What I Learned About Abortion & the Adventist Church

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

I was referring to the task of trying to locate the statistics you had quoted without the proper reference.

You must be confusing me with someone else. Everything I have posted has been in context with proper reference. In order not to believe what I have posted one would have to be a radical, paranoid extremist that believes in a worldwide conspiracy spanning over three decades.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

True! I haven't learned enough, but I did discover more than enough evidence in support of my theory that the Adventist has deviated from its original pro-life position regarding abortion.

Originally Posted By: Overaged

You used the correct word here....THEORY. [/quote']

It is a theory indeed. Nevertheless, no one has so far provided any valid evidence suggesting that my theory is false. Please, read my dissertation and show where my theory is false!

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

I suggest the following: Can we start over? You post your favorite statistics... regarding the maternal mortality...

How about actually reading my posts. I am not and never have been talking maternal mortality rates. That is a discussion you are having with someone else.

I have been talking about how abortion rates in states and nations where abortion is restricted are much less than abortion rates in nations where abortion is banned. In order not to believe that, one has to believe there is a worldwide conspiracy which includes members of the media, various levels of various governments, doctors, hospitals and churches. It is just mind boggling. That would be a bigger conspiracy than the vast right-wing one that got that stain on Monica's dress.

Fine! Can you cite the best evidence supporting your theory and I will contrast it with the best evidence suggesting the opposite. And, please, provide the reference so that I can verify what you are saying in its proper context. Read my previous posting directed at your comments!

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Today I learned that there is a new film which will be airing soon dealing with the Adventist tradition regarding the sanctity of human life and the Adventist aversion towards the killing of human beings.

It is the legendary story of Desmond T. Doss; a man who refused to carry a gun in self defense while feaverishly working to save the lives of wounded American soldiers. He became a heroe and was condecorated by President Truman.

He suffered abuse, ridicule, threats of severe disciplinary action and jail; and he had to dodge the bullets of enemy fire, but he did not budge in his decision to honor the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue.

Desmond T. Doss supported the US war against Japan. He wasn't opposed to it. He referred to himself as a "conscientious cooperator" and said he wished the word "objector" was left out. He didn't want to be part of the killing but he knew it had to happen if America and the world were to be free.

Notice, too, that Desmond T. Doss didn't go around telling other people they were committing a crime by killing Japanese soldiers or Nazis. He didn't believe they were. He left that judgment in God's hands where it belongs. I refused to carry a weapon during the Vietnam war, but I didn't tell other soldiers they were wrong to carry or use their weapons.

Desmond's example spoke louder than whatever you are alleging he has said. Otherwise, why would he refuse to carry a gun in self defense? Please, document what you stated Desmond's position on killing was and his support for the killing of enemies!

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: John317

Desmond T. Doss supported the US war against Japan. He wasn't opposed to it. He referred to himself as a "conscientious cooperator" and said he wished the word "objector" was left out. He didn't want to be part of the killing but he knew it had to happen if America and the world were to be free.

Notice, too, that Desmond T. Doss didn't go around telling other people they were committing a crime by killing Japanese soldiers or Nazis. He didn't believe they were. He left that judgment in God's hands where it belongs. I refused to carry a weapon during the Vietnam war, but I didn't tell other soldiers they were wrong to carry or use their weapons.

The difference is, John , that Doss was acting in harmony with established SDA tradition (that carrying weapons was left to the conscience of the individual) whereas abortion was not considered in the same category. NO ONE ( until the late 1960's when Adventism began to reinvent their thinking on the subject)left the morality of killing one's unborn up to the conscience of the individual unless it endangered the mother's life. Again, protection of the unborn was so important that EGW criticized those parents who neglected prenatal care, both of the child and the mother!

Excellent response! Desmond Doss refused to carry a gun in self defense against those who were trying to kill him, and opted to dodge the enemy bullets with only his faith in God’s providence. The Adventist Church, on the other hand, is killing in some of our hospitals unarmed and powerless unborn human beings.

The contrast is so glaring, I am having a hard time figuring out how so many Adventists can’t see this. I have concluded that we have developed a blind spot in our spiritual vision regarding the abortion issue.

[Dr. Shane]

I was referring to the original statistics you provided without any reference...

Where is the reference? I have been asking for this all along without a proper response!

[Dr. Shane]

Fine! Can you cite the best evidence supporting your theory and I will contrast it with the best evidence suggesting the opposite.

First: It is not my theory. It is common knowledge.

Second: You have the wrong attitude. This should be your attitude. "If you are indeed right, then I am wrong and should change my position. I am a sinner. I am not perfect. I am not all-knowing. I am subject to error and can stand corrected. If you are indeed right, I will not try to contrast the truth just because I am stubborn, hard-headed and want to be right all the time."

