Is Ted Wilson Misinformed About Elective Abortions in Adventist Hosp.?

[Nic Samojluk]

When Ted Wilson, the president of the General Conference [GC] of Seventh-day Adventists, came to California in February 2011, I asked him about elective abortions. He publicly responded that the church did not condone said type of abortions and that elective abortion in Adventists hospitals are almost down to zero. When the Redlands meeting was over, I told him I was on the verge of publishing my doctoral dissertation in book form and I needed to verify his claim with abortion statistics. He suggested that I contact Dr. Allan Handysides at the General Conference office. I did this and waited.

When I realized that my request was being ignored, I prayed for guidance from above and posted by predicament on several Adventist forums. Someone sent me a link to a Catholic website which had some 1992, 1993, 2006, and 2007 abortion statistics for several Adventist hospitals in the State of Maryland. What called my attention was the fact that said statistics were provided by an independent organization which was, to my opinion, a better source than merely relying on what Adventist could say about Adventist medical institutions.

I visited said Catholic website without realizing that the last posting on it was dated three years earlier. I posted some comments and asked the author of those statistics to share with me the source of those abortions statistics. The next day I visited the same site and noticed that my comments had been deleted; nevertheless, to my surprise, I received an email from the author of said statistics telling me that he had responded to my request, but discovered that both mine and his postings had been deleted. An inquiry revealed that the site management had a policy of deleting any comments posted on a thread which had been inactive for six months.

The man, who identified himself as Patrick Murabil, took a great interest in my need for statistics and provided me with the source of those statistics and told me that he would both pray and fast for the success of my mission. I thought that this unexpected contact with a Catholic individual was rather providential, and I immediately wrote to the company which had access to all the hospital procedures in the State of Maryland. I got very excited at the prospect of securing recent abortion statistics which could possibly either confirm Ted Wilson’s claim, or else deny it.

If I could document the assertion made by the president of Adventists with reliable statistics, I would rejoice and praise the Lord knowing that our church was no longer providing elective abortions to their patients; but if said recent statistics proved that Wilson had been misinformed, it would provide a strong incentive for Adventist pro-lifers for an increased effort for praying and sharing with others about the true facts of the case. Soon after, I received an exhaustive list of statistics available to me; but when I saw the prices for such service, my joy turned into sadness. I immediately realized that there was no way for me to pay for those fees.

The cost per year for access to said statistics ranged between $250 and $4,000 per year for impatient and between $500 and $9,500 per year for outpatients, and I wanted information for three years: 2008, 2009 and 2010. This means that I needed a large sum of money in order to secure the information I wanted. I did share this information with my newfound Catholic friend. He encouraged me not to give up hope and reminded that the Lord is still in the business of answering prayers, and he promised that he would pray for the success of my mission even harder. This prompted me to write again to the company offering those statistics services.

In my follow-up letter, I explained that my real estate business had failed, which forced me to rely on my social security income, and that the most I could pay would be $100 dollars on two consecutive months starting with my next SS paycheck. To my surprise I received the inpatient statistics for three years—2008, 2009, and 2010-- for two Adventist hospitals in the State of Maryland: Washington Adventist Hospital and Shady Grove Hospital free of any charge for said services. I consider this event to be a manifestation of the power of prayer and providence.

I did analyze those statistics and my personal conclusion is that Ted Wilson’s public statement on February in the City of Redlands, California, alleging that elective abortions in Adventist hospitals are “almost down to zero” seems to be based on misinformation. This finding prompted me to write a letter to Wilson, which I sent to him via regular mail on May 2. I eagerly waited for a confirmation of receipt of said letter by return mail and for a response from the GC. I did receive a postal confirmation indicating that my letter had been received, but today is May 20 and I am still waiting for an answer or at least an acknowledgment that the issue is being considered.

I must add that, had my Catholic friend failed to visit the Catholic website right away following the email notification he received from said forum advising him that someone had posted some comments on the then obsolete thread, my comments would have been deleted before he had a chance to read them and we would have missed each other by one day, and I would never had gained access to those abortion statistics. It seems evident to me that the Lord sometimes leads his children in mysterious ways. This means that we need to persist in our mission on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves and who are destined to be either poisoned or dismembered by the merciless actions of those who should know how to do better.

