supporting abortion on demand(world hunger and over-population are birth control reasons for abortion).It is a fact that,in this interview, he was giving his opinion on why he believed SDA"s generally leaned in that direction.It is a fact that he felt that his opinion was representing the opinions of SDA's as a whole (notice that he uses the "we" word. I doubt he had a mouse in his pocket).It is a fact that when the leader of the world's largest (and richest) SDA community speaks publically on any issue,the general opinion is that he is speaking as it's official representative.

[doug yowell]

Is the letter sent to the PUC by hospital representatives stating these concerns, and asking what they should do,a fact or a myth? If not a myth, then this statement cannot be an opinion.Right?

[doug yowell]

Quote:

some years ago, our “Ministry” magazine reported that five of our Adventist hospitals were offering ELECTIVE abortion services to their patients. Of course, an elective abortion means that there is nothing wrong with the developing baby.

Fact or opinion? Later sentance is obvioulsy an opinion. No full lnowledge of all abortion reasons.

It is a fact that the term "elective" refers directly to the choice to terminate the life of the baby apart from possible medical concerns.Attempting to redefine the term apart from it's normal useage is a self induced opinion.

[doug yowell]

A question based on an opinion as if it is the truth!!

A question based on an opinion thought to be the truth may be misguided but it is not a lie. Are we done discussing this from the lying perspective?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

If you mean totally and without exceptions, then, NO!

And with exceptions?

As in rape and mother's life at stake.

[doug yowell]

As in rape and mother's life at stake.

Would those exceptions change your answer from a no to a yes?

[Nic Samojluk]

CoAsper stated: “SDAs lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted with big problems of hunger and over-population” Fact or opinion?

Nic responds: This was reported as fact by George Gainer, and the Spectrum magazine editors published this. Nobody so far has questioned this except you. Should I believe you or the silence of thousands who have read this reported in Spectrum and made no effort to correct what Gainer reported as fact? Not even Neal Wilson made an attempt at correcting this.

CoAsper stated: “The hospital managers felt that the loss of this potential business could threaten the financial stability of the institution and sought the advice of the Pacific Union Conference.” FAct or opinion?”

Nic responds: George Gainer reported this as factual. Neither the former managers of Castle Memorial Hospital nor any Adventist leaders or the Spectrum readers have tried to deny this. This was written many years ago and suddenly you try to treat this as fiction?

CoAsper stated: “some years ago, our “Ministry” magazine reported that five of our Adventist hospitals were offering ELECTIVE abortion services to their patients. Of course, an elective abortion means that there is nothing wrong with the developing baby.” Fact or opinion? Later sentence is obviously an opinion. No full knowledge of all abortion reasons.

Nic responds: This was based on the results of a survey conducted by the Loma Linda University Ethics department. The article was written by Gerald Winslow. In said article Winslow did state that there was some confusion in the mind of some participants about the meaning of the term “elective” abortion.

Is this a good excuse? Don’t we have dictionaries for such situations? Here you have two dictionary definitions of “elective” abortion which seem to be accepted by those in the medical field. Both define an elective abortion as the one perfumed when the unborn baby has not reached the point of viability—the baby cannot survive outside of the womb—and the procedure is done at the request of the woman for reasons unrelated to “maternal or fetal health or welfare.”

elective abortion,

“induced termination of a pregnancy (TOP), usually before the fetus has developed enough to live if born, deemed necessary by the woman carrying it and performed at her request. Commonly (but incorrectly) called therapeutic abortion.” See also induced abortion.

Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

elective abortion “Therapeutic abortion Obstetrics A voluntary interruption of pregnancy before fetal viability, which is performed voluntarily at the request of the mother for reasons unrelated to concerns for maternal or fetal health or welfare; most abortions are elective; there is 1 EA per 3 live births in the US.” See Abortion. McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

CoAsper stated: “The pregnant woman requests that her unborn baby be killed because the birth of the baby would interfere with her lifestyle.” Of course more opinion stated as truth!

Nic responds: How else should I have interpreted Gainer’s statement given the two definitions of “elective abortion” listed above? Is it wrong to operate on the basis of a common understanding of what words mean? What is the function of dictionaries if we don’t use them? Is it right to fault those who use them? Why would deception be attached to someone who uses the dictionary definition of words? If the abortion is requested when there is no “maternal or fetal health or welfare” involved, what else can be the motivation except lifestyle?

