The Washington Post, Adventists & Abortion

[Woody]

There really is no one way that is best for the millions of memebers throughout this broad planet. There is much to figure in such as culture and individual preferences with methodology.

[Dr. Shane]

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.

[Dr. Shane]

Why is Nic's position extreme?

Nic's position is extreme not because he wants the issue to go before the General Conference in open session. His position is extreme because he believes the only justification for abortion is to save the mother's life. Furthermore, he favors not just adding something to the church manual. He favors the woman riding the beast of civil government to enforce her morality. He is all about marrying church and state together to force his personal morality on the world. That is not Adventism. That is Catholicism.

[doug yowell]

Why is Nic's position extreme? His position is extreme because he believes the only justification for abortion is to save the mother's life. Furthermore, he favors not just adding something to the church manual. He favors the woman riding the beast of civil government to enforce her morality. He is all about marrying church and state together to force his personal morality on the world. That is not Adventism. That is Catholicism.

That is absolute nonsense.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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.

This isn't a political thread and has nothing to do with the politics of abortion. Court cases have no bearing on the religious beliefs held by Seventh-day Adventists.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

What's smoke and mirrors? This is exactly the way things work in the real world.

The quote I referred to as smoke and mirrors simply showed how someone might twist our denomination's guidelines in such a way to be able to break those same guidelines. The purpose of the quote was to show that the guidelines are not good enough. The premise is wrong.

It doesn't matter if a sinner is able to twist guidelines or even inspired Scripture in order to justify sin in their own minds because the violator is not the one that decides whether or not they are guilty. Church discipline, in most cases, rests with the local congregation. In some cases pastors and denominational workers may be disciplined by conferences, unions, missions, universities or hospitals but for the vast majority of members the local congregation is in charge of discipline. In no case is it the violator that decides if they did something wrong.

Can we not say that about every guideline or rule? You seem to be so intent on pigeonholing Nic that you completely missed the whole point.If the wording of a restriction is clear then someone cannot twist it to mean the opposite without reprocussions. If the intent is subjective to the integrity of the individual then everyone becomes the final judge of what is allowed. Doe v. Bolton was the last ruling which has led to abortion without restriction. Given the latest Washington Post Article,Kevin Paulson's defense of the guidelines,and everyone else who has examined the results of the guidelines,the idea that it's intent is clear and it's adherence is necessary is simply delusional.

[Nic Samojluk]

The point is that we don't have to be dogmatic about abortion.

Why have you chosen to be so liberal about killing? How about stealing, rape, and child abuse. Would you apply the same norm to those other moral behaviors? Are you ready to say: “We don’t need to be so dogmatic about stealing, rape, and child abuse?”

Suppose someone steals your brand new automobile, would you say: “We don’t need to b so dogmatic about stealing?” Or imagine if someone were to rape your young daughter or your wife, would you extend such a liberal and magnanimous attitude toward the criminal?

And remember that a car can be replaced, while the effects of abortion are irreversible. A raped woman can eventually recover from the terrible ordeal, but the victims of abortion have no hope of ever coming back to life. Can you see how weak is your argument?

[Dr. Shane]

Of course, we should not be so dogmatic about stealing, rape and child abuse. The world isn't black and white.

A man steals to feed his family. Should we treat him the same as Bernard Madoff?

During a divorce proceeding, a woman claims her husband raped her. Should we prosecute him the same as a stranger that rapes a student on a college campus in a dark parking lot?

Should a man who spanks his child with an open hand on the child's butt be treated like the man who locks his child in a closet for hours at a time?

In Nic's world everything is black and white. The real world isn't like that. Our church has established guidelines for abortion that are excellent. There is no need to improve perfection. The issue should simply be if those guidelines get placed into the church manual.

[Nic Samojluk]

And whatever the GC decides in open session should be accepted by the membership. Not "my" way but "our" way. Let's get self out of the way and trust that God can speak through the world-wide church in open session.

