The Washington Post, Adventists & Abortion

[John317]

Outstanding post, Shane. Jesus' adversary would love for the SDA church to become involved in side-issues instead of concentrating on the Three Angels Messages. He is trying to get all of our minds off this work and onto to ANYTHING else. He doesn't care what it is as long as it is isn't the work of preparing ourselves and the world for Christ's return.

[doug yowell]

The mission of the church is to carry the Three Angels' Message to the end of the Earth. So let's bear that in mind.

The mission of the church was not to emancipate the slaves. God did call sheep from other folds to do that and Adventists cooperated with that effort but it was never at the forefront of our work.

A nice thought but a bad use of SDA history.Many SDA's were an integral part of the underground railroad and EGW spoke of the need for supporters of the rebellion(and slavery)within the church (as yet not formally existing)to either keep their views quiet or to get out.While the "church" did not make abolition it's main focus it did not allow for slavery to be promoted within it's ranks,there was no pro-choice option or "middle of the road" stance taken on the issue.The church that cannot mirror the principles of the everlasting gospel cannot qualify as it's mouthpiece to a dying world.The church that is uncomfortable with publically identifying elective abortion as a "sin" (your words, not the "guidelines"}and allows it's members to practice and advocate it is hardly in a position to call the rest of the world to repentence.

[doug yowell]

The mission of the church is to carry the Three Angels' Message to the end of the Earth. So let's bear that in mind.

The mission of the church was never to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. God did call sheep from other folds to do that and Adventists cooperated with that effort but it was never at the forefront of our work.

I'm really puzzled at this comment. Ellen White and others spent a considerable amount of time and effort at the forefront of the Temperence movement.She was often the featured speaker for the WCTU. She worked tirelessly for the criminalization of alcohol even to the point of openly advocating a constitutional ammendment.Her views,activity, and the church's response is no historical secret.Even when I was a gradeschooler SDA's were known for their leadership in the temperence field.It has become such an important aspect of who we are that we require adherence to it's practice as a test of faith!We see it as tied in with the 3 Angel's Messages.So I would gather that if you really believe your assertion, as stated above, that you are critical of EGW for her getting sidetracked from our true mission,or you haven't done your history lesson for this week.

[John317]

Ellen White and others spent a considerable amount of time and effort at the forefront of the Temperence movement.

This is certainly true. She was best known outside of the SDA church as a public speaker on health and Temperence. When she traveled, it was mostly her efforts in Temperence that the newspapers talked about.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

She was often the featured speaker for the WCTU. She worked tirelessly for the criminalization of alcohol even to the point of openly advocating a constitutional ammendment.

Could you provide some quotes from her writings that show her work in attempting to criminalize the use of alcohol and in openly advocating a constitutional ammendment?

Added later: See next post.

[John317]

This is from the biography of Ellen White:

The camp meeting was to be held at Des Moines, opening Thursday, June 9. James and Ellen White arrived about noon on Friday. G. B. Starr, a young minister at the meeting, told of how on arrival Ellen White declared, "Well, we are here at the Lord's bidding, for what special purpose we do not know, but we shall doubtless know as the meeting progresses."--In DF 274, "The Des Moines, Iowa, Temperance Experience." Both James and Ellen White threw themselves wholeheartedly into ministry, with Ellen White speaking several times, but particularly on Sunday afternoon addressing the people with "great freedom." {3BIO 159.1}

A heavy rainstorm came up, calling for extra effort on her part to make the people hear. Following the meeting she went to her tent, bathed, and retired early for the night. She reported what then transpired: {3BIO 159.2}

In one hour, a message came for me to repair to the tent and

speak to some points introduced in their business meetings,

upon the right of voting in favor of prohibition. I dressed and

spoke to them about twenty minutes, and then returned to the

tent.--Letter 5a, 1881. {3BIO 159.3}

The issue under discussion was on the matter of voting for prohibition. Twenty-six years later, G. B. Starr, laboring in Australia, was confronted with a similar question. He called to mind how Ellen White, at the Iowa meeting, related a dream in which she seemed to be in a large gathering where the temperance movement was being discussed. A fine-looking man with pen in hand was circulating a temperance pledge, but none would sign. As the visitor was leaving, he turned and said: {3BIO 159.4}