CoAsper stated: “What do you think? Do you agree with me that our Adventist Church adopted the pro-choice/pro-abortion policy for the wrong reasons and that it should get out of it ASAP?” A question based on an opinion as if it is the truth!!

Have you read George Gainer’s article for which I posted the Internet link? What was the motivational factor which led the church to get involved in the abortion business? Wasn’t it profit? Didn’t Neal Wilson publicly acknowledge that it was justifiable for the church to profit from the abortion business? Do you want me to post the evidence for this here?

Do you believe that it is morally justifiable for the Adventist church to profit from the killing of innocent unborn children? Is this an integral part of the church's mission? Does this square with what Jesus stated was his mission when he said: “I have come that you may have life, and have it abundantly”? Whose mission is to kill and destroy? isn’t it the mission of the one described in the Bible as the one who has been “a murderer from the beginning”?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

As in rape and mother's life at stake.

Would those exceptions change your answer from a no to a yes?

Yes!!!

[doug yowell]

As in rape and mother's life at stake. Would those exceptions change your answer from a no to a yes?

Yes!!!

While I would argue the practical morality of the former I would welcome the church's adoption of your policy reform.

[doug yowell]

[Have you read George Gainer’s article for which I posted the Internet link? What was the motivational factor which led the church to get involved in the abortion business? Wasn’t it profit? Didn’t Neal Wilson publicly acknowledge that it was justifiable for the church to profit from the abortion business? Do you want me to post the evidence for this here?

The Spectrum article by G.Gainer was the Readers Digest version of his more extensive research paper of the same title. A look at the broader picture which Gainer portrays seems to indicate that financial profit was not necessarily the only or even perhaps the prime reason for adopting the open abortion policy at Castle.It may be just my interpretation of the exchanges between hospital administrators and conference/union officials but it seemed that a bigger concern was the maintaining of CMH's reputation in the community as a "full service" facility.Restricting abortion services would have put that designation at risk (or so they feared). As the prophet John McEnroe once predicted,"Image is everything." I have always thought that the desire to be accepted by the world around us has been a far greater "motivator" for Adventists than monetary successes.

[Nic Samojluk]

Doug stated: “It may be just my interpretation of the exchanges between hospital administrators and conference/union officials but it seemed that a bigger concern was the maintaining of CMH's reputation in the community as a "full service" facility.”

Nic responds: Both concerns seem to have played a significant role in the Castle Memorial Hospital's decision to offer elective abortions to their patients. If you think that the financial consideration took second place to the fear of being unable to being perceived as a full service medical institution, I would not argue to the contrary. Nevertheless, we need to take into account the fact that half of their medical staff threatened to take their patients elsewhere if they were denied the privilege of participating in the abortion business.

Regardless of which motivation had the upper hand, I am convinced that the moral decision was wrong. The hospital management could have trusted in God’s providential blessings to those who do what is right, and the correct decision would have been to refuse to participate in the killing of innocent human beings—more so in the case of elective abortions as defined in my previous posting.

I suspect that the first mistake was to ignore the biblical injunction against being yoked with unbelievers. Allowing half of the medical staff to be made up of non-Adventists might have been a failure in sound management policy. The second mistake was probably to promise to the community that the institution would be a “full service” hospital.

A lack of vision did not allow them to foresee that the State of Hawaii was on the verge of legalizing abortion. Ellen White provided Adventists with a blue print to follow concerning the future of our medical work. She strongly advised Adventist leaders to stay away from business associations with worldly organizations. This sound advice was ignored by our leaders following her demise.

New International Version (©1984)

“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” [2 Cor. 6:14]

My question today is: What can we do to motivate our church leaders to do what is morally right. How can we influence the church to return to the example set by our Adventist pioneers regarding the abortion issue? I believe that the Adventist Church would do well to get out of the abortion business, and the sooner the better.

As a church, we did compromise on this moral issue half a century ago when our leaders cooperated with the Nazi regime while the Jews were being exterminated. Not long ago, the German and Austrian Adventist leadership issued a public apology for this moral failure.

We also failed in Rwanda when some of our Adventist leaders and members actively participated in the slaughter of people of their own faith. Recently Spectrum published an article written by a young Adventist named Ronald Osborn entitled “No Sanctuary at Mugonero,” which he originally had published elsewhere.

