Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged,

Thanks for your response! You state the following:

Quote:

While you maybe didn't use the word "expert" in describing your great qualifications to do your "work" on this subject; the time and energy you spend on your site and here letting people know the great lengths you think you have gone to in your education and preparation to write about this speaks for itself.

My question to you: When did I make any reference to my “great qualifications” for the work I have been doing? Can you see how you are building a straw man out of thin air? You also state:

Quote:

It's not hard to see how your "dissertation" and I use the word lightly, is very unprofessional on many counts.

Yesterday I did ask you to be very specific in your critique, but again, you are giving me generalities which are of no help in correcting what you think is defective. In addition, you state the following:

Quote:

Again; you mix other issues into your "work" as if to somehow bolster it's credibility; ...

Can you, please, be specific? Is your critique “professional” if you fail to adhere to the standard set for critical work which require specificity? Finally, you conclude as follows:

Quote:

... and by that alone you make your so called degree illegitimate.

Have you read the definition of the term “illegitimate” lately? To me it means claiming to something I am not entitled to. My degree was granted by a university which was supervised by an accrediting committee. I did all the required work. I was allowed to graduate with the proviso from the accreditation committee that the Ph.D. program in religion should be terminated. The university was not allowed to accept any new students into the program, but I and others were allowed to graduate. What is illegitimate about this?

Your critique resembles that of my other opponent: Pam. Here is what she states:

Quote:

No one ever said your degree was "illegitimate"....

True! She didn’t use the term “illegitimate.” She rather said “not legitimate.” Can someone tell me what is the difference between “illegitimate” and “not legitimate”? This is worse than trying to define the true meaning of the term “is”! Bill Clinton attempted to do that, and you know the result! Pam also claims the following:

Quote:

I gave you examples of where things in your dissertation could be improved

and

Quote:

I said your degree itself was basically worthless because it was from an unaccredited university.

Since she claims that my degree is worthless because Andrew Jackson University failed to get their Ph. D. program in religion accredited, then it follows that for me to correct this deficiency I need to spend another decade working part time to secure the same degree from an accredited university. If I were to do that, I would be 87 by the time I finish if I survive till that age—my dad was 86 when he died.

And for what purpose? Just to make Pam happy? Before I signed up for the program I consulted with Dr. Gerald Winslow of LLU. We did discuss the possibility that AJU might not get their program accredited, and this is what I said: “I don’t care! My aim is not to secure a teaching position at an accredited university.” My aim was to get Adventist talking about how our Adventist Church deviated from its roots regarding the issue of abortion. This is taking place right now at several Adventist web sites. I praise God for this! It is evident that my main objective has been reached. Finally, she also stated:

Quote:

I think your dissertation has some merit, but I think it needs lot of polishing up to make it professionally sound.

Unbelievable! After repeating ad nauseam that my degree was worthless, now she is conceding that it “has some merit.” Praise the Lord. Does it need polishing? Of course! I reviewed and edited the dissertation about fifteen times. Did I catch all the mistakes? I don’t think so. I did ask Pam several times to give me some specifics, but she has no time for that, while she has had plenty of time in her attempt to demolish what I have been trying to build. This can be understood when you consider what her objective has been since the beginning:

Quote:

My whole line of reasoning for posting in this thread has been 1) to prove that Nic's PhD credentials are not legitimate

What else can you expect from someone determined to denigrate someone else’s work?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Nic, your PhD is worthless because it is from an unaccredited institution. How many times must I say that before you understand that.

Before I signed up for the program I consulted with Dr. Gerald Winslow of LLU. We did discuss the possibility that AJU might not get their program accredited, and this is what I said: “I don’t care!

Gerry Winslow (I know him) obviously had some concerns about your program, but you said "I DON'T CARE!"

Originally Posted By: Nic

I did ask Pam several times to give me some specifics, but she has no time for that..

I gave you specific examples of areas where your dissertation needed to be improved. You ignored it.''

Originally Posted By: Nic

After repeating ad nauseam that my degree was worthless, now she is conceding that it “has some merit.”

Your degree IS worthless, but I think your dissertation has some merit (I'm trying to be nice here), but it needs a lot of polishing to become a professionally written piece of work.

Originally Posted By: Nic

it follows that for me to correct this deficiency I need to spend another decade working part time to secure the same degree from an accredited university

You should have thought of that in the first place, and listened to Gerry Winslow.