[Nic Samojluk]

Elder Ted Wilson

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

12501 Old Columbia Pike

Silver Spring, MD 20904

I don’t know whether you remember me, but I was the one who asked the question dealing with elective abortions in Adventist hospitals at the February Redlands, California meeting. On said occasion you assured the large number of Adventist retirees that elective abortions were against the Adventist Church policy and that the number of this kind of abortions in our hospitals was “almost zero.”

You may also remember that I talked to you when the meeting was over and told you that I needed some abortion statistics in our Adventist medical institutions because I was on the verge of publishing the result of my doctoral dissertation dealing with our Adventist attitude towards abortion, and you suggested that I contact Dr. Allan Handysides for said purpose. This I did immediately; over two months have gone by and I have received no response from him. I have also written to our Washington Adventist Hospital and to several LLU ethics leaders but all I got is absolute silence.

This left me with no option but to seek help from other hospital statistics sources, and I thought that you might be interested in looking at what I discovered. The statistics listed below came from mainly two sources: The Washington Post [WP] and the Health Services Cost Review Commission [HSCRC], a public repository of procedures performed by all the hospitals in the State of Maryland. The listed data shows the combined number of abortion services performed at two of our Adventist hospitals: Washington Adventist Hospital [WAH] and our Shady Grove Hospital [sGH]

Source /Years /Inpatients /Outpatients /Total

WP 1975-1982 1494=213/year

HSCRC 1991 189 596 785

HSCRC 1992 129 685 814

HSCRC 2008 73

HSCRC 2009 65

HSCRC 2010 58

I want to make the following observations regarding the above statistical data I managed to obtain thanks to the providential leading from above and the kindness of the providers of said information

A. The number of outpatients far exceeds those of impatient abortion cases.

B. I could secure only the data for inpatients for the 2008-2010 years.

C. The average for the 1991-1992 years period for inpatients only was 159.

D. The average for the 2008-2010 years period was 65.

E. This means that there was a reduction in the number of inpatient cases of 59% between these the 1991-1992 and the 2008-2010 year periods.

F. Assuming that the same proportion applies to the reduction of cases in the number of outpatients, we could conclude that the following table is probably a reasonable estimate of the total number of cases:

G.

HSCRC 2008 73 178 251

HSCRC 2009 65 158 223

HSCRC 2010 58 141 199

Now my question to you is: Do those totals, namely 213, 785, 814, 251, 223, and 199 look like “almost zero” as you told us at the Redlands meeting? And bear in mind that these totals reflect what took place in only two of our Adventist hospitals. Can you imagine if we were to include all the over 50 Adventist hospitals in North America?

I was talking to one of the leading LLU ethicists and he said: “It all depends on how you define the term "elective abortion.” This comment prompted me to search for the definitions of said term. I found the following generally accepted definitions:

1. "The word elective means, "To choose", and an abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal of the fetus from the womb. So, an "elective abortion" is choosing to terminate a pregnancy, as opposed to a natural abortion or miscarriage."

[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_elective_abortion]

2. "Elective abortions are those initiated by personal choice." [http://www.drugs.com/enc/abortion-elective-or-therapeutic.html]

3. “Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself.” [http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview]

4. "For purposes of this section, an "elective abortion" means an abortion for any reason other than a spontaneous abortion or to prevent the death of the female upon whom the abortion is performed." [Missouri General Assembly Section 376-805 Elective abortion http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c300-399/3760000805.htm]

But suppose, for the sake of argument, we were to deduct from the total number of cases those hard cases like rape, incest and when the life of the pregnant woman is at great risk. If we were to do this, then we need an estimate of the percentage of such hard cases. Here is what Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion, has said about this:

“About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control.”

Source: Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

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

If 98 percent of abortions are considered to be elective, this means that only two percent are due to hard cases such as rape, incest, and when the life of the woman is at great risk. Based on such estimates, the totals number of abortions listed above would be reduced to the following numbers: 208, 769, 797, 245, 218, & 195, which is still a far cry from “almost zero”! Of course, these yearly totals need to be augmented by the information from the rest of Adventist hospitals in North America, especially those hospitals which have been known to provide abortions on demand in the past like the Castle Memorial Hospital and the White Memorial Hospital.

So my final question is: Is there a chance that you might have been misinformed by those you rely on for abortion statistics? You have manifested an unusual determination to lead the church in reformation and revival. I believe that abortion is where reformation and revival are sorely needed. It would provide an incentive for growth like no other issue.

Look at that is happening in South America where abortion is still illegal in most countries. A friend of mine, Enrique Chaij, wrote a book designed for evangelism, and so far 13 million copies have been printed and distributed. This is a sample of the revival which is taking place among Adventists in said part of the world.