The fact is that nations and states the restrict abortion have a much lower abortion rate than those nations that ban abortion. If we care more about saving the lives of the unborn than we do about a political agenda, we will embrace what works and abandon what doesn't work. Banning abortion has a proven record of failure. Restricting abortion has a proven record of success. I love the unborn too much to support a ban on abortion. That is simply to sentence many more thousands to death than need to die.

[doug yowell]

[ Banning abortion has a proven record of failure. Restricting abortion has a proven record of success. I love the unborn too much to support a ban on abortion. That is simply to sentence many more thousands to death than need to die.

Shane, What kind of restrictions are you talking about? Please give an example of what you say works successfully.

[Neil D]

If you really think that I am doing the work of the Devil, then perhaps you should refrain from arguing with me. Remember what happened to Eve who decided to argue with the Devil in the garden of Eden. We are still reaping the evil results of her mistake!

Well...If you insist....

[Nic Samojluk]

Those statistics are widely known and available.

[Nic Samojluk]

I am posting the following statistics because they illustrate something important regarding the issue we are dealing with. There are three columns. The first one shows the dates, the second one the abortion statistics provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an organization created by Planned Parenthood,the main provider of abortion in the U.S., and the third one contains abortion statistics provided by the Center of Disease Control.

Please notice that at first the data tends to agree. Nevertheless, starting with the year 1998, they diverge. The question is, can we trust the statistics provided since then? How can we rely on them if the discrepancy is so great? If we rely on the statistics provided by either AGI or CDC we are bound to be off by miles. How do you propose to solve this dilemma?

Number of Abortions Performed in the United States

AGI - Alan Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood)

CDC - Centers for Disease Control

[YEAR]--(AGI) -- (CDC)

1973 -- 744,600 -- 615,831

1974 -- 898,600 -- 763,476

1975 -- 1,034,200 -- 854,853

1976 -- 1,179,300 -- 988,267

1977 -- 1,316,700 -- 1,079,430

1978 -- 1,409,600 -- 1,157,776

1979 -- 1,497,700 -- 1,251,921

1980 -- 1,553,900 -- 1,297,606

1981 -- 1,577,300 -- 1,300,760

1982 -- 1,573,900 -- 1,303,980

1983 -- 1,575,000 -- 1,268,987

1984 -- 1,577,200 -- 1,333,521

1985 -- 1,588,600 -- 1,328,570

1986 -- 1,574,000 -- 1,328,112

1987 -- 1,559,100 -- 1,353,671

1988 -- 1,590,800 -- 1,371,285

1989 -- 1,566,900 -- 1,396,658

1990 -- 1,608,600 -- 1,429,577

1991 -- 1,556,500 -- 1,388,937

1992 -- 1,528,900 -- 1.359,145

1993 -- 1,500,000 -- 1,330,414

1994 -- 1,431,000 -- 1,267,415

1995 -- 1,363,690 -- 1,210,883

1996 -- 1,365,730 -- 1,221,585

1997 -- 1,365,730 -- 1,186,039

1998 -- 1,365,730 -- 884,273*

1999 -- 1,365,730 -- 861,789*

2000 -- 1,312,990 -- 857,475**

2001 -- 1,303,000& -- 853,485**

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#United States

[Dr. Shane]

Shane, What kind of restrictions are you talking about? Please give an example of what you say works successfully.

The restrictions that have been shown to work are:

• Banning abortion after 12 weeks except to save the mother's life
• Banning all public funding of abortion
• Prohibitting private insurance from covering abortion - except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother's life.
• Parental conscent laws
• Mandatory waiting period
• Mandatory pre-abortion counseling

Those restrictions need to be accompanied by subsidizing crisis pregnancy centers, making birth control widely available, educating the youth on how to use birth control and encouraging adoption.

When all those measures have been taken, we see very low abortion rates.

[Dr. Shane]

The question I have been asking is not whether such statistics are available, but rather whether they are reliable.

[Nic Samojluk]

It is not my theory. It is common knowledge.

[Dr. Shane]

Notice what happened to the number of abortions in the U.S. following its legalization.

For the most part, abortion-on-demand has been law in the US. Thus statisics from the US are not relevant when comparing restrictive abortion laws with banning abortion laws. One might want to look at The Netherlands or Germany for a better comparison.

In recent history states like Idaho, Colorado, Mississippi, South Dakota, Missouri and West Virgina have had very low abortion rates. The success they are having far exceeds what is happening in nations like Mexico and Kenya where abortion is banned.

[Dr. Shane]

The fact that many experts agree with your view does not prove that you are in the right.

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes, of course, they are reliable.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Facts and figures relating to the frequency of abortion in the United States.

National abortion statistics in the U.S. are available from two sources, privately from The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and federally from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Since California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire do not provide abortion data to the federal government, and since California accounts for more abortions than any other state in the U.S, the CDC numbers are incomplete.