If you spent 10 years writing the dissertation that was too long. Some of your research is bound to be outdated by the end of 10 years.

[Outta Here]

I'll say it:

The degree, as a degree, is worthless and is illegitimate. The information contained within and the opinion may hold some merit.

[teresaq]

Your critique resembles that of my other opponent: Pam. Here is what she states:

Quote:

I said your degree itself was basically worthless because it was from an unaccredited university.

then it follows that for me to correct this deficiency I need to spend another decade working part time to secure the same degree from an accredited university.

And for what purpose? Just to make Pam happy?

my goodness!! do you do that all the time?

[Guest]

What I want to know is, what kind of degree is required to be a dissertation critic, and how much does it pay?

Just ballpark it.

[Overaged]

What I want to know is, what kind of degree is required to be a dissertation critic, and how much does it pay?

Just ballpark it.

Anyone that the author of same "shares" it with - thats the nature of the beast. What does the position "pay?" The privilege of knowing the truth.

[Nic Samojluk]

I'll say it:

The degree, as a degree, is worthless and is illegitimate. The information contained within and the opinion may hold some merit.

[Outta Here]

1. Worthless? I have asked before and I will ask again: Worthless for what purpose...My objective was to get Adventist talking about the issue of abortion. Did I succeed in reaching my aim? I think I did with God's help. See, even you are discussing the issue, and there are several Adventist web sites who have taken up the same. Do you call this worthless? Worthless for what? If you are thinking about getting hired by a teaching institution, then I agree with you, but that was not my purpose?

[Overaged]

Quote:

quote=Nic Samojluk Overaged,

Thanks for your response! You state the following:

While you maybe didn't use the word "expert" in describing your great qualifications to do your "work" on this subject; the time and energy you spend on your site and here letting people know the great lengths you think you have gone to in your education and preparation to write about this speaks for itself.

My question to you: When did I make any reference to my “great qualifications” for the work I have been doing? Can you see how you are building a straw man out of thin air?

Philosophy is a belief, or a system of beliefs, accepted as authoritative by a particular group. Your "dissertation" cannot be accepted as credible by many of us, because it is based upon false rationalization. You are trying to impose a process of false reasoning to make your case against the Church on other issues seem consistent with what you represent to be sound reasoning.

But it is not very sound. Your whole dissertation is nothing but irrationality; you attempt to explain and conceal your other actions, feelings, and disagreements with the church on several other issues, by a way that is not as threatening such as the abortion issue; which you have embellished to suit your purpose.

There is no way that your dissertation can be accepted as authoritative, because of the other issues you have flavored it with, and because of it's substandard style.

Trying to flavor this topic with mentions of your alleged credentials, with things like what you will do/are doing with your tithe, the Church collaborating with the Nazi regime, along with a plethora of other issues which you host with the abortion projectile that you so adamantly impel the Church with, simply makes it even more worthless.

Rationalization often denies reality, or does not include all that should be included, giving less than a full picture of the question at hand. On Page 88 of this topic you state:

Quote:

"My question to you: When did I make any reference to my “great qualifications” for the work I have been doing? Can you see how you are building a straw man out of thin air?"

Contrary to your cheap shot philosophy here; I did not invent one iota of what I said. You and your accomplices have provided the public with evidence of what I am saying

1/ Your friend "Mike" at http://sdaforum.com/page100.html

Where did Mike get this if he didn't get it from you? And why is it on your web site; if you don't also want it said to everyone who clicks on the link here to go there? Your dissertation reflects the kind of rationalization which is not always factual. Your "dissertation" is not "philosophy." Yet you stoically use it to bolster your case; expecting us to see it as credible because of. The written mirror of your own words on this forum reflect this same dissertation mentality where you lift up your "qualifications" intimating a pre-eminent/superior knowledge because of same:

Quote:

"You may wonder why am I taking the time to write this, and why I did devote thousand of precious hours in order to get my doctoral study and to prepare my doctoral dissertation about this topic, time I could have employed in my business. The reason is very simple. I neither have nor do I expect any renumeration for my expensive investment which almost bankrupted my personal finances."