Are you forgetting that the church’s guidelines include the mental health exception to abortion?: Remember what Martin Weber said about this:

“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]

Are you expecting pro-life Adventists to accept the mental health exception contained in our “Guidelines on Abortion”? God forbid! Didn’t Ellen White say that we must be faithful to our duty as the compass is to the North Pole? Did Ellen accept everything that came from the General Conference? How about Paul?

Did Paul sin when he dared to publicly reprimand Peter, the then president of the GC of the Christian church? Are we supposed to be wishy washy about moral issues. Suppose the GC one day decides that Sabbath observance is not so crucial, like the Worldwide Church of God did. Should we then argue that we must accept whatever the church decides? Can you see the weakness of your argument?

[Dr. Shane]

Are you forgetting that the church’s guidelines include the mental health exception to abortion?

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

How credible is the mission of the church if it allows its own hospitals and our own Adventist physicians to profits from the killing of innocent human beings? Do you consider the violation of the Sixth Commandment of less consequence than worshiping the Lord on the wrong day of the week? Do people die as a result of having church on Sunday instead of Saturday? Compare this with the 50 million of innocent babies sacrificed on the altar of convenience!

Can you see how terrible is what we are doing? Rome altered the true meaning of the Fourth Commandment, but we have done even worse: we have altered the true meaning of the Sixth One! What good is preaching the Gospel, if we are twisting the true meaning of one of God’s Commandments?

Haven’t you noticed that our church is not growing in North America? Why is God not blessing our evangelistic efforts here, while our church is growing be leaps and bounds elsewhere? Have you read the reports of what is taking place in places like Peru and Africa?

Aren’t we repeating what the Jews did? They focused on the strict Sabbath keeping but neglected the respect for the sanctity of human life. They killed an innocent man—Jesus—and rushed to keep the Sabbath holy! We have blood on our hands, this is why our church is not growing here!

The church must divorce itself from the hospitals which persist on profiting from the killing of innocent human beings. Our physicians’ duty is to save lives—not to destroy them. The destroyer is the Devil—the one who has been a “murderer from the beginning!” We have developed a blind spot in our eyes, and can’t see clearly on this issue. How can a blind church lead the blind?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Shane

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.

Excellent response!

[Nic Samojluk]

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}

Thanks, John!

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

Use this link and you will become an expert in searching Ellen White's writings:

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=searchform.htm$id=BooleanSearch

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

He stated that the testimony of Teresa Beems was unreliable and he added that she had lied in her report of what had transpired at a meeting in Loma Linda back in 1988 when it was decided to approve a pro-choice/pro-abortion verbiage for the “Guidelines on Abortion.”

I asked him why didn’t he correct the record, and he answered that he didn’t want to dignify what I was doing. Evidently trying to save the lives of innocent babies lacks the dignity of killing them.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

He stated that the testimony of Teresa Beems was unreliable and he added that she had lied in her report of what had transpired at a meeting in Loma Linda back in 1988 when it was decided to approve a pro-choice/pro-abortion verbiage for the “Guidelines on Abortion.” I asked him why didn’t he correct the record, and he answered that he didn’t want to dignify what I was doing. Evidently trying to save the lives of innocent babies lacks the dignity of killing them.

[Nic Samojluk]

[quote=Shane The church has a position. Obviously you don't like it. You are free to leave the church and start your own.

[doug yowell]

A man steals to feed his family. Should we treat him the same as Bernard Madoff?

1) Private property is a magnificant gift of God.God's ideal for human beings affirms private stewardship and requires respect for those things accumulated.However, decisions about private property must be made in the context of a fallen world.Stealing is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus,private property must not be thoughtlessly taken. Stealing should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

2) Stealing is one of the tragic delemmas of human fallenness. The church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning a theft. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. Christians are commissioned to become a loving,caring community of faith that assists those in crisis as alternatives are considered.