God designs to help the people in a great movement on this

subject. He also designed that you, as a people, should be the

160

head and not the tail in the movement; but now the position you

have taken will place you at the tail.--In DF 274, "The Des

Moines, Iowa, Temperance Experience." {3BIO 159.5}

"'Shall we vote for prohibition?' she asked. 'Yes, to a man, everywhere,' she replied, 'and perhaps I shall shock some of you if I say, If necessary, vote on the Sabbath day for prohibition if you cannot at any other time."'--Ibid. {3BIO 160.1}

Writing of the experience--in an account Ellen White endorsed--Starr declared: {3BIO 160.2}

I can testify that the effect of the relation of that dream was

electrical upon the whole conference. A convincing power

attended it, and I saw for the first time the unifying power of the

gift of prophecy in the church.--Ibid. {3BIO 160.3}

Before the Whites came onto the grounds in Iowa, an action had been taken at the business meeting, leaving out the words "by vote." Apparently Ellen White's Sunday afternoon address-- which, if it ran true to form, was on temperance--led to a reopening of the question, and the call upon Ellen White for counsel. The action, passed after she gave counsel, read: {3BIO 160.4}

Resolved, That we express our deep interest in the

temperance movement now going forward in this State; and that we

instruct all our ministers to use their influence among our

churches and with the people at large to induce them to put forth

every consistent effort, by personal labor, and at the ballot box,

in favor of the prohibitory amendment of the Constitution, which the

friends of temperance are seeking to secure.--RH, July 5, 1881. {3BIO 160.5}

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes, you are mistaken. I do forgive you. Click on the link below.

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

6% of abortions are performed for health reasons. Only 3% are actually due to the mothers health. The other 3% is due to the baby's health.

Once again Nic, the church is right and you are wrong.

Did you read the summary listed in the reference you provided?

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

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

If you add the percentage for rape and incest [0.3] plus maternal health [1] and fetal abnormality [0.5] you get 1.8 percent. This is why the author concludes that “About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective.” Did you skip or accidentally miss that? I am using the source you provided! And you claim that I am wrong and the church is right?

The Adventist Church has given carte blanche to our hospitals to provide elective abortions. Several years ago Gerald Winslow wrote an article published in Spectrum in which he reported the results of survey stating that five of our hospitals were offering elective abortions to their patients. This covers 98 percent of abortions done in the U.S. according to the source you provided.

Source: Gerald R. Winslow, Abortion Policies in Adventist Hospitals Spectrum 19/4 (May 1989): 47-50. Accessed from http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/issue/vol_19_no_4_may_1989 on 18 Oct. 2010.

How can you claim that the Adventist Church is right and that I am wrong? The church condemns abortions on demand in theory, but in practice it has given authority to Adventist hospitals both to use the name “Adventist” and to draft their own guidelines in violation of their own alleged pro-life policy. At the same time, the church has consistently opposed the work of Adventist pro-lifers. What they did to Mark Price is a good example. They forced the closure of his “Adventist for Life” web page.

You need to begin to look not at what the church says but rather at what it does. Talk is cheap. Those who crucified the Son of God claimed to be the followers of Moses, but their actions negated such a claim! This is why Jesus told them that they were no the Sons of God but rather the sons of the Devil, the one who has been “a murderer from the beginning!”

[doug yowell]

The Adventist Church has given carte blanche to our hospitals to provide elective abortions. Several years ago Gerald Winslow wrote an article published in Spectrum in which he reported the results of survey stating that five of our hospitals were offering elective abortions to their patients. This covers 98 percent of abortions done in the U.S. according to the source you provided.

Source: Gerald R. Winslow, Abortion Policies in Adventist Hospitals Spectrum 19/4 (May 1989): 47-50. Accessed from http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/issue/vol_19_no_4_may_1989 on 18 Oct. 2010.

It should be noted that Gerald Winslow is the primary architect of the wording of the "guidelines" and is no pro-lifer.

