What I Learned About Abortion & the Adventist Church

[Nic Samojluk]

Again, let me ask you, if the fetus/conceptus resulting from rape is not an intruder according to your view, IS IT A WELCOME/INVITED GUEST?

If a criminal forces a little boy into your house, do you kill the unarmed and innocent child or do you kill the criminal? Where is your sense of justice and fairness? Has it gone out the window?

[Nic Samojluk]

You took the most extreme form of abortion when you talked about limb being torn from the fetus

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Again, let me ask you, if the fetus/conceptus resulting from rape is not an intruder according to your view, IS IT A WELCOME/INVITED GUEST?

If a criminal forces a little boy into your house, do you kill the unarmed and innocent child or do you kill the criminal? Where is your sense of justice and fairness? Has it gone out the window?

Do you see a BOY in every spermatozoon? That the spermatozoa from a man's OWN body are somehow some unwilling participants?

And where is YOUR sense of justice and fairness? Where do YOU place the rights and freedom of the victim as to what to do with something that was forced on her?

[Nic Samojluk]

Hi Nic,

Certainly Billy Graham was a great orator. Perhaps a good actor as well. But I fear your praise for him and comparisons with John the Baptist fall short of the truth. There's little point Nic in holding the Adventist health system to account if you'll endorse the 'Reverend' Graham for misrepresenting Christ.

Billy Graham never lost his head for speaking the truth. On the contrary, he befriended a dozen U.S. presidents, was 'advisor' to many, and held a special place for Pope John Paul II.

Graham is well acquainted with the Sabbath truth as testified by a late SDA evangelist, whose families holidayed together. Those who responded to BG's crusade calls were sent back to the churches they came from, whether Protestant, Jewish or Roman Catholic. Graham spoke of his coordination with local parishes to ensure adequate presence of Roman Catholic counsellors at his stadium events.

Following the Pope's death on April 2, 2005, Larry King interviewed Billy Graham:

KING: There is no question in your mind that he is with God now?

GRAHAM: Oh, no. There may be a question about my own, but I don't think Cardinal Wojtyla, or the Pope -- I think he's with the Lord, because he believed.

Interview: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/ANS_PopeGrahamCaviezel.aspx

Immortality of the soul is the principal doctrine of Spiritualism and a mainstay of the Vatican's ecumenical movement. John the Baptist's message of repentance was quite different from Billy Graham's ecumenical compromise. And so he saved his life. Fortunately, still alive, he can still repent.

No brother Nic, Billy Graham curried favour with the rich & powerful. He was not shut up in prison and beheaded by the kings of this world. He was their friend, excusing their adulteries. Please don't equate John the Baptist's fearless faith with that of world-loving men, no matter what the experts tell you.

Billy Graham's Love Affair with the Popes:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/billy_graham-pope.htm

Billy Graham & Catholicism:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/billy_graham-apostasy.htm

If your message demonstrated more balance Nic, it might be more plausible. But it lacks solid Biblical support as well as an important element of mercy. It seems to be all justice, fraught with the emotion of the Inquisition. If one confuses Billy Graham with John the Baptist, it's possible one will also ally with the RCC over such political issues.

Gordon

Are you also going to reject Jesus Christ because he talked about an ever burning hell and he did associate himself with the rich and with the worst kind of sinners? If you were invited to the White House would you refuse to accept because the president might be a sinner in your view?

We do know that the Catholic Church teaches a lot of erroneous doctrines. Should we not at the same time give Rome credit for its strong stand on behalf of the sanctity of human life. Aren’t we supposed to give credit where credit is due? Was the overall influence of Billy Graham good or bad? Did he lead people to Jesus or to the Devil? Would Ellen White have condemned the ministry of Graham? All the criticism leveled against Billy Graham has been likewise leveled against Mother Teresa! What does this tell you?

The title of this thread is: “What I learned About Abortion and the Adventist church.” What do you expect me to talk about? Did you read my introductory postings to the thread? I presented some of the main things I discovered in my investigation of this issue. Have you read my doctoral dissertation? It is online at http://letsfocusonlife.com I started this thread with the purpose of sharing with you and others the things I did discover about abortion as it relates to our church.

