A Dramatic Shift In the SDA Church From Pro-Life to Pro-Choice

[Tammy]

My husband stumbled on to this site this morning...I think and hope that it will SHOCK many of you. Some questioned what I had said about Neil Wilson and abortion, on another thread...if I had known what he said in the '70's, I would not have been shocked at what he said in the '80's. Some think that our Pioneers were quiet on the subject of abortion - FAR FROM THE TRUTH! Please, take time to read this....

Quote:

From Pro-life to Pro-Choice

The following material was selected from the preceding chapters with the objective of presenting, in a more concise manner, the undeniable contrast between the attitude towards abortion manifested by the early pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, and the predominant position towards this controversial issue by Seventh-day Adventists today. The evidence suggests that there has been a dramatic shift within Adventism from Pro-life to a Pro-choice position on abortion.

The attitude Towards Abortion Exhibited by the SDA Pioneers [1]

James White

Quote:

Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime. [2]

John Harvey Kellogg

Quote:

The idea held by many that the destruction of foetal [sic] life is not a crime until after “quickening” has occurred is a gross and mischievous error. No change occurs in the developing human being at this period. The so-called period of “quickening” is simply the period at which the movements of the little one become sufficiently active and vigorous to attract the attention of the mother. Long before this, slight movements have been taking place, and from the very moment of conception, those processes have been in operation which result in the production of a fully developed human being from a mere jelly drop, a minute cell. As soon as this development begins, a new human being has come into existence--in embryo, it is true, but possessed of its own individuality, with its own future, its possibilities of joy, grief, success, failure, fame, and ignominy.

From this moment, it acquires the right to life, a right so sacred that in every land to violate it is to incur the penalty of death. How many murderers and murderesses have gone unpunished! None but God knows the full extent of this most heinous crime; but the Searcher of all hearts knows and remembers every one who has thus transgressed; and in the day of final reckoning, what will the verdict be? Murder? MURDER [sic], child murder, the slaughter of the innocents more cruel than Herod, more cold-blooded than the midnight assassin, more criminal than the man who slays his enemy--the most unnatural, the most inhuman, the most revolting of all crimes against human life. [3]

J.N. Andrews

Quote:

One of the most shocking, and yet one of the most prevalent sins of this generation, is the murder of unborn infants. Let those who think this a small sin, read Ps. 139:16. They will see that even the unborn child is written in God’s book. And they may be well assured that God will not pass unnoticed the murder of such children. [4]

John Todd

Quote:

As to guilt, I want all to know that, in the sight of God, it is willful murder. “The willful killing of a human being at any stage of its existence, is murder. It is quenching immortal existence, it is destroying what, in a few months or weeks, would bear God’s image: and if anyone thinks she can do it without the guilt of murder, she is greatly mistaken. The very remembrance of this guilt has often upset the reason, and by remorse, turned the doer into madness.” [5]

Uriah Smith

Quote:

You show me a church that fails to take a stand on political issues that involve moral principles, [6] and I’ll show you a church that is spineless, irrelevant, and morally bankrupt. . . . No issue is too controversial for us to address and honestly in pages of our church paper. [7]

Ellen G. White

Quote:

If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering [8] 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 means to leave for them. [9]

The Predominant SDA Attitude Towards Abortion Today [10]

Pro-life Statements of the Official SDA Guidelines on Abortion [11]. The official “Guidelines on Abortion” include lofty pro-life statements such as the following:

Quote:

1. Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God’s image, and requires respect for prenatal life.

2. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

3. Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness.

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

5. Human life has unique value because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God.

6. God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God’s creation and the object of His redeeming love.

7. God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction.

8. God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed.

Pro-choice Elements of the Guidelines on Abortion.

The problem with the official SDA “Guidelines on Abortion” is that the force of the above quoted pro-life statements is neutralized and negated by many other statements that clearly emphasize personal freedom, individual conscience, exceptional circumstances, and freedom of choice. It seems like the intention of the creators of these guidelines was to please both the pro-life and pro-choice members of the SDA community. The net result was that pro-choice SDA members were pleased, while it left pro-lifers sad, confused, and defeated. [12] Consider the following exceptions justifying the killing of the unborn.

Quote:

1. God gives humanity the freedom of choice, [13] even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.

2. The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals. [14]

3. 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, [15] severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.

4. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation.