[doug yowell]

Resolved, That we express our deep interest in the

temperance movement now going forward in this State; and that we

instruct all our ministers to use their influence among our

churches and with the people at large to induce them to put forth

every consistent effort, by personal labor, and at the ballot box,

in favor of the prohibitory amendment of the Constitution, which the

friends of temperance are seeking to secure.--RH, July 5, 1881. {3BIO 160.5}

Excellent work,John. I don't memorize all the things EGW says but I tend to accurately remember the gist and direction of what she advocated.And I'm not too skilled in finding those things on the computer.Thanks for the quote.

[Nic Samojluk]

It should be noted that Gerald Winslow is the primary architect of the wording of the "guidelines" and is no pro-lifer.

Yes, I know that. Once I raised this issue in Sabbath School; he didn’t seem to be happy with my comments. In my conversation with him when the SS was over, he told me that some of my online written statements were wrong. I asked him why he did not respond and try to correct them. He responded that he didn’t want to dignify what I was doing with his comments.

I asked: “Are you suggesting that saving innocent babies is undignified?” He said he was busy and invited me to discuss this in his office. I wrote to him summarizing my views about abortion and suggested that we discuss this my email if possible, but told him that I was willing to do it in person if he preferred. I am still waiting for his response.

[Nic Samojluk]

I think the church's guidelines on abortion are very good. I think it is unfortunate that not all Adventist hospitals follow them. That is something I would like to see change. I think the attitude that the organized church, as a whole, is somehow in apostasy because of this is a bit blown out of proportion.

I would support a website that was simply a petition asking that at the next General Conference our church's abortion guidelines become our church's official position on abortion and that our hospitals and physicians be instructed to abide by it. Such a web site could have a place for a member to put their name and the name and city of the church where their membership is. If it was done in English, French and Spanish it would probably get thousands of names within a short time.

This would not be good enough because our “Guidelines on Abortion” include the mental health exception which opens the door for elective abortions and abortions on demand. 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 restaints of the guidelines.” [Martin Weber, “The Christian View of Human Life,” Liberty 1993 v88 Jan-Feb p11-13]

[doug yowell]

Yes, I know that. Once I raised this issue in Sabbath School; he didn’t seem to be happy with my comments. In my conversation with him when the SS was over, he told me that some of my online written statements were wrong. I asked him why he did not respond and try to correct them. He responded that he didn’t want to dignify what I was doing with his comments.

I asked: “Are you suggesting that saving innocent babies is undignified?” He said he was busy and invited me to discuss this in his office. I wrote to him summarizing my views about abortion and suggested that we discuss this my email if possible, but told him that I was willing to do it in person if he preferred. I am still waiting for his response.

Did he happen to mention exactly which comments you were misusing and why your commentary was misleading? Most pro-choicers get very upset at the suggestion that they are actually practical pro-abortioners.I suspect that this is a possibility in this case.

[Nic Samojluk]

That is such an EXCELLENT quote from Inspiration, Nic!

Quote:

If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he would better understand his obligations and his responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain money to leave for them. They nurse these children through their suffering life, and often lay them prematurely in the grave, little realizing that their wrong course has brought the sure result. How much better to shield the mother of his children from wearing labor and mental anxiety, and let the children inherit good constitutions, and give them an opportunity to battle their way through life, not relying upon their father's property, but upon their own energetic strength! The experience thus obtained would be of more worth to them than houses and lands purchased at the expense of the health of mother and children. {RH, July 18, 1899 par. 5}

Abortion is no less than murder. I often wonder why this is so easy for so many Protestants from other denominations to see this and yet, so many Adventists are so blind when it comes to this subject? It has to be because...they are listening to their leaders and

Quote:

O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Isaiah 3:12.

There isn't any other explanation for this strange behaviour....

Evidently, thanks to those leaders, many Adventists in North America have developed a blind spot in their moral eyesight regarding abortion. Personally, I joined the church by baptism at a time when the Adventist Church was pro-life, like the early pioneers of Adventism. I have no plans to deviate from this pro-life position.

We need to petition the church leaders, and demand if necessary, that the church disconnect itself from abortion and from the hospitals who insist on continuing providing the services connected with the killing of innocent human beings. Our minimum demand should be that those Adventist hospitals which want to continue offering elective abortions and abortions on demand sever their connection with the Adventist Church and start operating as fully autonomous entities and independent ministries like 3 ABN and The Quiet Hour.