I have been praying for your success from day one. This is the first thing I do when I get up in the morning, and the last thing I do before I retire for the night.

May the Lord bless you and the Adventist Church!

Nic Samojluk, Ph.D.

24673 Barton Frontage Rd.

Loma Linda, CA 92354

nicsamojluk@roadrunner.com

[Jeannieb43]

Dear Brother Nic,

Since it appears that you and I are of the same generation [i.e., retired and living on Social Security benefits plus our savings], I feel moved to respond to your well-intentioned post.

I too have obtained a postgraduate degree, though I don't know whether we were of the same discipline. I can't imagine what degree you are seeking which requires you to research the number of elective abortions performed by Adventist hospitals. Of what importance to society would such research be?

Now, it appears to me that you are operating on the basis of a fallacy which leads you to believe that one of the Adventist doctrines is to prohibit elective abortions. I hasten to advise you that if this is your understanding, it is not Ted Wilson but you who is misinformed. There is no such doctrine in the Seventh-day Adventist church. And at such time as any such doctrine might ever possibly be introduced, that day would see me separate myself from such church.

God is a loving God. He created us with free will. Ellen White says that He would have given up the whole human race rather than deprive mankind of freedom of will. Even though you, my friend, feel strongly against the right of women to exert control over their own bodies, there are others for whom the right to choose an abortion is a life-saving choice. When a woman is faced with two *bad* choices, sometimes the lesser of the two evils is the *better* of the two. In order to save her own mental or physical health, sometimes it becomes necessary to destroy an embryo.

All I'm saying is, you and I cannot make that choice for another person. So. If it should ever come to the point where a member of my family is faced with such a decision, I would sincerely hope and pray that she would have the assistance of good, Godly physicians and social workers, preferably located in an Adventist hospital, to make sure she comes through that procedure without losing her life. Because poorly performed abortions can and do sometimes cause death not only to the fetus but also to the mother. We *need* to have professional physicians and nurses available to save the lives of those experiencing this crisis.

I myself would not choose an abortion. But it cannot be my choice. I cannot live another person's life for her. So, since excellent medical care and treatment are a large part of what Adventists provide for society, I hope and pray that they are never prevented from providing that particular procedure when it is medically indicated.

And, I hope Ted Wilson never feels he has to dictate to SDA hospitals that they do [or do not] perform abortions. THAT is strictly a medical decision -- not a theological one.

[teresaq]

This was so well-stated and respectful!!

I fully agree with the thoughts expressed. Although Abortion is horrible, I do not have the right to dictate to my fellow(women) how they are to live, or what they are to do with their bodies.

[phkrause]

Dear Brother Nic,

Since it appears that you and I are of the same generation [i.e., retired and living on Social Security benefits plus our savings], I feel moved to respond to your well-intentioned post.

I too have obtained a postgraduate degree, though I don't know whether we were of the same discipline. I can't imagine what degree you are seeking which requires you to research the number of elective abortions performed by Adventist hospitals. Of what importance to society would such research be?

Now, it appears to me that you are operating on the basis of a fallacy which leads you to believe that one of the Adventist doctrines is to prohibit elective abortions. I hasten to advise you that if this is your understanding, it is not Ted Wilson but you who is misinformed. There is no such doctrine in the Seventh-day Adventist church. And at such time as any such doctrine might ever possibly be introduced, that day would see me separate myself from such church.

God is a loving God. He created us with free will. Ellen White says that He would have given up the whole human race rather than deprive mankind of freedom of will. Even though you, my friend, feel strongly against the right of women to exert control over their own bodies, there are others for whom the right to choose an abortion is a life-saving choice. When a woman is faced with two *bad* choices, sometimes the lesser of the two evils is the *better* of the two. In order to save her own mental or physical health, sometimes it becomes necessary to destroy an embryo.

All I'm saying is, you and I cannot make that choice for another person. So. If it should ever come to the point where a member of my family is faced with such a decision, I would sincerely hope and pray that she would have the assistance of good, Godly physicians and social workers, preferably located in an Adventist hospital, to make sure she comes through that procedure without losing her life. Because poorly performed abortions can and do sometimes cause death not only to the fetus but also to the mother. We *need* to have professional physicians and nurses available to save the lives of those experiencing this crisis.

I myself would not choose an abortion. But it cannot be my choice. I cannot live another person's life for her. So, since excellent medical care and treatment are a large part of what Adventists provide for society, I hope and pray that they are never prevented from providing that particular procedure when it is medically indicated.