In it he made the observation that, according to some reports, those Adventists who were killing other Adventists did refrain from this bloody work during the sacred hours of the Sabbath. This reminds us of the Jewish leaders who following the crucifixion of Jesus, rushed home to keep the Sabbath holy. Today, we allow some of our hospitals to participate in the current genocide, but are very faithful in our preaching about the Sabbath.

Source: http://www.adventistpeace.org/templates/System/details.asp?id=39491&PID=465481

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

As in rape and mother's life at stake. Would those exceptions change your answer from a no to a yes?

Yes!!!

While I would argue the practical morality of the former I would welcome the church's adoption of your policy reform.

Check the archives. Nick introduced the abortion discussion last year. I believe I made my position clear as to why those two issues should be the exceptions to a total ban.

[Gerr]

In it he made the observation that, according to some reports, those Adventists who were killing other Adventists did refrain from this bloody work during the sacred hours of the Sabbath. This reminds us of the Jewish leaders who following the crucifixion of Jesus, rushed home to keep the Sabbath holy. Today, we allow some of our hospitals to participate in the current genocide, but are very faithful in our preaching about the Sabbath.

Source: http://www.adventistpeace.org/templates/System/details.asp?id=39491&PID=465481

Alas!!! Carrying a Christian label no matter what brand is no guarantee that the heart has been transformed!!!

[doug yowell]

Check the archives. Nick introduced the abortion discussion last year. I believe I made my position clear as to why those two issues should be the exceptions to a total ban.

Yes,I remember. It should be pointed out,however, that EVERYBODY,including Nic, is supportive or the mother's life in danger exception (even though in a hosptial setting this would probably be a non-issue).I've never even heard of anyone who would be against it.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry said: “Check the archives. Nick introduced the abortion discussion last year. I believe I made my position clear as to why those two issues should be the exceptions to a total ban.”

Nic Responds: My aim when I posted the original comments was to see if we Adventist could agree that our motivation for getting into the abortion business was wrong. The main factors were loss of revenue and the fear of being perceived as failing to live up to our promise to provide full service in our Castle Memorial Hospital, coupled with the lame excuse offered by Neal Wilson who argued that the church was leaning towards abortion because there was too much hunger and too many people in the world.

What took place in Hawaii back in 1970 opened the door for elective abortion in some of our Adventist hospitals and eventually one of them was described by a leading General Conference officer as an “abortion mill.” This was confirmed by a “Ministry” article written by Gerald Winslow who reported that five of our hospitals were offering elective abortions to their patients.

Our minimum demand should be that the Adventist Church get out of the elective abortion business. My personal preference is that we get out totally out of the abortion business, except when the life of the pregnant woman is at very serious risk—and I mean life, not health as stated in our “Guidelines on Abortion.” The mental health exception is the one that leads to elecive abortions and abortions on demands, which is condemned by our guidelines, but since our official policy is to allow each hospital to draft their own guidelines, some of our hospitals are in the abortion business with both feet.

Notice what Martin Weber stated regarding the health exception contained in our Guidelines on Abortion:

“A minority view expressed by David Newman, editor of Ministry magazine, and Mildred Youngberg, of Family Life International, pointed to Doe v Bolton (1073) in support of their concern. “Doe,” said Newman, “established emotional distress as a health matter. Therefore, a woman’s anxiety over the financial or occupational implications of motherhood could qualify her for therapeutic abortion. Conceivably, a case could even be made for a gender selection abortion on the basis of health if the mother considered herself sufficiently distressed about getting another boy when she desperately wanted a daughter. Thus the “health of the mother” provision could sabotage the explicit restraints of the guidelines.” [Martin Weber, “The Christian View of Human Life,” Liberty 1993 v88 Jan-Feb p11-13]

Now regarding cases of rape, although many Adventists see this as a gray area, I personally do not. My reasoning is very simple. We seem to have a very strong position about participating in killing in wartime. If killing an enemy who is threatening to kill us is morally wrong, it follows that it should be likewise wrong to kill totally innocent unborn human beings who have done nothing wrong against us. Besides, if we do not impose the death penalty on the rapist, we should let the innocent live as well.

In spite of this, I would support the plan of getting our hospitals out of the elective abortion business as a first step. Those medical institutions who elect to continue performing cases of abortion on demands should continue doing so, but the church should cut our official connection with them. They should operate as independent ministries like Quiet Hour and 3ABN. Our "Washington Adventist Hospital" shoud be required to drop the term "Adventist" from its name.