In this, Desmond T. Doss set a good example for us to follow. He refused to participate in the killing, and he did this during war time. We are killing during peace time. He was opposed, ridiculed, offered an early discharge, and even threatened with court martial.

He remained firm in his faithfulness to his moral convictions and refused to carry a gun even in self defense. He refused to kill enemies; while we kill our own children. The Lord and the country rewarded him with a medal of honor for his courage in saving the lives of hundreds of American soldiers while ducking flying bullets around him. We need men and women who will be as loyal to our moral principles as the compass is to the North Pole.

[Nic Samojluk]

Then we remember that we belong to a "we" organization and not a "me" organization. Making changes means getting involved. If the organization doesn't see an issue as we do personally, we humble our hearts and accept it. That is what belonging to an organization means. We must trust that God will do His will. And if we do not get the result we desire, perhaps His will was not what we thought it was.

That is not the example set by Elijah, John the Baptist, and Jesus himself. I could have added, Peter, John and Paul.

[doug yowell]

>>>>What else should the GC make make official???

After that what else.....

And then....... <<<<<<

The important part of my question seems to have been ignored...or...is it being suggested that whatever the church makes official must be followed or you are 'out'?

That means the next question is...Is it being suggested that what the church decides is 'sin' becomes official and therefor we are talking about 'salvation issues'. It is a fair question to ask and have answered as some are claiming rather strongly that abortion under any conditions is 'murder'.

Where do we want the Church to begin or end in deciding salvation issues????

Would you mind naming two people who claim that abortion under every circumstance is murder? One would be ok if you can't remember more. But if someone believes that terminating the pregnancy (I like that one,ya can't tell the difference between being born and being aborted!)of a perfectly healthy, developing baby(aka fetus)is murder wouldn't that seem like a salvation affecting issue?

[doug yowell]

That is not the example set by Elijah, John the Baptist, and Jesus himself. I could have added, Peter, John and Paul.

For a second there I thought you said Peter, Paul, and Mary.

[Nic Samojluk]

The point is that we don't have to be dogmatic about abortion. Abortion can save lives. Each person needs to weigh the evidence and make a decision for their situation.

Abortion has never saved the lives of those who were subjectd to the so called "therapeutic abortions." Who wants a therapy that kills? Has any abortion defender subjected himself to such saving treatment?

[doug yowell]

Quote:

Abortion is no less than murder.

Scroll back!

And again, my question is not being answered!

Neither did you give an example of someone advocating that abortion is always murder. You quoted Nic above and then added the words "under any conditions".If Nic (or anyone else)actually pushed that view your question would be fair. But Nic has never condemned abortion "under any circumstances".The other part of your question asks whether the church has any right to determine the boundries of behavour that they require of their members.As it stands now the SDA church has many "official" standards that are non-optional for those who would become part of the "remnant" community.I doubt I need to expound on all of them, but tobacco,drug,and alcohol use come immediately to mind.If you(the corporate you)feel that these "unsalvation issues" are also unjustified then I believe you are consistent in also excluding abortion. But this then is a whole nother question and abortion is not the main issue.

[Dr. Shane]

This would not be good enough because our “Guidelines on Abortion” include the mental health exception which opens the door for elective abortions and abortions on demand.

Nic. You are not the church. You have your opinion. That is what it is. Your opinion. It is an extremist position. You have chosen to place yourself on the far end of the spectrum. That's your choice. If you like it, stay there. The rest of the church isn't going there with you. The church has a position. Obviously you don't like it. You are free to leave the church and start your own.

The issue is whether or not the church's position should go before the General Conference in open session and be officially adopted. We are not going to join hands with the Vatican and let the pope decide our church's position on abortion. We are not going there. We are Adventists, not papists.

[Dr. Shane]

> it being suggested that whatever the church makes official must be followed or you are 'out'?