AGI, on the other hand, is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider. While their data is helpful, they certainly have a position and agenda in regard to abortion. The following information has been gleaned from both sources to provide an overview of the frequency and demography of abortion.

The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 abortions per 1,000 live births in 1973 to 358 abortions per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981. The ratio peaked at 364 abortions per 1,000 live births in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline. In 2001, the abortion ratio was 246 abortions per 1,000 live births (for the states that reported, a 0.4% increase from 2000 (CDC).

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

Quote:

Although abortion incidence is the subject of some academic research and much anecdotal reporting, nationally valid data are available from only two sources: the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI).

The methods of data collection differ as well. The CDC collects most of its information indirectly, mainly through reports from state health departments. Reports for the 45 states that collect information on abortion and the District of Columbia vary in completeness, with some lacking information on as many as 40-50% of the abortions that occur in the state.

Either way, these estimates must be viewed as tentative. One uncertainty stems from the limited number of states on which the estimates are based, since these states may not be representative of the nation as a whole and their reported data may be incomplete

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html

Read my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

In earlier parts of this series, we have seen how abortion advocates have grossly inflated estimates of the number of abortions performed overseas and then tried to use those inaccurate numbers to argue for worldwide legalization of abortion. These "experts" admit their numbers are "uncertain" but publicize them anyway, leading one to ask what matters most to these "statisticians": accuracy or agenda?

WHO, in its 1998 report Unsafe Abortion, said its estimates of "unsafe abortions" and abortion-related mortality "must be considered rough" and "necessarily have a high degree of uncertainty."

In a 1990 report on world abortions, AGI admitted that the data it used on "clandestine abortions" was "too uncertain to know whether the worldwide total is increasing or decreasing, since few studies in developing countries have provided accurate measures even for small areas.

To the objective observer, the obvious question is why such groups would so fervently publicize "statistics" in which they have so little confidence. The answer, revealed in their own words below, is that agenda has a higher priority than accuracy.

The Impact of False Numbers

Compromising such data in the service of a political agenda not only serves to advance a heinous cause, i.e., the loss of legal protection for unborn children, but also leads to a severe misallocation of resources.

there is little real evidence that legalizing abortion makes it safer. What legalization surely does is increase the number of abortions, and thus increase, particularly in the developing world, the risk of maternal complications, infections, and deaths,

AGI concedes in its 1999 report that in countries legalizing abortion between 1975 and 1996, "there was probably also a real increase in abortion rates."

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL11/world_abortion_estimates.htm

[Dr. Shane]

Who is the main provider of abortion statistics? It is the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an organization created by Planned Parenthood.

Wrong. It would be dishonest to tell myself such a far-fetched lie. Abortion statistics are compiled by various organizations including governments, universities, religious denominations, medical associations and political interest groups. The amazing thing about them is the trends are strikingly similar throughout the world.

One need only take a college-level class in statistics to learn they are rarely ever wrong. While statistics can be mis-applied, the data itself is rarely wrong.

I am not the conspiracy type. I don't look for black helicopters or fear the government is out to get me. I am one that tends to believe that things are as they seem to be.

[Dr. Shane]

Let me clue you in about the issue.

Forget about abortion in the United States. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

Focus on abortion in Mexico, Kenya and Argentina and contrast it with abortion in The Netherlands and Germany.

The US abortion laws are bad. The question is should the US move toward being more like Mexico or more like The Netherlands? Which has the lower abortion rate?

[Overaged]

Let me clue you in about the issue.

Forget about abortion in the United States. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

Focus on abortion in Mexico, Kenya and Argentina and contrast it with abortion in The Netherlands and Germany.

The US abortion laws are bad. The question is should the US move toward being more like Mexico or more like The Netherlands? Which has the lower abortion rate?

Abortions are the same, no matter what country they are done in

[Overaged]

quote=Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

True! I haven't learned enough, but I did discover more than enough evidence in support of my theory that the Adventist has deviated from its original pro-life position regarding abortion. /quote']

quote=Overaged] You used the correct word here....THEORY. /quote]

It is a theory indeed. Nevertheless, no one has so far provided any valid evidence suggesting that my theory is false. Please, read my dissertation and show where my theory is false!

If you must call it a "theory" then you are the one who needs to prove something here. Calling your "message" theory automatically consigns it to being unproven. Almost everything you say about this subject of the Adventist Church and abortion is absolutely outlandish and out of context.

[Nic Samojluk]

The statistics you have provided are either irrelevant or anecdotal.

[Dr. Shane]

Do you realize what you have just stated? The two main providers of abortion statistics are the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the Center for Disease Control.

Get your focus off from the United States. We are comparing abortion laws between countries. Abortion-on-demand is obviously a bad policy. The question is, should the US become more like Germany and the Netherlands or like Mexico and Argentina.