Assumptions Derived From the SDA Historical Background

In view of all these fundamental beliefs adhered to by the pioneers of the Adventist movement, it would be logical to conclude that Seventh-day Adventists would be counted among the most ardent defenders of the sanctity of human life, and also committed to the defense of prenatal life from the moment of conception. What else can anyone expect from those who affirm that they represent a prophetic movement possessing the last message of hope for a perishing world and announcing that they are God’s Remnant church on earth, keeping God’s commandments, one of which solemnly declares: “You shall not commit murder”? Adventists are very particular about the protection of holy time—the Sabbath. Is it unreasonable to expect from them even more zeal in the protection of human life? Did not Jesus Christ state that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,” [6] thus implying that human life takes priority over the sacredness of God’s holy time?

Seventh-day Adventists have actually produced several statements recently designed to emphasize the sacredness of human life, as well as the need to protect prenatal life. One of them reads: “Prenatal 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.” It is found in the "Guidelines on Abortion," [7] a document that was approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist Executive Committee at the Annual Council session in Silver Spring, Maryland, on October 1992. A similar official statement extracted from a document entitled "Assisted Human Reproduction" [8] which was voted by the Christian View of Human Life Committee at the Pine Spring Ranch, California, on April 10-12, 1994, affirms: “Human life should be treated with respect at all stages of development.”

Common sense would dictate that in order to provide protection for prenatal life there is a need to know when human life begins. Both the Catholic Church [9] and the Southern Baptist Convention, [10] for example, have clearly set the beginning of human life at conception, which agrees with what all biology textbooks have stated for centuries. Surprisingly, when pressed for a statement on this issue, Dr. Gerald Winslow, a professor of Biomedical and Clinical Ethics at Loma Linda University in Southern California; who, according to the opinion of some experts, was one of the main architects of the Seventh-day Adventist "Guidelines on Abortion", declared the following: “The church has chosen not to define the precise moment human life begins--a moment science finds difficult to pinpoint. . . . We take every stage of prenatal life very seriously. It should be protected . . . the prenatal life we're protecting exists once an 'established pregnancy' can be ascertained.” [11]

In addition to this, the same "Guidelines on Abortion" official church document cited above includes the following clarification: “God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of his Son. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and will ultimately judge their misuse.” There is no reference in this document to the right and duty of the government to protect the innocent from either abuse or murder, nor the obligation of the same, granted by heaven, to punish those who deprive other human beings of their right to life. To the above, we should add a statement by John V. Stevens, former Pacific Union Conference public affairs/religious liberty director, taken from the August 20, 1990 Pacific Union Recorder who stated the following: “Christ valued choice over life. . . . The developing baby is not a person.”

This leads the observer to wonder whether the SDA church has experienced a ninety-degree shift from the original pro-life position manifested by the founders of this religious movement. According to Jan Paulsen, the current president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, this is not the case. On the occasion of the centennial celebration of the SDA work in the Philippines in 2005, he publicly declared that the Adventist church is definitely pro-life, [12] but all this reference to “freedom of choice” in the official “Guidelines on Abortion” seem to indicate otherwise. Besides, in response to a telephone call to Jan Paulsen’s office by Teresa Beem, who participated in the adoption of said guidelines, the president’s secretary confirmed that the official position of the church is pro-choice, which statement was confirmed by George Reid, also from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist. [13] Given all these confusing statements, the author of the present study decided to search for the facts surrounding the SDA position on abortion and the sanctity of human life.

The Research Question

In light of the above, the author of this study, Nic Samojluk, [14] decided to search for an answer to the research question: Are Seventh-day Adventists pro-life, pro-choice, or pro-abortion? in order to discover whether they perhaps have departed from the original strong pro-life position espoused by the early SDA pioneers.

Is it consistent for them to declare that every stage of prenatal life should be protected and then refuse to define the precise moment human life begins? Would it make sense for the president of the United States, or for the U.S. Congress, to declare that the U.S. borders should be protected, but then admit that they actually have no clear idea where those borders lie? Declaring that “Prenatal life is a magnificent gift of God” sounds very much like a pro-life statement, but adding that “God gives humanity the freedom of choice,” coupled with their refusal to identify the limits of human life, tends to indicate that they might in fact be on the pro-choice side of the abortion issue.

In order to elucidate this dilemma, Samojluk has spent countless numbers of hours examining the Seventh-day Adventist literature on the subject with the aim of determining where SDA’s actually stand on the issue. He has worked on the assumption that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” [15] If SDA’s are pro-life, there should be a prolific amount of literature on the subject. If SDA’s really care about the “sanctity of human life,” this fact should be amply reflected in the sermons they preach, as well as the books and magazine articles they write and print! Samojluk believes that the content and the amount of SDA literature on the subject of abortion does provide a reliable index to the importance SDA’s assign to the protection of prenatal life.