Quote:

"As far as I know, I am the only Seventh-day Adventists who has ever done his doctoral dissertation on the topic which I have entitled: "From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The dramatic Shift of Seventh-day Adventists Towards Abortion." [10]"

Found at: http://www.adventistforums.com/forum/ubb...rch_Really.html

And that is just in the very first post you made here about the subject. On the next page of the thread; page 2 you say:

Quote:

"I spent an entire decade investigating this matter and my doctoral dissertation was entitled "From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Attitudes Towards Abortion." You can read this document online at the following internet address:

http://sdaforum.ipower.com/page13.html"

Now we know that you only did this part time so it really wasn't even 10 years anyways! Are you still going to try to rationalize away your constant referencing of your alleged dissertation to us? How can you accuse me of "inventing a strawman" here? How can you deny that you have constantly shed focus on your "degree" as "proof" of what you say here about abortion and the Adventist Church? I have only picked out a little bit; you supply us with a lot more.

And, again; as I have been trying to say; you bring other issues you have with the Church into this issue. You have been avoiding any reply to this concern I have raised. It didn't take you long to get started with your other agenda here. We find the first one on page three of this topic:

http://www.adventistforums.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/282324/3.html

1/ "This is the second time the Adventist Church failed a moral test. The first time it happened in Germany when the Jews were being exterminated. Our Adventist leaders looked the other way and cooperated with the Nazi regime for fear of retribution, and a few years ago our German and Austrian leaders publicly apologized for our moral failure."

2/ (found on page 6) "No wonder the Adventist is not growing in the North American Continent. How can we grow if we are decimating the next generation of Adventists!"

3/ "the legalization of abortion did cause the extermination of fifty million innocent human beings."

http://www.adventistforums.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/282324/6.html

4/ (page 7) "No wonder some Adventists have left the Adventist Church for the Church of Rome."

http://www.adventistforums.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/282324/7.html

There can be no denying that you mix many other issues you have with the church into this topic of abortion.

You also exhibit a beautiful martyr complex here; which is also another, unrelated subject. "rich versus poor conspiracy theory." :

Quote:

"There seems to exist a conspiracy of silence when the story deals with a rich Adventist. Poor individuals like us in the pro-life side of the divide can be butchered without mercy on this blog and management won't move a finger to defend them,"

Found At: http://www.adventistforums.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/318091/65.html

Clearly Nic; you do not accurately represent yourself here. You try to bolster your "dissertation" with these false representations, then you deny doing it; and then you charge us with "merciless butchering."

I have other concerns about your work, but that will have to wait. What you actually say about the Church and their position on abortion is false. Although mixed in with small snippets of true facts; you very obviously and deliberately have gone way over the top to imprecisely represent the Church's correct and actual position. I for one have no problem with discrediting what you are doing. No matter what I am called. And I am very much against abortion.

[doug yowell]

Ok Overaged,since you seem to be an expert on the SDA church and abortion detail exactly what the church's position is, not what it is not! I find your dismissal of Nic's dissertation as non "credible","irrational",and his conclusions about the church's position on abortion as "deliberately" misrepresentative, both arrogant and confidentally judgmental. No mercy from you, right? You know a bad one when you see one,right? I did much of the same research that Nic did 10 years before him.I agree with his conclusions. I know what the historical facts are? Do you? How many hours have you spent in the Heritage Room disproving Nic's conclusions? How many papers have you researched to qualify you to stand in judgment on his conclusions? How many letters and printed articles have you detailed in order to come to your ability to discredit his 'irrationality'? You base your whole response to the focus on Nic's (alleged)subliminal "other issues" as a rationale to dismiss his credibility on the subject under discussion. But if you are right, your reasoning also discredits your credibility on the abortion question because you too are focused on those issues!! You claim to be "very much against abortion",ok, what have YOU done to try to prevent it?Maybe doing 10 years of research doesn't make someone an expert in your eyes,but when compared to 10 minutes I'll go with the former.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

http://www.adventistforums.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/282324/3.html

1/ "This is the second time the Adventist Church failed a moral test. The first time it happened in Germany when the Jews were being exterminated. Our Adventist leaders looked the other way and cooperated with the Nazi regime for fear of retribution, and a few years ago our German and Austrian leaders publicly apologized for our moral failure."

2/ (found on page 6) "No wonder the Adventist is not growing in the North American Continent. How can we grow if we are decimating the next generation of Adventists!"

3/ "the legalization of abortion did cause the extermination of fifty million innocent human beings."

http://www.adventistforums.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/282324/6.html

That much is true.