And, I hope Ted Wilson never feels he has to dictate to SDA hospitals that they do [or do not] perform abortions. THAT is strictly a medical decision -- not a theological one.

I absolutely agree with your post Jeannieb. There are a number here that make it there life's mission to not only judge but also tell us what we can and can't do with our live's or what we should or shouldn't be doing on the Sabbath.

[doug yowell]

This was so well-stated and respectful!!

I fully agree with the thoughts expressed. Although Abortion is horrible, I do not have the right to dictate to my fellow(women) how they are to live, or what they are to do with their bodies.

Does that mean you support a woman's right to: employ her body for prostitution or pornography,fornication and adultry,smoking while pregnant,or drug or alcohol addiction? Do you also reject Paul's claim in I Cor. 6:18-20?

[doug yowell]

Now, it appears to me that you are operating on the basis of a fallacy which leads you to believe that one of the Adventist doctrines is to prohibit elective abortions. I hasten to advise you that if this is your understanding, it is not Ted Wilson but you who is misinformed. There is no such doctrine in the Seventh-day Adventist church. And at such time as any such doctrine might ever possibly be introduced, that day would see me separate myself from such church.

Since the church already prohibits a woman from smoking or drinking alcohol why would you leave over the prohibition against killing one's unborn child? Is it morally more intrusive to prohibit the punching out a 6-pack of Bud or the extermination of a human life in development?

[Dr. Shane]

When discussing abortion we have to distinguish between the "political" issue and the "religious". A believer can believe abortion is a sin and still be against the civil government banning it. This discussion appears to be about the "religious" issue and not the "political" issue. That is, 'how should the church handle abortion?'

The Adventist church does have an official position on abortion. It is posted on the GC website. I think it important to bear that in mind. The term "elective abortion" really needs to be defined if we are going to talk about it. The Adventist church does not condone abortions when used as a means of birth control, choose the sex of the child or for convenience. Ideally, our hospitals would not knowingly perform abortions for any of those three reasons.

I agree that abortions should be allowed by the church for health reasons - including mental health which is why many that are raped or victims of incest will get an abortion. Abortions should also be available for women carrying a child with severe birth defects - that is an issue the parents and the doctor need to decide and live with.

Quote:

God is a loving God. He created us with free will. Ellen White says that He would have given up the whole human race rather than deprive mankind of freedom of will.

I don't think this is a useful argument in the abortion debate. Free will includes suffering the consequences. So God gave me free will. I can go buy a hand gun and shoot my neighbor in the head. God has given me the free will to be able to do that. However if I do, I have to suffer the consequences. The local church disfellowshipping me may be one of those consequences. Just because I have free will doesn't mean I can violate the rights of others.

Quote:

Even though you, my friend, feel strongly against the right of women to exert control over their own bodies

Calling an unborn fetus part of a woman's body is kind of disingenuous. We know that a fetus has its own DNA and its own blood type. It is dependent on the mother for survival but so is a nursing infant. Rather than the mother having a right to terminate the fetus, she has a responsibility to nurture and care for it. Only when she must choose between two evils can she morally justify an abortion.

The story is told of a man who operated a railroad draw bridge. One day he took his only son to work with him and his boy wondered off playing. The man heard a train coming so he threw the lever to lower the bridge and as he did he heard his boy cry out. The boy was caught in the gears of the bridge. The man could save his boy by reversing the bridge but that would mean the passenger train would plunge into the river. As painful as it was, the man had to let the gears kill his boy so the train could safely pass. Women choosing abortion are like the man choosing the save the train. It is when a woman must choose between two evils that abortion becomes justified.

[doug yowell]

When a woman is faced with two *bad* choices, sometimes the lesser of the two evils is the *better* of the two. In order to save her own mental health, sometimes it becomes necessary to destroy an embryo.

Please explain how killing a perfectly healthy unborn child can save a person's mental health? Please explain how carrying a child to birth will negatively effect a mother's mental health?

[Nic Samojluk]

Allow me to post the following parody posted by Doug Yowell on a previously published thread on this forum. If you are familiar with our Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion” you will probably realize the irony of trying to justify the violation of one of God’s Commandments on the basis of the freedom God has granted us to disobey his basic rules of decency, integrity and honesty.