5. Therefore, any attempt to coerce women [16] either to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.

John V. Stevens Sr.

Perhaps the strongest defense of the practice of abortion by a SDA leader was written by John V. Stevens, Sr., who was occupying the position of Pacific Union Conference Public Affairs/Religious Liberty Director at the time of publication of his article entitled “Abortion Answers and Attitudes” by the Pacific Union Recorder in 1990.

Here is one of the arguments he advanced to justify the killing of the unborn:

Quote:

The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ valued choice over life. [17] . . . Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator--individuality, power to think and to do. (Education, page 170) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person. [18] . . . Pregnancy, abortion, birth, life and death, can all be traumatic. Others have no authority over our consciences in regard to our response to life crucial events. The Holy Spirit is the only True Guardian of the conscience. To allow society--or the state--or the church--or even the family-- to replace the Holy Spirit is to be guided by the spirit of the anti-Christ. . . . From the perspective of respect for God's Word, Biblical history, and the fundamental principle of free moral agency, the Adventist church could justify adopting a pro-choice position. [19]

Ginger Hanks-Harwood

Ginger Hanks-Harwood, Assistant Professor of Religion at Pacific Union College at the time of the publication of her article, authored the seventh chapter of the book, Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options, which is a compilation of sixteen essays “selected from thirty-six presentations made at a conference entitled ‘Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options’ held November 14-16, 1988 at Loma Linda University, under the auspices of the Center for Christian Bioethics.” [20] Here are a couple of her statements:

Quote:

Genesis 2 indicates that moral choice was a gift accorded to humanity from the very beginning. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was placed with the tree of life in the very center of the garden, as continual choice was a central part of being morally free, and being morally free was essential to our design as image of God. [21] The unfathomable import of freedom to choose was demonstrated by God’s maintaining its necessity at the cost of the life and death of Jesus Christ. [22]

The decision to embrace maternity as a God-given gift is one which only she can make for herself, and needs to be done on the basis of realistic assessment of her own resources. Does she possess the reserves required to complete the project adequately, so that she is not like the poor steward whom Jesus chided for not counting the cost before the project was undertaken and so ended up in disaster? [23]

James W. Walters

James W. Walters, Professor of Ethics Chair, Department of Religion, Pacific Union College, at the time of publication, was the author of the chapter entitled “Adventist Guidelines on Abortion” [24] in the book edited by David Larson. [25] He is also the author of the book What is a Person? [26] Below is one of his many statements about abortion:

Quote:

Given the denomination’s generally conservative theology and its extensive health commitment, one would guess that the denomination would be strongly pro-life; yet it is not. [27] The most official pronouncement on the subject holds that abortion in Adventist hospitals are acceptable for such common reasons as maternal health, fetal handicap, rape or incest, an early teen pregnancy and, most significantly, “When for some reason the requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lesser potential human life.” [28]

George Reid

Here is what Dr. George Reid, head of the Biblical Research Institute, recently stated to Teresa Beem, who had been one of the participants of the conference entitled “Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options” held November 14-16, 1988 at Loma Linda University, under the auspices of the Center for Christian Bioethics: [29]

Quote:

1. “Adventist are pro-choice but under strict guidelines.”

2. “Washington Adventist Hospital in Tacoma Park has become an abortion mill.”

Neal Wilson

On March 1970, Neal Wilson, president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists at the time, made a public announcement predicting that the church would adopt a neutral position toward the abortion issue. [30]

Quote:

Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population.

If the maximum authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church at the time the original abortion guidelines were developed unambiguously stated that the church was leaning towards abortion because of hunger and overpopulation, then can anyone have any doubts about the pro-choice position of the SDA church? The cumulative weight of the evidence analyzed in this study seems to leave no doubt about the SDA attitude towards abortion and the motivation that prompted the church to adopt such a position. The real motivation seems to have been the SDA involvement in the medical field and the profit derived from such an activity. The overpopulation argument was probably a mere excuse.

Endnotes

1. For a more comprehensive analysis of the early pioneer’s attitude towards abortion, see Chapter II of this study.

2. James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.

3. J.H. Kellogg. Man The Masterpiece (Battle Creek, Michigan: Modern Medicine Publishing Co., 1894), 424-425. For an electronic access to Dr. Kellogg’s opinion on abortion, click on the following Internet link provided by the University of Virginia Library: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toc...;division=div1. Accessed on 25 Oct. 2006.