The issue of slavery in the 1800's was essentially the controversy about the "value of human life" the same as we see today with the idea of murdering children prior to their birth. (In many cases JUST prior to it - given that 5 and 6 month old unborn children are known to survive if taken care of)

But (inexplicably) some argue that they are free to murder children as long as those children are not yet breathing fresh air outside the womb.

Ex 21:22-23 here we see the rule in the case of someone who kills a child that is not yet breathing fresh air outside of the womb. The rule stated is "a life for a life". That person was to die.

I have to "imagine" that those same people who "could not see" the problem with killing the unborn children prior to bringing up this inconvenient detail - will continue to "not see" - but I think the unbiased objective reader will find this text "instructive".

Here then in Ex 21 is condemnation even of unintentional abortion in scripture.

So - does Ellen White agree with the Bible on this point?

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 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. {2SM 429-430}

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

The argument above is that by overworking the pregnant mother – the father is risking the guilt of “murder” of the unborn child.

[Raphael]

May I ask for assistance...

Jewish sacrificial laws were done away with when Christ was sacrificed, though Judaism persists to this age...

Jewish Saturday Sabbath observance are maintained to this moment whereby Catholic authorities clearly states the switch from Saturday to Sunday as upon the Pope's mandate while non SDAs Protestants dare not accept the fact the they are still paying homage to the Roman Pope by their constant Sunday observance.

My question is not upon the sinfulness of abortion but upon how Jewish abortion belief that states that there is no life in the unborn CHANGED to murdering life... as Saturday Sabbath became Sunday Sabbath... as submerge baptism switched to sprinkling baptism... unclean food becoming clean (it is said that what goes in is not important to what goes out, I suppose we became free to swallow bricks)... and others...

In Catholicism there is nothing to doubt or to be unclear of... all CHANGES are done by the authority given to the Pope. (Catholicism charges non SDA Protestants of still being under the mandate of the Catholic Pope due to their adherence to sole papal edicts of Sunday as Sabbath, which non SDA Protestants dare not refute...)

In non SDA Protestantism there are only circling arguments, cycling into eternity for apparently dubious motives...

May I ask for freedom beyond doubt upon these soul troubling matters...?

Raphael

God bless.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Life is mysterious and sacred. It is the manifestation of God Himself, the source of all life. Precious are its opportunities, and earnestly should they be improved. Once lost, they are gone forever. [8]

Human life, which God alone could give, must be sacredly guarded. [9]

Children derive life from their parents, and yet it is through the creative power of God that your children have life, for God is the Life-giver. [10]

It is important to notice as well her many statements dealing with the relevance of prenatal care and the influence of the pregnant woman’s diet, general health, mental attitude, and self control on the development of the unborn.

Quote:

Women who possess principle, and who are well instructed, will not depart from simplicity of diet at this time of all others. They will consider that another life is dependent upon them and will be careful in all their habits and especially in diet. [11]

Every drop of strong drink taken [by a mother] to gratify appetite endangers the physical, mental and moral health of her child, and is a direct sin against the Creator. [12]

The effect of prenatal influence is by many parents looked upon as a matter of little moment; but heaven does not so regard it. . . .Two lives are depending upon her, and her wishes should be tenderly regarded. . . . By the command of God Himself, she is placed under the most solemn obligation to exercise self-control. [13]

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 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. [14]

[8]Ellen G. White. Ministry of Healing (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1958), 397.

[9]White. Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1958), 516.

[10]White. The Adventist Home (Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Publishing Association, 1952), 280.

[11]Ibid., 257.

[12]White. Ministry of Healing, 373.

[13]Ibid., 372-373.

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

http://sdaforum.com/page102.html

The details in the quotes above are far more instructive and applicable to this thread - than the whining about style and policy regarding dissertations.

why be so devoted to ignoring content on this subject?

The references above deserve consideration.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

My question is not upon the sinfulness of abortion but upon how Jewish abortion belief that states that there is no life in the unborn CHANGED to murdering life...

Ex 21:22-23 here we see the rule in the case of someone who kills a child that is not yet breathing fresh air outside of the womb. The rule stated is "a life for a life". That person was to die.

So in your question above - do you consider Ex 21 to be "Jewish"?

Do you consider it to be the "starting Jewish position" from which there is a change?

in Christ,

Bob

[Outta Here]

The details in the quotes above are far more instructive and applicable to this thread - than the whining about style and policy regarding dissertations.

why be so devoted to ignoring content on this subject?