Were you aware that one of my main sources was our official “Ministry” magazine? Are you going to criticize our magazine for providing me with the material for my dissertation. Am I to blame for what the Adventist publishers included in their reports? Am I supposed to sanitize the material contained in our Adventist publications? Would you dare to sanitize the content of the Bible? Did God inspire the writers of the Bible to include the atrocities included in the book of the Judges and the sins of David and others?

If you do not condemn the writers of the bible for their frankness in detailing the worst crimes committed by God’s people in the past, why are you condemning me for doing likewise? Would you concede that perhaps the Lord has inspired me to investigate our church’s attitude toward the violation of one of God’s Commandments for a purpose?

I have been trying to do the dirty work our preachers have refused to perform, and I am doing this free of charge. I have sacrificed a fortune in terms of time and effort to do the Lord’s bidding and you fault me for doing this? I have sending my tithes and offerings for over half a century and I am forced to sacrifice the welfare of my family in order to do what I have been paying the church to do. Preaching against sin is the job of the church. When the church fails to do its duty, then I am in the awkward position of trying to do something about this, and you condemn me for doing this?

[Nic Samojluk]

Teaching of the Apostles? Would you kindly show the reference in the NT?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

[

1. Have you read all my post in this thread? Maybe you can state what you understand to be my position to see if it's correct?

2. I am not aware that abortion was even an issue with our pioneers. I found no reference at all in the writings of EGW. Could you provide some references? And BTW, many of our early pioneers did not believe in the Trinity, should we go back to their lead?

1) No Gerry, I didn't read all of your posts in this thread but I'm familar with what Nic believes and was responding to your assertion (which you didn't respond to) that he overstepped Biblical boundries when he presents his position as the biblical one. I asked you what IS the biblical position? And why is Nic out of line? 2) Yes, abortion WAS an issue with our founders, and while it is true the EGW didn't directly address it in her writings,James White, J.N.Andrews, Uriah Smith, J.H.Kellogg, and Kate Lindsey did. Since EGW never criticized their publicly open condemnations of abortion, on what basis do you believe that Nic's parallel expression is different?

Thanks, Doug! Regarding Ellen White, it is true that she never used the term abortion. Nevertheless there is a parallel passage that shows her attitude towardds the sanctity of human life. She said that when a husband neglects the health of the pregnant woman, he has almost committed the murder of the unborn child. Do we need more? If she condemned the "almost" murder of an unborn child, would she not also condemn the actual murder of an unborn?

[Nic Samojluk]

So then, why did you stretch it to asking me if I would approve killing/poisoning the mentally retarded & others who are already born?

Good question! I just wanted to familiarize myself with your position.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

The OT has this to say: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, Ex 21:22-23 ESV

Here the offender is not charged with murder if the pregnant woman miscarries (unless it's the woman that dies); he is merely fined.

Notice that this was an accidental occurance.Notice that neither the mother or the father asked the guilty party to terminate their baby for them.Notice that even though an accident occurred their was a penalty for the offender indicating that the unborn child had an intrinsic value.Notice that you used the words "merely" fined. Would the penalty be the same if it was purposely done? Are you saying that Ex.21 teaches that the unborn is not 100% human or not as valuable as the born human?

Please, read the NIV version of this passage. It describes the event as "premature birth" thus making the killing of an unborn baby a crime deserving the death penalty. I just posted this above. You can see it if you scroll up.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

[Again, let me ask you, if the fetus/conceptus resulting from rape is not an intruder according to your view, IS IT A WELCOME/INVITED GUEST?

Is this the question we ask ourselves in order to decide whether or not to kill another human being? If a woman leaves her newborn baby on my doorstep and I'm already destitute, is this the question that determines the morality of my response? I'm I justified in throwing the baby in the dumpster because it was uninvited and unwelcome? Am I my brother's keeper?

Excellent questions! Your logic is impecable!

[Nic Samojluk]

A 13 or 14 year victim of incest already has had her life ruined.

Does this mean that one crime deserves another?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

The best way of handling the issue of abortion is to do what the Christian Church did for two thousand years. The Church condemned the killing of the unborn. Have you read the Didache which contains the teaching of the apostles? Notice the use of the adjective "murder" in connection with abortion.