4. J.N. Andrews, Editor. “A Few Words Concerning a Great Sin” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (Nov. 30, 1869): 184.

5. John Todd. “Fashionable Murder” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (June 25, 1867): 29-30.

6. If no moral principles are excluded, then it follows that abortion is included here, unless one would dare to argue that abortion is not a moral issue.

7. Uriah Smith. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Quoted by P.A. Lorenz. Adventist For Life News, Vol. III, Issue 3. ( n.d.,Heritage Edition): 3.

8. Ellen White is not specifically talking about abortion here; nevertheless, if neglecting the health needs of a pregnant woman is “almost murder,” then logic leads us to conclude that killing the unborn baby would be considered by her as actual murder.

9. White. Selected Messages, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 429-430.

10. For a detailed analysis of seventh-day Adventists attitudes towards abortion covering the 1970 through 2006 years see chapters IV through XII of the present study.

11. Seventh-day Adventist Church. Adventist Beliefs/Guidelines: “Guidelines on Abortion” (12 Oct. 1992). Accessed from http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html on 25 Oct. 2006.

12. The Guidelines on abortion were created precisely because the SDA church adopted a pro-choice position on abortion. If the SDA church were pro-life, there would be no need for guidelines on abortion. Said guidelines became necessary in order to establish the circumstances under which abortions are allegedly morally justified. Neither the Catholic Church nor the Southern Baptist Convention has any guidelines on abortion, because they opted for a pro-life position: No abortion. Period!

13. If we justify abortion because God has granted us “freedom of choice,” then perhaps we should also justify rape, incest, and stealing for the same reason.

14. Should the church cease teaching about the Sabbath, since it “does not serve as conscience for individuals”?

15. Almost every pregnancy will affect the health of the pregnant woman. This exclusion opens the door for abortion on demand!

16. The church has no power to coerce women to remain pregnant, but it has the God-given privilege and duty to help women make the right choice, and the right choice is described in Deuteronomy 30:14: “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that your children may live.” Notice that the Lord has attached both blessing and curses connected with making the right choice, and if the church refuses to warn sinners about them, then the Lord will require the blood of the innocent from the prophetic church. [Ezeq. 3:16-20]

17. Not so fast, Brother Stevens! Jesus sacrificed his own life for the sake of others. Women who choose abortion do exactly the opposite! Besides, Jesus died to make us free from sin, and not free to sin! To the woman caught in adultery Jesus said: “Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more.” [John 8:11]

18. The image of God is more than “the power to think and to do.” It is the power to do God’s will, and God’s will is that we choose life. The Devil possesses the power to think and to do, but the image of God in him has been distorted because he has lost the ability to do God’s will. We could say the same about Hitler, Idi Amin, and Bin Laden. God is described in the Bible as love. This is God’s main characteristic. God’s image includes the ability to think, to do, and to sacrifice for the sake of others.

19. John V, Stevens, Sr. “Abortion Answers and Attitudes,” Pacific Union Recorder (20 Aug. 1990).

20. See Chapter VIII of this study.

21. We should also remember that that “image of God” was marred the moment Eve exercised said freedom of choice in the wrong direction, contrary to God’s will. This is also true whenever women choose death for the unborn instead of choosing life.

22. If we justify abortion on the basis of freedom then logic demands that we also justify rape, incest, burglary, abuse, and murder.

23. When her writings are compared with that of the early SDA pioneers, the contrast is painfully evident. Dr. Hanks-Harwood’s article illustrates the SDA dramatic evolution in its attitude towards the killing of the unborn. The pregnant woman who is thinking about abortion should consider the advantage of giving her baby up for adoption, which is a redemptive and loving choice, instead of killing her own child.

24. This article, written by James Walters, should not be confused with the “SDA Guidelines on Abortion,” a document with a similar name approved by the SDA church four years later.

25. See Chapter VIII of this study.

26. See Chapter X of this study.

27. How true! Walters is probably one of the earliest SDA leading ethicists to acknowledge this undeniable fact. He should be commended for this honest assessment of his!

28. James Walters, “Adventist Guidelines on Abortion” Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options (Loma Linda, California: Center For Christian Bioethics, 1992), 173-174.