[Nic Samojluk]

This is to alert you to what is taking place at another web page where I posted the same original comment. You could contribute with your wisdom there as well if you can afford the time.

Should Adventists Get Out of the Abortion Business?

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=10658734349&topic=18105&post=98223

[Nic Samojluk]

According to the Bible, silence means approval. I thank you all, therefore, for agreeing with me that the Adventist Church should get out of the abortion business. Of course, saving a pregnant woman's life from a sure death is still within the pro-life concept: It is morally justifiable to save one life instead of loosing two.

Rape and incest cases are rather rare—perhaps no more than one or two percent of abortion cases, and for some of you this represents a gray area. I suggest therefore the following: Why can we all work with the objective of convincing the church to disconnect the church from those hospitals who are in the abortion business—especially those performing elective abortions which practiced is condemned by the church’s “Guidelines on Abortion.”

By the way, you might be aware that the General Conference has filed a legal notice against Facebook which has resulted in the closure of the “Adventist for Life” page. This news prompted me to remove the “Adventist” name from my Facebook “Adventist Pro-life Center.” I changed it to “Seven Days Po-life Center.” The message seems to be clear: Try to save innocent human lives from being killed and you will get sued by your own church which you have been supporting with your tithes and offering all your life, but take part in the killing of the unborn and you will never be bothered by the General Conference.

A good example is the “Washington Adventist Hospital.” The Washington Post reported some time ago that said institution terminated the lives of 1494 innocent unborn babies in eight years with total impunity. Did the church take legal action against said medical institution? Not a chance. In spite of this, the former GC president publicly claimed that the Adventist Church is pro-life. Do you think that the evidence supports such a claim?

[Gerr]

So how can we influence our church to change this policy approving abortion on demand in some of our hospitals? BTW, what is LLUMC's policy on abortion?

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry asked: “So how can we influence our church to change this policy approving abortion on demand in some of our hospitals?”

Nic’s answer: That is a million dollars question, and I don’t have a million dollars; nevertheless, I know someone who does have this and much more. This is the reason we need to be in everyday communication with Him. Let me share with you what some Adventists have been doing.

A. George Lawson started a program designed to help women in pregnancy crisis. He was met with strong opposition. He moved his organization from Loma Linda to Hemet and his church membership from Loma Linda to the Riverside Seventh Day Baptist Church. He is the one who told me that Elder Richards, from the Voice of Prophecy, had advised him that the best way to clean a church is from the inside instead of from the outside.

B. Teresa Beems, who had participated in the creation of the Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion,” became so discouraged with the result of said document that she filed her protest and joined the Catholic community of faith. There are others who have done the same.

C. Richard Fredericks, who had actively participated in the abortion controversy a few decades ago, was so disgusted with the church’s decision to embrace abortion that he started his own community church.

D. One unnamed Christian lady dropped her membership in the Adventist Church and started a home Adventist Church with her husband and published a brochure depicting the evil of abortion and showing evidence of the Adventist participation in it.

E. Mark Price started an “Adventist for Life” page on his Facebook site, but got clobbered by the General Conference legal department who filed a legal complaint alleging “copyright infringement.” His page disappeared from cyber space and he is now planning to start fresh with a different name which does not contain the word “Adventist.”

F. Marna Hand has been suggesting a March for Life somewhere in the U.S.

G. Doug, Tammy, Newbie, Richard, Nic and others make every effort to participate in blogs dealing with the issue of abortion and sharing their pro-life views with others.

H. One pro-life man I know wrote many letters to his local church, wrote to the General Conference on several occasions, attempted to get published with a pro-life response regarding this issue, got terribly frustrated with the Adventist apathy regarding this moral problem, got his Ph.D. in his spare time, wrote his dissertation about the dramatic shift in our Adventist attitude towards abortion, participated in the distribution of pro-life material, is planning to publish a book about abortion, created three web pages where he has been publishing his ideas about abortion and other issues, and is actively participating in every blog where a discussion is taking place on this topic. He is rather old and one day soon may disappear from the Adventist radar scene, unless the good Lord decides to prolong his life beyond what is normal at his age.

I. One Adventist retiree has been inspiring others with his strong pro-life convictions and has been writing to his local pastor and others about this issue.

J. I am sure that there are many others whose presence is not readily visible, but who have not worshipped at the feet of Baal.