*********

Parody on Stealing a Human Being’s Life

1)Private property is a magnificent 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 dilemmas of human fallenness. The church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning 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 principles, (e)creating a safe climate for ongoing discussion of the moral questions associated with stealing, (f)offering support and assistance to those who choose to steal in order to feed their families, 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 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 individual 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.

Source: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/422556/doug_yowell.html#Post422556

[Nic Samojluk]

Jeannieb43 said: “I can't imagine what degree you are seeking which requires you to research the number of elective abortions performed by Adventist hospitals. Of what importance to society would such research be?”

*********

I was granted the “Doctor of Philosophy in Religion” four years ago, but I have never published my work in book form for lack of time and finances. I chose the topic as a result of my concern for my church and the sad condition of those who are waiting for the privilege of being allowed to be born. God is the life giver and no one has the right to take it except the one who has granted it.

The founders of the Adventist church were definitely pro-life and considered abortion as a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue. I joined a pro-life church almost seven decades ago and was shocked when I discovered that The North American Adventist Church has departed from this pro-life tradition back in 1970 when the State of Hawaii legalized the killing of the unborn.

My first reaction was unbelief and I made many attempts at speaking on behalf of the innocent on many occasions but my many appeals to the Adventist media fell on deaf ears. This is what motivated me to investigate this issue and I thought that getting a Ph.D. in religion might be a good way of getting to the bottom of this issue. It was a tough decision due to my advanced age—I am almost 80--and because I had to support my family while studying and I had no hope of ever recovering the expensive investment of time and money connected with this endeavor.

[Nic Samojluk]

Jeannieb43 said: “Now, it appears to me that you are operating on the basis of a fallacy which leads you to believe that one of the Adventist doctrines is to prohibit elective abortions. I hasten to advise you that if this is your understanding, it is not Ted Wilson but you who is misinformed. There is no such doctrine in the Seventh-day Adventist church. And at such time as any such doctrine might ever possibly be introduced, that day would see me separate myself from such church.”

*********

There is another alternative, and that is that you might be misinformed. In the Redlands, California, public meeting on February/2011, Ted Wilson stated explicitly that elective abortions are not condoned by the Adventist Church, and you can verify this by reading the church’s document entitled “Guidelines on Abortion” which was approved by the General Conference Autumn Council in 1992 which reads as follows:

Guidelines on Abortion

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

"Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement."

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main-guide1.html

This means that several Adventist hospitals have been acting in direct violation of church policy and in violation of the Sixth Commandment which states: “You shall not murder.” Murder is defined as the killing of an innocent human being. In addition, the Bible contains multiple references to the condemnation of shedding the blood of those who are innocent. I cannot think of any group of human beings more innocent than the unborn. Can you?

This pro-life doctrine of the church has never been included among the Fundamental Beliefs of the church, but it should. If Time—the Sabbath—is sacred, human life is more so. This is derived from the fact that Jesus said: “The Sabbath was made for the sake of man, and not the man for the sake of the Sabbath.” Nobody is dying as a result of worshipping the Lord on the wrong day of the week, but 50 million innocent unborn babies have lost their lives because society has authorized the transgression of God’s Law.

But what is worse is the fact that the “Remnant Church of God,” the one entrusted with the sacred task of defending the permanence of the Ten Commandments, has allowed some of its institutions to profit from the violation of what the Lord has forbidden with impunity. Thousands of elective abortions have been performed in one of these Adventist medical institutions which carries the “Adventist” name. Contrast this with what happened with the owners of the “Adventist for Life” web page.

The General conference forced the owner of said domain name to de-register or else face legal action. The message seemed to be very clear: You can kill innocent unborn babies with impunity, but if you try to save them form a sure death, the church will force you out of business.

[Nic Samojluk]

Jeannieb43 said: “God is a loving God. He created us with free will. Ellen White says that He would have given up the whole human race rather than deprive mankind of freedom of will.”

*********

Yes, and because he is a loving God he told us to refrain from hurting other human beings. An unborn baby is a human being and entitled to life the same way as you are. God designed the body of women for the protection of unborn babies instead of using them as an executing chamber. We are free to disobey the Lord’s commands, but there are serious consequences if we do. Eve decided to exercise said freedom and you and I are suffering the consequences of her unwise action.

I am free to shoot at the president, and some have done this, but they had to reap the results of their foolish action and ended either in jail or the electric chair. The Lord loves everybody, including the little ones. Jesus stated that if anyone offends these little ones, it would be better for such a person to tie a stone to his neck and hurl himself into the ocean.