29. See Teresa Beem’s “Why We Left: A Letter to Family and Others” in Chapter XII of this study.

30. Two months later, the GC officers approved “suggestive guidelines for therapeutic abortions.” This action did not satisfy the SDA medical community because SDA hospitals had been providing therapeutic abortion for some time even before the State of Hawaii decided to legalize abortion. This quasi-official document was made available to SDA medical institutions under the name “Recommendations to SDA Medical Institutions,” which allowed Castle Memorial Hospital [CMH] to provide abortion on demand. http://sdaforum.com/page114.html

[Gerr]

While there may have been a dramatic shift in the higher echelon thinking, the rank and file are definitely pro-life but not in the strict terms of the RCC. Most Americans have no problem terminating a pregnancy in cases of rape or endangerment of the mother. The problem comes when people take extreme positions, i.e. no abortion under any circumstance or abortion ad lib.

I believe that we have the God-given right to choose what we want to do with OUR bodies, but NO ONE has been given the right to do the choosing for another, and that includes terminating the life of another. It is a sad day for our church if any of our hospitals become an abortion mill.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Thank you for sharing this Tammy. I am in agreement with the pioneers of the church. And although I believe that abortion to save the life of the mother should be up to her, I don't believe it's right to kill a child just because he's deformed, or the product of rape or incest. Studies have shown that abortion just adds even more trauma to victims of rape and incest.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

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

That alone makes up for over 90% of the abortions in the US.

There are two issues at hand that one needs to keep separate when discussing this issue as it relates to the church.

1. Sin. What does the church consider sinful?

2. Civil law. How much does the church want to use the civil government to enforces its religious positions?

I believe the Adventist church takes a position that over 90% of abortions are sinful but that we do not want to use the civil government to enforce our religious view of abortion on the population as a whole.

[Jeannieb43]

While there may have been a dramatic shift in the higher echelon thinking, the rank and file are definitely pro-life but not in the strict terms of the RCC. Most Americans have no problem terminating a pregnancy in cases of rape or endangerment of the mother. The problem comes when people take extreme positions, i.e. no abortion under any circumstance or abortion ad lib.

I believe that we have the God-given right to choose what we want to do with OUR bodies, but NO ONE has been given the right to do the choosing for another, and that includes terminating the life of another. It is a sad day for our church if any of our hospitals become an abortion mill.

Thank you, Dr. Gerry.

The person's God-given right to choose what to do with one's own body is uppermost. And no one has the right to control someone else.

[Dr. Shane]

The unborn fetus is its own body. It has its own DNA. So a person's right to do with their body does not give them the right to abort an unborn child.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

While there may have been a dramatic shift in the higher echelon thinking, the rank and file are definitely pro-life but not in the strict terms of the RCC. Most Americans have no problem terminating a pregnancy in cases of rape or endangerment of the mother. The problem comes when people take extreme positions, i.e. no abortion under any circumstance or abortion ad lib.

I believe that we have the God-given right to choose what we want to do with OUR bodies, but NO ONE has been given the right to do the choosing for another, and that includes terminating the life of another. It is a sad day for our church if any of our hospitals become an abortion mill.

Thank you, Dr. Gerry.

The person's God-given right to choose what to do with one's own body is uppermost. And no one has the right to control someone else.

I've noticed that you've been kind of outspoken on this issue over the last 4-years Jeannie. How do you think people should resolve the spiritual & emotional consequences that arise from an abortion?

regards,

Gerry

[olger]

Good point Shane.

[Outta Here]

Of note, there is a current "dramatic shift" in the view of the American public as well: Americans shift from pro-choice to pro-life.

Quote:

The abortion debate is a shape-shifter, its contours twisted by politics, culture, timing and the very language pollsters use when they ask people how they feel. So when the folks at Gallup announced that, for the first time, more Americans are pro-life than pro-choice, there were all kinds of ways to misunderstand what that means.

...

In 1995, when Gallup started asking the question, the split was 56-33 in favor of abortion rights. Now the lines have crossed, and 51% call themselves pro-life while only 42% say they are pro-choice.

~ Understanding America's Shift on Abortion, Time Magazine, Monday, May 18, 2009 Nancy Gibbs

[phkrause]

God created us with the right to choose. We have the right to choose evil over good, we have the right to choose to murder, steal, dishonor our parents, not to remember the Sabbath, to worship idols, to covet, to do what ever we want to anybody, etc. Now I don't believe that doing these things is what God wants us to choose for ourselves, but we have that right, but we must be willing to pay the consequences of our choice's. I accept Jesus as my savior so I choose to follow him, but I was born with the right of "Choice".

pk

[Gerr]

You certainly have the right to choose for yourself but NOT for someone else.