Refer to the Church Manual. I guess some people think we shouldn't have a church manual. The General Conference in open session obviously believes we should have a church manual - that is why we have one.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

“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 restaints of the guidelines.” [Martin Weber, “The Christian View of Human Life,” Liberty 1993 v88 Jan-Feb p11-13]

This is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

The "enforcement" of church doctrine is, in most cases, the local church. It doesn't happen much in North America but in Latin America, local congregations disfellowship and censor members all the time. My wife was disfellowshipped when she was a teenager. Her aunt was disfellowshipped and her sister was disfellowshipped. All three returned to the church. If the church's guidelines on abortion made it into the Church Manual it would be up to the local church congregations to enforce them. Therefore if a doctor in a church was performing abortions that the local congregation felt violated the guidelines, it wouldn't matter how the doctor justified it in his or her mind, the local congregation would be free to discipline him or her.

Example:

Abortion could be added to the chapter in the Church Manual regarding "Standards of Christian Living" and read something like this...

"Abortion:

God's ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God's image, and requires respect for prenatal life. However, decisions about life must be made in the context of a fallen world. Abortion is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation."

Under the chapter on "Church Discipline" and in the section "Reasons for Which Members Shall Be Disciplined" it could read something like this:

"Active participation in an abortion performed for birth control, gender selection or convenience."

Now if someone were to make a website in Spanish, French and English requesting such an issue go before the General Conference in open session I suspect there would be thousands of members endorsing it in a short period of time. I think very few would be quick to support extremist positions like what Nic supports.

[doug yowell]

[Nic. You are not the church. You have your opinion. That is what it is. Your opinion. It is an extremist position. You have chosen to place yourself on the far end of the spectrum. That's your choice. If you like it, stay there. The rest of the church isn't going there with you. The church has a position. Obviously you don't like it. You are free to leave the church and start your own.

The issue is whether or not the church's position should go before the General Conference in open session and be officially adopted. We are not going to join hands with the Vatican and let the pope decide our church's position on abortion. We are not going there. We are Adventists, not papists.

Why is Nic's position extreme? It's the same position that many(if not most)hold. In fact, it is Nic's position(correct me of I misrepresent you,Nic)that the issue should be taken before the GC in open session. This is something that has never happened, in fact the issue has been purposely kept away from the open GC in session. This is something that was greatly desired by prolife advocates in the 1990 GC session but it was decided by a committee and voted,not by the church in session, but by a select group Annual Council.That smacks more of popery than what Nic has been suggesting.So far the GC officials have refused to allow discussion of the issue to come before the church in session. That ain't Nic's fault.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

> it being suggested that whatever the church makes official must be followed or you are 'out'?

Refer to the Church Manual. I guess some people think we shouldn't have a church manual. The General Conference in open session obviously believes we should have a church manual - that is why we have one.

I've been in the church for over half a century. I've been in many different churches. I've been to General Conference sessions. I've been on many church boards.

I have yet to see even ONE church that follows the church manual in all areas. My current conference states that the church manual is just a list of possible suggestions of guidelines ... NOT rules.

[doug yowell]

What's smoke and mirrors? This is exactly the way things work in the real world.This is the reality of the Doe v. Bolton ruling. Pretending that what happens in the outside world can never take place within the confines of the Adventist universe is rather dangerous to say the least.

[doug yowell]

Wasn't quoting NIC...

I did say 'seem to' and I base that on all the rhetoric being posted. It was also being posted in a question type mode. Behaviour modes mandated by church and salvation issues mandated by God can be distintly and often are different. So we, as a church need to be careful and members also, on what are considered salvation issues. Do we really want the RCC model, that of central authority for all spiritul matters?

I think it's a little late to open membership behaviour up to "everyone did what was right in their own eyes." Besides I believe the council of Jerusalem already established an acceptable model to follow, one which the GC is patterned after.One which the RCC has distorted.

[Dr. Shane]

I have yet to see even ONE church that follows the church manual in all areas. My current conference states that the church manual is just a list of possible suggestions of guidelines ... NOT rules.

That is one of the beauties of the Adventist church. We are a centralized, world-wide organization and yet the local church has a lot of autonomy. The church manual is filled with suggestions but... if a local church waivers too far, the conference or mission has the right to come in, lock the doors and change the locks.

Yet we cannot make light of the church manual simply because the local church is not bond to follow every page and every letter in it. It is the standard for the church approved by the General Conference in open session. No other document expressed the will of the entire church like it does. To add our church guidelines on abortion to the church manual would clarify the issue for the millions in our church membership and for the outside world looking at us.