Quote:

You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

This teaching was inherited by the Catholic Church, and Rome has never deviated from this teaching of the Apostles. ..

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3843

im not sure, nic, why you are asserting that this collection came from the apostles?

Quote:

Every Apostle is to be received as the Lord, and he may stay one day or two, but if he stay three, he is a false prophet. On leaving he shall take nothing with him but bread. If he ask for money, he is a false prophet. Similarly with the order of prophets : to judge them when they speak in the spirit is the unpardonable sin ; but they must be known by their morals. If they seek gain, they are to be rejected. All travellers who come in the name of the Lord are to be received, but only for two or three days; and they must exercise their trade, if they have one, or at least must not be idle. Anyone who will not work is a Christemporos — one who makes a gain out of the name of Christ. Teachers and prophets are worthy of their food. Firstfruits are to be given to the prophets, "for they are your High Priests ; but if you have not a prophet, give the firstfruits to the poor ".

where did the apostles teach such things as what is taught in the above?

Are you implying that the Christian Church did not stick to the tradition expressed in the Hyppocratic Oath?

[Gerr]

Quote:

And you are claiming that I did take an extreme case of abortion. Do you realize that you are the one who have done this?

You were the one talking as though ALL abortions are done by poisoning or dismembering body parts! That's why I have asked you twice already, and for the third time ask you again, what if the zygote is aborted at the 4, 8, 64, or 256-cell stage? At an early stage there are no recognizable body parts to dismember yet, and no nervous system yet to feel pain?

Quote:

My opinion is that when in doubt whether you do have a human being or not, you try to err on the side of caution

Caution for whom? How about caution for the rape victim's well-being?

[Nic Samojluk]

I have access to all the writings of EGW. I have not seen one reference to abortion.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Please, read the NIV version of this passage. It describes the event as "premature birth" thus making the killing of an unborn baby a crime deserving the death penalty. I just posted this above. You can see it if you scroll up.

Here is what the commentators from the Pulpit Commentary have say, a very conservative commentary, I might add.

Ver. 22–25.—Assault producing miscarriage. Retaliation. Women in all countries are apt to interfere in the quarrels of men, and run the risk of suffering injuries which proceed from accident rather than design, one such injury being of a peculiar character, to which there is nothing correspondent among the injuries which may be done to man. This is abortion, or miscarriage. The Mosaic legislation sought to protect pregnant women from suffering this injury by providing, first, that if death resulted the offender should suffer death (ver. 23); and, secondly, that if there were no further ill-result than the miscarriage itself, still a fine should be paid, to be assessed by the husband of the injured woman with the consent of the judges (ver. 22). The mention of “life for life,” in ver. 23, is followed by an enunciation of the general “law of retaliation,” applied here (it would seem) to the special case in hand, but elsewhere (Lev. 24:19, 20) extended so as to be a fundamental law, applicable to all cases of personal injury.

Ver. 22.—If men strive and hurt a woman. A chance hurt is clearly intended, not one done on purpose. So that her fruit depart from her. So that she be prematurely delivered of a dead child. And no mischief follow. “Mischief” here means “death,” as in Gen. 42:4, 38; 45:29. He shall pay as the judges determine. He was not to be wholly at the mercy of the injured father. If he thought the sum demanded was excessive, there was to be an appeal to a tribunal.

The Pulpit Commentary: Exodus Vol. II. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (169). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

And from Hutton & Osborn:

Verses 22–25 deal with one law regarding unintentional harm done to a pregnant woman. When men strive together, literally “And when [ki] men quarrel,” is similar to verse 18 but uses a different word meaning the same thing. (The word here is used in 2.13.) And hurt a woman with child means that they “hurt a pregnant woman” (21.22 tev). The word for hurt may also simply mean “hit” (21.22 niv) or “strike” (tot). tan has “pushes,” and reb has “knocks against.” Other ways to express this are “and injure a pregnant woman” or “cause a pregnant woman to suffer injury.”