I hope this helps. It is my conviction that we need to rely on wisdom from above in order to be effective. We make many mistakes, but we need not get discouraged or lay prostrated following a temporary set back. The Lord can save with many or with a few.

Gerry asked: “BTW, what is LLUMC's policy on abortion?”

Nic’s answer: I suggest that you write to the LLUMC management and ask them. I am known by them as a pro-life advocate, and would probably respond with silence like the Washington Adventist Hospital has done so far. What I hear is that the local Catholic hospitals are sending their abortion patients to Loma Linda, but I cannot document this in black and white.

If you get an answer, please share it with me. What I do know is that some years ago, Gerald Winslow, a leading LLU ethicist and theologian, did report in Spectrum that five of our hospitals were engaged in elective abortions, but he failed to identify said medical institutions. I do know that WAH and our Castle Memorial Hospital have been participating in the provision of abortion services to their patients.

[doug yowell]

One pro-life man I know wrote many letters to his local church, wrote to the General Conference on several occasions, attempted to get published with a pro-life response regarding this issue, got terribly frustrated with the Adventist apathy regarding this moral problem, got his Ph.D. in his spare time, wrote his dissertation about the dramatic shift in our Adventist attitude towards abortion, participated in the distribution of pro-life material, is planning to publish a book about abortion, created three web pages where he has been publishing his ideas about abortion and other issues, and is actively participating in every blog where a discussion is taking place on this topic. He is rather old and one day soon may disappear from the Adventist radar scene, unless the good Lord decides to prolong his life beyond what is normal at his age.

Hey, I think I know that guy!Nice guy, but he spells his name weird.

[Nic Samojluk]

Hey, I think I know that guy!Nice guy, but he spells his name weird.

Yes, the spelling of his name is weird, but there is a method in his madness. His name in Spanish is Nicolas, and when you shorten this you get “Nic.”As you can see, there is no “h” in the Spanish equivalent for his name.

[Nic Samojluk]

My guess is that everybody knows by now that the Washington Post has published an article questioning the wisdom of the General Conference in shutting down a pro-life web page owned by Mark Price. Here is the link to said article:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfait...rer=emaillinkpg

[Nic Samojluk]

Here is a copy of the first posting I filed with the Washington Post in response to the article dealing with the alleged trademark violation by Mark Price's pro-life page bearing the name "Adventist" in its title.

"The problem I see with the church's position is the apparent double standard. The Washington Adventist Hospital operates under the "Adventist" designation with impunity in spite of a history of being engaged in the killing of innocent unborn human beings; while a pro-life member of the Adventist Church was the target of the church's displeasure while engaged in trying to save human lives.

What the church seems to be saying with such an action is: If you profit from the killing of innocent unborn babies, the church will not bother you; but if you dare to save the lives of those babies, we will take legal action against you. This bothers me a great deal.

In the past, I have sent financial contributions to the pro-life program of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist. Each time, my checks were returned with the following message: "The church doesn't have a pro-life program.

The church will do anything to help you quit the smoking habit, because this may add four or five years to your life. But if you try to prolong the life of a baby by 80 or 90 years while using the Adventist name, you will be sued. Does this make logical sense?

The former president of the church, Jan Paulsen, publicly declared some years ago that the SDA Church was pro-life. Is this claim credible given the evidence we have today?

Some years ago, the church official paper reported that five of the Adventist hospitals were offering elective abortions to their patients. Is this the way to convince the world that the church is pro-life?

The founders of the Adventist Church were definitely pro-life and described the practice of abortion as plain murder. What has taken place?

Profit was behind the church's decision to allow its Castle Memorial Hospital to embrace the abortion business back in 1970 in the State of Hawaii, according to George Gainer whose article was published by the "Spectrum" magazine.

He also reported that the Washington Post run a story several decades ago stating that in seven years of operation the Washington Adventist Hospital had performed 1494 abortions for their patients.

I could say much more, since my doctoral dissertation dealt with this issue.

May the good Lord have mercy on the Adventist Church and on the innocent victims of this abortion genocide. I love my church for the good it has done in the area of health and education, but in the matter of abortion the church needs to repent and ask God for forgiveness.

The church needs also to apologize to Mark Price, the person whose Adventist for Life web page was shut down and allow him to reinstate it in order that he con continue with his God-given altruistic mission."

[Woody]

Quote:

May the good Lord have mercy on the Adventist Church

I think we ALL need mercy. But I also think that those in both sides of this issue need an extra dose.