The references above deserve consideration.

in Christ,

Bob

I think the answer, for me, is that even after 132 pages of discussion on whether or not the Adventist church is really pro-life or not, my own personal position has not changed:

I believe in life for everyone--the born, and the unborn.

I do not believe in judging any other woman for the choice she makes regarding the life of her child.

As a woman, I have had the opportunity to participate with God and my husband in giving life to two children. Our first-born child was born at a particularly inconvenient time in my life. I was very young and had a lot of other things on my mind. For two months I deliberated between the choice of having our child, or having an abortion.* I know first-hand what it is like to face that decision; I know first-hand what a difficult choice it is to make. Having "been there, done that", I firmly believe it is a matter between the woman, her partner and God (and in some cases, between only the woman/young lady and God). It is not my place, nor anyone else's place, to judge.

*As difficult as this may seem to some of you, it was my belief in God and condemnation that DROVE me to the idea that abortion was even a feasible decision--without God, it would have been a "no brainer"--I most definitely WOULD HAVE had my child--no questions asked.

[Nic Samojluk]

Aubrey,

I am amazed that both you and Pam have decided to attack my degree instead of the heart of my investigation. Have you considered the title of my dissertation? “FROM PRO-LIFE TO PRO-CHOICE: The Dramatic Shift of Seventh-day Adventists’ Attitude Toward Abortion.” This is where you criticism should be centered on. The purpose of my investigation was to call attention to the fact that the Adventist has departed from the pro-life position of the early Adventist pioneers. Can you, please, tell me whether I was wrong with my thesis instead of beating about the branches. Why don’t to attack the heart of my research? If you do, and succeed, you could claim victory!

There is nothing wrong with my degree. It was granted under the supervision of the accrediting committee. Andrew Jackson University was allowed to accept several students under the Ph.D. program in Religion. I did complete all the requirements of the online program and was allowed to graduate. For some reason unknown to me, AJU failed to get this particular program accredited, but the important fact is that the accreditation committee allowed me and others to graduate.

And there is more. You and Pam have been spreading the false rumor that AJU was not accredited. The truth is that the Ph.D. program in religion failed to get accredited, but the university is accredited. Notice the following:

Quote:

Andrew Jackson University caters to the needs of online learners. Certificates of proficiency and accredited online degree programs provide the flexibility you need to complete your degree with tuition that wont break the bank. http://www.aju.edu/Programs/programs_main.asp

Both of you talk like experts in this field, yet your opinion is in opposition to what I received from two genuine experts LLU scholars: Dr. Bernard Taylor and Dr. Gerald Winslow. Neither one of them suggested that my degree would be worthless in the event AJU failed to get the program accredited. Who should I believe, you who have an axe to grind or well recognized and experienced experts I can trust? You stated the following:

Quote:

Adventists do speak about the issues of abortion and will continue to do so--even without this research. I have been a member of this website since 2003 and cannot recall a year that's gone by when abortion hasn't been an topic.

You are technically right; nevertheless, you are ignoring what took place after the guidelines on abortion were approved by the Adventist Church. To begin with, “Ministry” magazine, where the issue of abortion was running ten to one against all other issues, decided to drop the issue from its pages. All other magazines followed suit.

Quote:

Articles on Abortion

by J. David Newman

The following editorial comment by J. David Newman reveals the impressive number of readers responses to the articles on abortion published by Ministry.

Quote:

Our articles on abortion have touched a sensitive nerve. We are receiving more email on this subject than on any other recently published article. The letters are running 10 to 1 in favor of the church adopting a stricter standard. While many simply complain, others are doing something positive to help those wrestling with the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. The Adventist Society of Abortion Education is a nonprofit group dedicated to educating the general public (Adventists in particular) about the injustice of abortion and about abortion alternatives. For further information, contact Teresa Beem, ASAE, P.O. Box 82, Keene, TX 76059. [72] http://sdaforum.com/page105.html

The publication of a book edited by David Larson contributed to this silencing of this issue among Adventists:

Quote:

SDA Silence on Abortion

"Following the 1992 publication of the book Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options, edited by David R. Larson, the Co-Director of the Center for Christian Bioethics of Loma Linda University; the Adventist press went into a long hibernating silence on this moral issue facing America and the entire world." http://sdaforum.com/page54.html

Quote:

The Calm After the Storm

"Following the publication of the book edited by David Larson, Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options and the official Guidelines on Abortion referred to below, an impressive calm ensued about the topic of abortion. SDA publishers interest in abortion diminished greatly and the number of articles published in SDA magazines dropped dramatically. An analysis of the content of SDA periodicals published between 1984 and 1993 revealed that there were 144 articles connected either directly or tangentially with abortion. This number dropped to 30 in the following decade. Another discovery revealed that between 1971 and 2006 there were 242 articles listed in the SDA Periodical Index dealing either directly or casually with the word abortion, while a similar count for the same period indicated a 21,342 count for the term Sabbath. [1] This discovery seemed to indicate that Adventist talk and write about what they consider important. Worshipping on the correct day of the week seems to be important for them, while the genocide of the unborn is not!

Eventually the great controversy about the abortion seemed to be over among SDA’s. Those few pro-lifers who had struggled to stem the liberal tide had fired the last ammunitions they had in their arsenal to no avail. The defenders of women’s right to cut short the life of their unborn babies had won. There seemed to be no hope to steer the SDA denominational ship back towards a pro-life haven. The liberal forces within the denomination had obtained a signal victory for their cause, and some of the most valiant defenders of the rights of the unborn, feeling outnumbered and outgunned, laid their arms and left the SDA church in order to fight on behalf of the little ones elsewhere. One of them joined the Seventh-day Baptist Church; others started independent ministries as will be detailed in the chapters that will follow." http://sdaforum.com/page109.html

Finally, you also made the following incredible ridiculous claim:

Quote:

Again, the degree itself is illegitimate. It has been awarded to you (I assume it was actually awarded) by a non-accredited committee.

Imagine. AJU is accredited, and under the supervision of this accrediting committee the university attempted to get the Ph.D. in Religion also accredited, and you conclude that the committee itself was not accredited. Can anything be more ludicrous than this? Let the readers decide whether what you are trying to prove makes any sense!

[BobRyan]

The details in the quotes above are far more instructive and applicable to this thread - than the whining about style and policy regarding dissertations.

why be so devoted to ignoring content on this subject?

The references above deserve consideration.

[Woody]

This does not make sense. Perhaps it is just a poor understanding or a poor representation ... I'm not sure which.

But, the issue is that there is no question regarding what is murder in our society. It is clear cut. If you are alive and well and someone kills you ... that is murder.

But the issue of the unborn ... is not clear and there is not agreement. What this amounts to is the minority group trying to impose their definition of murder on the majority.

And don't get hung up on the stats. The point here is that there is not agreement. Thus, we should not impose our beliefs. An example of this would be for us to try to impose Sabbath keeping on the nation just because we as a minority believe it is the right thing to do.

This is the picture of what we have going on here.

[Overaged]

Ok Overaged,since you seem to be an expert on the SDA church and abortion detail exactly what the church's position is, not what it is not! I find your dismissal of Nic's dissertation as non "credible","irrational",and his conclusions about the church's position on abortion as "deliberately" misrepresentative, both arrogant and confidentally judgmental. No mercy from you, right? You know a bad one when you see one,right? I did much of the same research that Nic did 10 years before him.I agree with his conclusions. I know what the historical facts are?

Hello Doug; I did post a link to the official guidelines more than once now. If you read back a few posts you will find it. I find myself wondering if there is actually anything in my last post that you can definitively prove wrong? I believe I was quite factual, and represented my current understanding of what is going on here. I sense that you are quite angry with me; and that is OK. It can be an emotional subject at times. I don't really know of anything I should feel guilty about here. Nic is reflecting some who in our Church's history, have tried through one issue or another, to work against the church, and to be a part of the problem; rather than the solution.

[doug yowell]

This does not make sense. Perhaps it is just a poor understanding or a poor representation ... I'm not sure which.

But, the issue is that there is no question regarding what is murder in our society. It is clear cut. If you are alive and well and someone kills you ... that is murder.

But the issue of the unborn ... is not clear and there is not agreement. What this amounts to is the minority group trying to impose their definition of murder on the majority.

And don't get hung up on the stats. The point here is that there is not agreement. Thus, we should not impose our beliefs. An example of this would be for us to try to impose Sabbath keeping on the nation just because we as a minority believe it is the right thing to do.

This is the picture of what we have going on here.