So that there is a miscarriage is literally “and her children go out.” The Hebrew is not clear whether a miscarriage is really intended or a “premature birth” (Durham). In the case of a miscarriage, the fetus would not survive, so “she loses her child.” But in case “she gives birth prematurely” (21.22 niv), then it is possible that the child (or children) would live. Most scholars understand it to be a miscarriage. (emphasis mine)Translators are advised to follow this interpretation

Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (507). New York: United Bible Societies.

[Gerr]

I have no doubt that EGW would have had a very high regard for the unborn in general. What we are talking about are not run of the mill unborns! I am against pressuring victims of rape and incest, or mothers/parents who might be carrying an unborn who don't have any chance for any kind of meaningful life into bringing them up into the world. I say for these kinds of cases, let the woman DECIDE! Neither you nor I should serve as conscience for her. After all she has one too!

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: GreatLakesGramma

A 13 or 14 year victim of incest already has had her life ruined.

Does this mean that one crime deserves another?

Why do you keep putting a yoke on girls/women where none should be?

[Gerr]

Or what if we just prevent the fertilized ovum (ova are usually fertilized in the Fallopian tubes) from being implanted in the uterus? Do you object that too because you consider a fertilized ovum a human being?

A baby in the Fallopian tube has no chance of survival, I believe. Additionally, this would jeopardize the life of the pregnant woman. Saving one life is always better than loosing two.

In case you didn't know, as I said previously, most of the fertilization of the ova takes place in the Fallopian tubes.

And as I understand what you have said, you believe the fertilized ovum is a human being. [bTW, I haven't seen you answer my question if you call a fertilized egg a chicken, or call every acorn an oak.] My question is this: are you then against contraception? FYI, many contraceptives do so by preventing the implantation of the FERTILIZED OVUM (a human being?) in the uterus.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Teaching of the Apostles? Would you kindly show the reference in the NT?

Are you suggesting that the Didache is a spurious document? Are you aware that the Hippocratic Oath was recognized by the Christian church for two millennia? Are you doubting that the legalization of abortion is a departure from the Christian tradition?

The canon of scripture are the OT & NT from which ALL doctrines of faith and morals are to be based on. I can't bet my life on something not inspired.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil

What you are doing is stirring up guilt....Is that the work of a Christian or a follower of Satan?

If it is true guilt, it is the work of the Holy Spirit; if it is false guilt, then it is the work of the devil.

[Nic Samojluk]

You keep making assertions that aborting the product of rape is murder as though you are speaking ex cathedra (?) yet have not produced one logical or Biblical reason why such a pregnancy cannot be aborted?

[Nic Samojluk]

I admire your zeal for taking a stand when it comes to right and wrong. My beef with black and white thinkers is that they don't realize there are plenty of gray areas where the demarcation line between right and wrong varies with each individual. In such matters, let us not preempt the person's will or conscience.

When we are talking about the intentional killing of an innocent human being, I do not see any gray areas except when saving the life of the pregnant woman.

Please, identify your gray areas.

[Nic Samojluk]

I am happy to see that Nic allows sacrificing the life of the unborn to save the mother. If this can be done, why then can this not be done in case of rape or for a genetic defect that we know results in severe retardation where no meaningful existence can be expected?

Because the unborn baby has committed no crime. If we let the rapist live, who has committed a heinous crime, how can we execute the innocent and let the guilty free?

Who is wise enough to determine when somebody else’s life is meaningful? Do you feel competent to make such decisions? Can we play God with safety?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

The best way of handling the issue of abortion is to do what the Christian Church did for two thousand years.

Kill the heretics! Burn them at the stake.

I guess I am just too American to want to go back to the Dark Ages.

Saving the innocent from a sure death is a good deed. Killing those who have been labelled as heretics is a bad deed. Can you distinguish between those two kinds of actions?

[Nic Samojluk]

However just because I believe something is a sin doesn't mean I believe we should appeal to the civil government to pass legislation enforcing our religious beliefs.

[Nic Samojluk]

I could be wrong on this, but my understanding of the Catholic position which Nic claims has preserved the apostolic view on abortion is that they would prefer the fetus/baby to live when it comes to a choice between the mother and the baby.