Jesus also stated that our eternal destiny hinges on how we have treated “the least of these.” I hope you don’t want to place the eternal destiny of such women in jeopardy. The Lord is a forgiving God, but we must repent of the evil we have done instead of justifying their sins.

[Nic Samojluk]

Jeannieb43 said: “Even though you, my friend, feel strongly against the right of women to exert control over their own bodies, there are others for whom the right to choose an abortion is a life-saving choice. When a woman is faced with two *bad* choices, sometimes the lesser of the two evils is the *better* of the two. In order to save her own mental or physical health, sometimes it becomes necessary to destroy an embryo.”

*********

The Bible teaches that we do not own our bodies; our bodies belongs to the Lord, and the bodies of “these little ones” belong to the Lord as well. We have no right to destroy what belongs to the Lord. When the life of the pregnant woman is in serious jeopardy, then the physician has the duty to save as many lives as he is able. Saving one life instead of loosing two is still a pro-life action. A good example is an ectopic pregnancy. The baby cannot survive outside the uterus and is going to die, and the life of the pregnant woman is placed in jeopardy.

The “mental health” argument fails the pro-life test. A temporary mental depression should not be used as an excuse for murder. Women who get depressed as a result of an unexpected pregnancy are not doomed to die. The baby is born, she can give the baby for adoption, and her temporary depression is history. An aborted baby has no chance of recovering from the abortion ordeal!

There is a scarcity of babies available for adoption. I have relatives of mine who were forced to go to the other side of the world for the privilege of adopting several children at a cost exceeding $25,000 U.S. dollars each, and I am talking about several years ago when the dollar was worth much more.

[Nic Samojluk]

Jeannieb43 said: “All I'm saying is, you and I cannot make that choice for another person. So. If it should ever come to the point where a member of my family is faced with such a decision, I would sincerely hope and pray that she would have the assistance of good, Godly physicians and social workers, preferably located in an Adventist hospital, to make sure she comes through that procedure without losing her life. Because poorly performed abortions can and do sometimes cause death not only to the fetus but also to the mother. We *need* to have professional physicians and nurses available to save the lives of those experiencing this crisis.”

*********

True! We cannot make such a choice for others; nevertheless, the duty of the church is to warn its members about the serious consequences of violating God’s Law. A church which allows its own hospitals to profit from the murder of innocent unborn babies does not deserve the name or being the “Remnant church of God” which keeps the Commandments of God.

Our Washington Adventist Hospital was described by a General Conference representative as an “abortion mill” a few years ago, and pro-life members paraded in front of said hospitals with placards reading: “Remember the ‘You shall not murder’ Commandment.”

There is no need for a woman to loose her life over an anomalous pregnancy. I have already stated that saving one life instead of loosing two is still pro-life.

[Nic Samojluk]

teresaq(sda) said: “Although Abortion is horrible, I do not have the right to dictate to my fellow(women) how they are to live, or what they are to do with their bodies.”

*********

True! We have no right o impose our will on others. Nevertheless, the church has no right to profit from the murderous decisions of others. Killing is not part of our healing business, and more so when the Lord has forbidden the shedding of innocent blood. I have the testimony of two witnesses who have heard a former president of the North American Division of the church argue as follows: “If we refuse to profit from th abortion business, others will.”

The same argument was used by Dr. Edward Allred, a 1964 graduate of our Loma Linda University who was planning to be an evangelist, switched to medicine, started an abortion business, became the owner of over 20 California abortion clinics, and became a millionaire. He donated large sums of money to Adventist institutions and a building in his honor is in the planning stage in one of our own universities. Accepting blood money reminds me of Judas.

[Nic Samojluk]

pkrause wrote:

“I absolutely agree with your post Jeannieb. There are a number here that make it there life's mission to not only judge but also tell us what we can and can't do with our live's or what we should or shouldn't be doing on the Sabbath.”

*********

The tem “judging” has two connotations. One of them implies the desire of hurting and condemning people, and the other one to save them from a big mistake. This is illustrated by the incident of the adulterous woman. The Jewish leaders asked that the woman be stoned, while Jesus wanted to help her. He said: “Neither do I condemn you,” and he added, “Go and sin no more.”

My mission is to help the church and its members from doing what the Lord and the church have condemned. The Bible forbids the first kind of judgment, while encouraging us to engage in the second kind:

“Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?” [1 Cor. 6:]

“It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.” [1 Cor. 5:12]

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane wrote:[/b]

“The term "elective abortion" really needs to be defined if we are going to talk about it.”