No, Redwood, what you just described was a minority attempting to redefine the definition of "living" and impose it on the majority so that murder is morally acceptable. "If you are alive and well"...The unborn child, i.e.baby, IS alive!! What do you think is being aborted,a turnip?? It has a beating heart that pumps blood to all it's developing parts!It's not a philosophical ping-pong ball, it's a living human being!What's not clear about that?Is there no agreement? No, not today. But, 140 years ago,when our church was in it's early stages,and the rest of the country was busily passing anti-abortion laws, there was unanimity amongst our leaders. James White, Uriah Smith, J.N.Andrews, J.H.Kellogg,Kate Lindsay,all described abortion as "murder".Ellen White never critized them or the political reality for doing so. The disagreement that exists today, in our church,is between those who reject the Biblical view of the founders and those who concur with their views.And whose view has prevailed these past 40 years?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

yet your opinion is in opposition to what I received from two genuine experts LLU scholars: Dr. Bernard Taylor and Dr. Gerald Winslow. Neither one of them suggested that my degree would be worthless in the event AJU failed to get the program accredited.

Nic, you repeatedly stated that you told Gerry Winslow that you didn't care that your PhD would not be accredited. He obviously had concerns about this. Your degree is not an accredited degree. It is worthless.

Originally Posted By: Nic

And there is more. You and Pam have been spreading the false rumor that AJU was not accredited. The truth is that the Ph.D. program in religion failed to get accredited, but the university is accredited.

Completing it under the guise of an accreditation committee that ultimately failed to have the degree accredited is even more evidence that the degree itself is worthless. The university's PhD program is UNACCREDITED. When you were a student there it was STILL unaccredited.

Originally Posted By: Nic

The Adventist Society of Abortion Education is a nonprofit group dedicated to educating the general public (Adventists in particular) about the injustice of abortion and about abortion alternatives.

Going to team up with Catholics?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Ok Overaged,since you seem to be an expert on the SDA church and abortion detail exactly what the church's position is, not what it is not! I find your dismissal of Nic's dissertation as non "credible","irrational",and his conclusions about the church's position on abortion as "deliberately" misrepresentative, both arrogant and confidentally judgmental. No mercy from you, right? You know a bad one when you see one,right? I did much of the same research that Nic did 10 years before him.I agree with his conclusions. I know what the historical facts are?

Hello Doug; I did post a link to the official guidelines more than once now. If you read back a few posts you will find it. I find myself wondering if there is actually anything in my last post that you can definitively prove wrong? I believe I was quite factual, and represented my current understanding of what is going on here. I sense that you are quite angry with me; and that is OK. It can be an emotional subject at times. I don't really know of anything I should feel guilty about here. Nic is reflecting some who in our Church's history, have tried through one issue or another, to work against the church, and to be a part of the problem; rather than the solution.

Exactly, Overaged. You are right on target.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

But, the issue is that there is no question regarding what is murder in our society. It is clear cut. If you are alive and well and someone kills you ... that is murder.

But the issue of the unborn ... is not clear and there is not agreement. What this amounts to is the minority group trying to impose their definition of murder on the majority.

That's exactly what is going on here. Good post, Redwood!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

No, Redwood, what you just described was a minority attempting to redefine the definition of "living" and impose it on the majority so that murder is morally acceptable. "If you are alive and well"...The unborn child, i.e.baby, IS alive!! What do you think is being aborted,a turnip?? It has a beating heart that pumps blood to all it's developing parts!It's not a philosophical ping-pong ball, it's a living human being!What's not clear about that?Is there no agreement? No, not today. But, 140 years ago,when our church was in it's early stages,and the rest of the country was busily passing anti-abortion laws, there was unanimity amongst our leaders. James White, Uriah Smith, J.N.Andrews, J.H.Kellogg,Kate Lindsay,all described abortion as "murder".Ellen White never critized them or the political reality for doing so. The disagreement that exists today, in our church,is between those who reject the Biblical view of the founders and those who concur with their views.And whose view has prevailed these past 40[sic] years?

140 years ago many women did not know they were pregnant until they began to show, well past the time the first trimester. Pregnancy tests were non-existent.

Ellen White never made a statement regarding abortion. The fact that she never openly criticized anyone for their beliefs speaks volumes.

BTW, 140 years ago the United States was embroiled in the slavery issue, not abortion.

[Outta Here]

1. If that is "the answer" for why you choose to ignore the actual content of the text Nic is referencing - content that includes statements by Ellen White and others on the subject at hand... then I find your logic illusive.