[phkrause]

But Gerry yes you do. You can choose treat the next door neighbor badly or you can be kind and helpful when they need something. And like I said you can choose to kill. But than you are going against what God has written in his commandments. God gave us the right to choose. I am not for abortion, I've said that on a number of occasions. This is a choice between you and God. He knows the reason someone has made this choice, right or wrong.

pk

[Gerr]

You can choose to kill, but have no RIGHT to do so.

[olger]

TRue, Doc

og

[phkrause]

I didn't say we did. But we do have the choice, but should be willing to pay the consequence's. Either now or at the final judgement.

pk

[Robert]

I believe that we have the God-given right to choose what we want to do with OUR bodies, but NO ONE has been given the right to do the choosing for another, and that includes terminating the life of another.

Wow....We agree....

Get a picture of this....

[Planey]

Quote:

Now the lines have crossed, and 51% call themselves pro-life while only 42% say they are pro-choice.

The remaining 7% is comprises Seventh-day Adventists and similar minded people.

Graeme

[Bravus]

Simple dichotomies are reassuring but unhelpful and don't fit real life very well.

[Kountzer]

Quote:

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

That alone makes up for over 90% of the abortions in the US.

There are two issues at hand that one needs to keep separate when discussing this issue as it relates to the church.

1. Sin. What does the church consider sinful?

2. Civil law. How much does the church want to use the civil government to enforces its religious positions?

I believe the Adventist church takes a position that over 90% of abortions are sinful but that we do not want to use the civil government to enforce our religious view of abortion on the population as a whole.

Good stuff, I agree.

[there buster]

Quote:

we do have the choice, but should be willing to pay the consequence's.

So if we choose to have intercourse, pregnancy is the logical consequence.

We have chosen, now we must accept the consequences.

[Tammy]

Why is it so many forget that they made that choice?

[Kountzer]

People want to rebel, and chaos is the result I guess.

[Tom Wetmore]

All things considered, another example of the quote in my signature line...

"Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good."

[carolaa]

Quote:

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

That alone makes up for over 90% of the abortions in the US.

There are two issues at hand that one needs to keep separate when discussing this issue as it relates to the church.

1. Sin. What does the church consider sinful?

2. Civil law. How much does the church want to use the civil government to enforces its religious positions?

I believe the Adventist church takes a position that over 90% of abortions are sinful but that we do not want to use the civil government to enforce our religious view of abortion on the population as a whole.

Thank you for adding some sanity to the discussion, Shane. It's ridiculous to think that the church is condoning abortions.

[Jeannieb43]

Originally Posted By: Jeannieb43

Thank you, Dr. Gerry.

The person's God-given right to choose what to do with one's own body is uppermost. And no one has the right to control someone else. [/quote'] I've noticed that you've been kind of outspoken on this issue over the last 4-years Jeannie. How do you think people should resolve the spiritual & emotional consequences that arise from an abortion?

regards,

Gerry

Gerry, my position is simple.

I'm old enough to remember a time when abortions were quite infrequent. They were usually "spontaneous" which were usually called "miscarriages." In that case the mother grieved for a period of time, but since she had had no part in planning it, there was no feeling of guilt. Otherwise, there were "therapeutic" abortions, decided by the patient and her doctor together, for purposes of saving her life. She of course would have been very thankful at that point.

The third type of abortion, that is, for the mental health and well-being of the mother, has become more common in recent years [i recall the year California made therapeutic abortions legal; my three children were babies then, but I was glad if I needed it that I'd be able to take advantage of that law for myself, since for me, three was enough.] Never at any time would I have grieved or felt guilty if I'd chosen a therapeutic abortion in the first trimester. Because, you must realize, that the mother is in the best position to determine whether or not the family can handle having another mouth to feed, etc.

I've never had an abortion, and neither has any of my children. So I can't say first-hand how I'd feel. But my current opinion is that the radical right has advertised the "personhood" of a fetus to such an extent these days that it makes a woman feel unnecessary guilt when she is forced to have an abortion.

At any rate, that decision is not mine to make for someone else. It must be made only by the woman and her doctor. By nobody else. There shouldn't be any great grieving or sense of guilt when going through it, if all avenues have been explored before the choice is made.