*********

I agree! I found the following definitions of elective abortions:

1. "The word elective means, "To choose", and an abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal of the fetus from the womb. So, an "elective abortion" is choosing to terminate a pregnancy, as opposed to a natural abortion or miscarriage."

[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_elective_abortion]

2. "Elective abortions are those initiated by personal choice." [http://www.drugs.com/enc/abortion-elective-or-therapeutic.html]

3. “Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself.” [http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview]

4. "For purposes of this section, an "elective abortion" means an abortion for any reason other than a spontaneous abortion or to prevent the death of the female upon whom the abortion is performed." [Missouri General Assembly Section 376-805 Elective abortion http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c300-399/3760000805.htm]

But suppose that we want to be more liberal than some of the above definitions and decide to exclude those hard cases like rape, incest and when the life of the pregnant woman is at great risk. If we were to do this, we would end with the following result stated by the largest provider of abortion in the world: Planned Parenthood:

“About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control.”

Source: Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

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

If 98 percent of abortions are considered to be elective, this means that only two percent are due to hard cases such as rape, incest, and when the life of the woman is at great risk. Based on such estimates, the totals number of abortions I listed above in this thread would be reduced to the following numbers: 208, 769, 797, 245, 218, & 195, which is still a far cry from “almost zero,” which is what Ted Wilson claimed a the Redlands, California meeting in February, 2011!

And bear in mind that these yearly totals need to be multiplied by the number of Adventist hospitals which have been performing abortions in North America. The survey conducted by LLU some years ago indicated that out of over fifty hospitals, half of them responded, and five of them admitted offering elective abortions to their patients. This means that the number of abortion done in our hospitals between 2008 and 2010 are in the thousands instead of “almost zero” as claimed by Wilson.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane wrote:

“I agree that abortions should be allowed by the church for health reasons - including mental health which is why many that are raped or victims of incest will get an abortion. Abortions should also be available for women carrying a child with severe birth defects - that is an issue the parents and the doctor need to decide and live with.”

*********

I hope you agree with me that abortion is killing a developing human being. So let me rephrase what you stated by replacing the term abortion with the equivalent word “killing.” The result is: “Killing should be allowed by the church for health reasons - including mental health.” Now my question to you:

If killing should be allowed for health reasons—including mental health; why not stealing, burglary, grand theft, battery, rape, incest, sexual abuse of little children, and lying? And bear in mind that when someone steals my car, I can always replace it wih another one. Likewise, the victim of rape can heal with time and God’s grace and live an almost normal life, but the aborted babe can never have such a privilege.

Tell me why you justify killing—which is the ultimate offense—but not stealing, rape and the other evils which are reversible. You also justify the killing of babies with birth defects. Is this the mission of the Adventist Church—killing instead of healing? If killing babies with physical defects is morally acceptable to you before birth, why not after birth?

I wish you would visit my Facebook “Advent Life Center” and watch some of the exceptionally talented handicapped individuals playing music to the listener’s amazement and delight. We wouldn’t have them if they had been aborted. You also believe that mental health provides a good reason for abortion. Have you ever seen a girl or woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy who is free from a temporary depression?

Can a temporary mental depression justify the permanent deprivation of the most valuable gift God gives to human beings: life? If you were the victim of a temporary depression, would it be morally acceptable for someone to take your life? If this would be wrong, why is it right in your view to kill someone else to relieve a temporary depression in a woman? Shouldn’t life weigh more on a moral scale than a temporary mental depression?

When you allow for mental depression as a justification for abortion, aren’t you in fact permitting women to use abortion as a birth control method which is condemned by our “Guidelines on Abortion”? With such a policy, aren’t we encouraging what we have already condemned?

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane wrote:

“The story is told of a man who operated a railroad draw bridge. One day he took his only son to work with him and his boy wondered off playing. The man heard a train coming so he threw the lever to lower the bridge and as he did he heard his boy cry out. The boy was caught in the gears of the bridge. The man could save his boy by reversing the bridge but that would mean the passenger train would plunge into the river. As painful as it was, the man had to let the gears kill his boy so the train could safely pass.

Women choosing abortion are like the man choosing the save the train. It is when a woman must choose between two evils that abortion becomes justified.”

*********

Wrong illustration! The woman has the option of giving the baby for adoption and nobody dies! Did you miss this? How could you? The engineer did not have such an option, it was death to his son or death to some of the train passengers.