3) In practical,tangible ways the church as a supportive community should express it's commitment to the value of privately owned property.these ways should include:(a)strengthening family relationships,(b)educating every person concerning Christian principles of property management,©emphasizing responsibility of all for family budgeting,(d)calling all to be responsible for the consequences of spending behaviors that are inconsistent with Christian pronciples,(e)creating a safe climate for ongoing discussion of the moral questions associated with stealing,(f)offering support and assistance to those who chose not to steal in order to feed their famililies,and (g)encouraging and assisting both parents to participate responsibly in insuring the financial and dietary needs of their children.The church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social,economic, and psychological factors that may lead to stealing and to care for those suffering the consequences of individual decisions on this issue.

4)The church does not serve as conscience for individuals;however,it should provide moral guidance. Stealing for reasons of economic stability,product selection,or personal gain is not condoned by the church. People, at times,however, may face exceptional circumstances that present present moral dilemmas, such as significant health threats to the lives of the family providers,excessive tax liabilities,employer fraud,loss of financial investments,rejection of unemployment or disability benefits,future budgetary capability carefully diagnosed by a certified accountant,loss of total assets from actions of other's criminal behavior.The final decision whether or not to steal should be made by the individual family provider after appropriate consultation.

5)Christians acknowledge as first and foremost their accountability to God. They seek balance between the exercise of indivual liberty and their accountability to the faith community and the larger society and it's laws. They make their choices according to Scripture and the laws of God rather than the norms of society. Therefore, any attempts to coerce people to steal or not to steal should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.

6)Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to stealing should not be required to participate in the process or encouragement of stealing.

7) Church members should be encouraged to participate in the ongoing consideration of their moral responsibilities with regard to stealing in the light of Scripture.

[doug yowell]

He stated that the testimony of Teresa Beems was unreliable and he added that she had lied in her report of what had transpired at a meeting in Loma Linda back in 1988 when it was decided to approve a pro-choice/pro-abortion verbiage for the “Guidelines on Abortion.” I asked him why didn’t he correct the record, and he answered that he didn’t want to dignify what I was doing. Evidently trying to save the lives of innocent babies lacks the dignity of killing them.

So not correcting the public record that besmirches the charactor of the private process would be undignified?That's weird.

[doug yowell]

In Nic's world everything is black and white. The real world isn't like that. Our church has established guidelines for abortion that are excellent. There is no need to improve perfection. The issue should simply be if those guidelines get placed into the church manual.

Actually,Shane, it's you who is presenting a black and white argument here. And you're doing it by making claims about the guidelines that simply aren't factual or responsible. If you indeed have read the guidelines and seen all of the official/unofficial comments from those who are a part of their existence you wouldn't be making all of these wild claims about them. At top of the list is your claim that the "guidelines"(the name itself should say something about their authority)are perfect and need no improvement. Strangely, guideline #7 suggests the opposite. Did you read it? It suggests(as do all the previous guidelines)that," church members(can we assume that that might include Nic?)SHOULD be encouraged to participate in the ONGOING CONSIDERATION of their moral responsibilities with regard to abortion..." Notice there is no mandate to end discussion or leave the SDA community.

[Dr. Shane]

When I was baptized—over half a century ago—I joined a strictly pro-life Adventist Church...

Well, that is open to debate but even if it is true... change is constant. The church is still pro-life, just not according to your extremist definition.

[Dr. Shane]

Actually,Shane, it's you who is presenting a black and white argument here.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “This is a lot of smoke and mirrors.”

Nic responds: He was referring to the following statement made by David Newman, editor of our “Ministry” magazine, and Mildred Youngberg, of “Family Life International.” Shane is forgetting that mirrors reflect reality and that where there is smoke, there might be a smoldering fire which if not put out could do a lot of damage. I hope he remembers the California fire a few years ago which destroyed approximately 300 homes, and the recent fire which did a lot of similar damage in Australia.