[Tammy]

Seventh Day Adventists and Abortions

How is it that smoking and drinking are worse sins than killing your baby? Members are not allowed to smoke and drink, but they are allowed to kill their babies...and they can even go to an Adventist hospital to have the sin of abortion committed! A person cannot be a member in "good standing" if he/she smokes/drinks...but if she kills her baby, well, that is OK, no problem, you can do that and have the blessing of the CHURCH!

It boggles my mind! How can intelligent people be so blind?????

It just doesn't make any sense...how is it that you think the Church can make rules on what one eats and drinks, but it cannot make a rule that its members cannot kill their own children????

Anyone with common sense can see that there is something really wrong with this picture.....

[fccool]

Tammy,

I do think you are right on that one. There is a disconnect, if in case you think that the church does not make strong enough stands on abortion.

Adventist hospital performing abortion is a terrible thing. Sure, there are abortions to save the mother, but even in case of rape it's not baby's fault. Given the choice to live or not if I was a rape child... I would definitely say I would like to live. It's so unfortunate that these little human beings don't have a voice in the matter.

I doubt that church would "bless" the abortion anymore than they would "bless" smoking or drinking. Unfortunately, it's a matter that's usually secret, and people don't go around saying that they've had abortion. Mothers usually end up regretting it from what I've seen when working for non-profits dealing with the issue.

It's a complex issue, and I do agree that the church should not only make a stand on it, but be more sensitive and caring to young mothers who do get pregnant outside of marriage. There are ways to do that without encouraging such things.

[Nic Samojluk]

Seventh Day Adventists and Abortions

How is it that smoking and drinking are worse sins than killing your baby? Members are not allowed to smoke and drink, but they are allowed to kill their babies...and they can even go to an Adventist hospital to have the sin of abortion committed! A person cannot be a member in "good standing" if he/she smokes/drinks...but if she kills her baby, well, that is OK, no problem, you can do that and have the blessing of the CHURCH!

It boggles my mind! How can intelligent people be so blind?????

It just doesn't make any sense...how is it that you think the Church can make rules on what one eats and drinks, but it cannot make a rule that its members cannot kill their own children????

Anyone with common sense can see that there is something really wrong with this picture.....

Thanks, Tammy! We needed someone to speak in such a forceful and crystal clear manner. May the good Lord bless you for having the courage to stick to the truth in this very serious matter—a matter of life and death. Can anything compare with being deprived of life? Can stealing, theft, rape, lying, sexual abuse of little children be more offensive to God, the giver of life, than the dismemberment or the poisoning of an innocent unborn baby?

[Nic Samojluk]

There are ways to do that without encouraging such things.

Yes! And much less participating in the murder of the unborn for the sake of profit, which is what some of our hospitals have been doing in violation of the church policy regarding elective abortions and in direct opposition of what the Bible condemns. Methinks that our leaders have been blind or else misinformed about what has been taking place in some of our hospitals. My investigation did reveal that public records of hospital procedures indicate that elective abortions have been performed in large numbers in some of our hospitals as recently as the following years: 2008, 2009, and 2010.

If you haven’t read the letter I wrote to our president, Ted Wilson, which I posted above, please do so. And, by the way, I sent said letter on May the 2nd, and I am still waiting for a response or at least an acknowledgment that the issue is being considered by our leaders. A similar letter written in February to Dr. Allan Handysides at the General Conference has so far received the same silent treatment.

The church leaders seem to think that the teaching of evolution in some of our universities as factual is something deserving reform, but the killing of innocent babies in our hospitals is not an urgent issue. Can heaven continue to bless the “Remnant” church which exhibits such an attitude towards the most vulnerable members of humanity?

[doug yowell]

It's a complex issue, and I do agree that the church should not only make a stand on it, but be more sensitive and caring to young mothers who do get pregnant outside of marriage. There are ways to do that without encouraging such things.

Good points,cool. With a tiny % of exceptions, what makes it complex is the fact that the thing that's being aborted is a living human being. Adding to that complexity,is the powerful influence of the sinful human nature which attempts to find ways to justify to the conscience the violation of nature's (God's)laws in order to escape unwanted inconvenience, responsibility, and potential pain. When society and the church (see Guideline #2) address the exception as if it were the rule the human tendency to gavitate to it's perception of self preservation is to be expected. When the church avoids becoming any part of a solution due to the complexity of this "delemna" it merely encourages further "complexity" rather than offering real Solomon like answers to life's problems.