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

I wonder whether Shane has read and analyzed the Doe v Bolton Supreme Court ruling which “established emotional distress as a health matter.” How many cases can Shane cite where women faced with an unplanned pregnancy did not experience temporary emotional distress? If we Adventists allow for temporary emotional distress as a justifiable cause for killing innocent unborn babies, then where is the difference between our position and that of the rest of society? Aren’t we supposed to be the light of the world? How can we be the light of the world if we promote moral darkness?

Shane cited our Adventist Guidelines on 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."

Nic responds: Let us take a closer look at the hidden meaning of what we find in the above quotation:

1.“God's ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God's image, and requires respect for prenatal life”

I ask: Is killing the unborn babies the proper way of showing “respect for prenatal life”? Would Shane choose to be respected in that manner? Is this the way we are showing the rest of the world how to properly respect human life? Hundreds and thousands of innocent unborn babies have been killed in Adventist hospitals and some of them carry the Adventist term in their name without any reprimand from the church. A good example is our Washington Adventist Hospital.

2. “However, decisions about life must be made in the context of a fallen world.”

Is the fallen world a good example to follow? Not only we have been following the world in the killing of unborn babies; we have actually been leading the world in this infamous and immoral practice. We did authorize our Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii back in 1970—three years before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion--to perform abortions! And I am talking about elective abortions which are condemned by our own abortion guidelines. Gerald Winslow reported some years ago that five of our medical institutions we offering elective abortions to their patients, and this was published by Spectrum magazine.

3. “Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons”

Are elective abortions an example of “the most serious reasons”?

4. “Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church.”

Aren’t all abortions a way to control who lives and who dies? What good is for the doomed babies that the church claims to condemn abortion for convenience if the same church allows elective abortions? Are those who watch what we are doing stupid enough to believe in what we are saying?

5. “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”

True Adventist pro-lifers do not condemn abortions designed to save the life of pregnant women who face real—not imaginary—danger. Saving one life instead of loosing two is still pro-life!

6. “serious jeopardy to her health”

Read my comments dealing with the mental health exception listed above which opens the door to elective abortion, and read Martin Weber quote I posted there.

7. “severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus,”

With this exception we are declaring to the entire world that the life of the handicapped is not worth living. Does this portray a good picture of what our church stands for?

8. “pregnancy resulting from rape or incest”

Is it reasonable and fair to let the rapist live but kill the victim of his crime? Is this the kind of justice our church promotes?

I rest my case against our abortion guidelines and our practice of allowing our Adventist hospitals to carry our name while engaged in the violation of one of God’s Commandments.

[Dr. Shane]

Nic, you need to accept the fact that you are not the conscience for the Seventh-day Adventist church. God has not appointed you to such a role. You are a sinful, erring human being like the rest of us. You do not have superior wisdom or judgment.

God has created the Seventh-day Adventist church and set up the General Conference structure to handle issues just like these. Don't try to do God's job for Him, Nic. He has it under control. You are not God. He is.

If a fellow Adventist member (doctor) believes that a patient's emotional health is so bad that it justifies abortion, let that doctor's local congregation deal with it. We are not held accountable for that decision. We (Seventh-day Adventists in general) have set up guidelines for abortion. Let the members seek council from God and their church leaders and make the decision they believe is best in line with God's will in a fallen environment.

That said, these guidelines should be in our church manual.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

My bet is that some North American leaders are afraid of what might happen if this issue is taken up by the General Conference session of the church. The evidence seems to indicate, as I have stated before, that the liberal Adventist attitude towards abortion is a North American phenomenon.

Dr. Ronald Noltze, who lives in Germany, did tell me that when he was in charge of the Adventist medical work in Europe, Africa, and South America, no abortions were allowed in the hospitals under his care. I am looking forward to the day when this issue is taken up by the entire Adventist world church.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

So why are the doors of our Washington Adventist Hospital are still open as well as the doors of the other Adventist hospitals who have been profiting from the killing of innocent unborn babies? Aren’t elective abortion in violation of our guidelines? What is morally more abhorrent than profiting from shedding the blood of innocent humnan beings?