The Research Hypothesis

Based on the preliminary examination of some of the literature dealing with the subject of abortion, Samojluk started this investigation with the following tentative hypothesis: Seventh-day Adventists, in spite of their seemingly strong pro-life statements, have deviated significantly from their initial unambiguous oppositions to abortion as expressed by James White, the founder of their Adventist publishing work; J.H. Kellogg, the founder of their medical work; J.N. Andrews, the first SDA missionary; and other SDA early pioneers. They seem to care about the sanctity of human life, but their paranoid fear of loosing their religious freedom and their high involvement in the medical field, coupled with a partial reliance on non-Adventist medical personnel, has led them to compromise on the issue of abortion, fearing a significant loss of revenue if they refused to provide abortion services.

Their preoccupation with eventually becoming the object of religious persecution, as predicted by Ellen G. White in her masterpiece, The Great Controversy; [16] and their involvement in medical research and organ procurement and transplantation, has led them to neglect their duty to speak the way they should about the protection of human life, especially in its early stages of development. In their zeal to defend their freedom, and for the sake of expediency, they have sacrificed their duty to speak on behalf of the protection of the unborn. Their preoccupation with religious freedom has taken priority over the respect for the sanctity of human life. They say that prenatal life is a magnificent gift of God, and should be protected, but they fail to set the limits of human life, thus rendering said protection meaningless, and thus giving ample evidence that their love of religious freedom has won over their respect of the sanctity of human life.

Method of Analysis

Samojluk started knowing full well that his tentative hypothesis could be proved either right or wrong, and that a careful examination of current Seventh-day Adventist literature could have helped in finding either the truth of falsity of such an assumption. He worked under the assumption that people tend to talk and write about what is important for them, and that the amount and tone of literature being published on the subject would likely provide the necessary evidence to either support this hypothesis or else to negate it.

He was convinced that the number of magazine and Internet articles as well as books published on the topic, and the arguments presented in them, would tend to provide a glimpse of where SDA’s stand in relation to the issue of abortion and the sanctity of human life from womb to tomb. He carried out this investigation based on a careful and exhaustive search of material dealing with abortion and the sanctity of human life that has been published in Adventist sources, placing an emphasis on official periodicals like “Ministry,” without excluding independent magazines like “Spectrum” and “Adventist Today;” and he ended with a statistical analysis of the material thus obtained.

His plan was to carefully examine what current and former Adventist authors have written in books, magazine articles, and Internet web sites on the subject; to catalogue them as pro-life, pro choice, or pro-abortion; to contrast such statements whenever appropriate with the uncompromising pro-life attitude of the early SDA pioneers; [17] and to statistically analyze the data thus obtained in order to weigh the available evidence as either defending or else condemning the practice of interfering with nature in the development of human life from the moment of its inception and during the nine months of pregnancy. The plan was to zero in on the beginning of the human life spectrum. This was done with the understanding that the task of labeling individual SDA authors as pro-life, pro-choice, or pro-abortion is a risky one, and that mistakes would be made. [18]

This labeling task is a delicate one especially because many members of the SDA community like to think about themselves as pro-life, when a close inspection tends to reveal that they are in fact pro-choice. They tend to agree with the lofty pro-life statements underlining the sanctity of human life, but then proceed to enumerate justifiable cases for abortion such as rape, incest, serious malformations in the fetus, and serious threats to either the physical or mental condition of the pregnant woman, not realizing that by allowing those exceptions they have in fact moved their position from pro-life to a pro-choice one, because such exceptions match the position of pro-choice individuals.

In order to facilitate the expeditious achievement of the objective set for the present investigation into the SDA’s attitude towards the practice of abortion and the sanctity of human life, there was a need to define certain terms associated with the topic under consideration. This was done paying close attention to the way pro-lifers and pro-choicers define themselves, with total disregard of how some members of the pro-choice crowd would like to be viewed by the rest of society. Given the limited scope of this investigation, Samojluk’s intention was not to provide a detailed history of how the alleged SDA shift from pro-life to pro-choice took place, but rather simply to answer the question posed above: Are SDA’s pro-life or pro-choice? Have they in fact deviated from the strong pro-life position manifested by the early SDA pioneers?

Definition of Terms

Pro-life: Strong-held belief that human life begins when the union of sperm and ovum takes place, regardless of location; and that it ends when there is no evidence of heartbeat, blood circulation, and whole brain activity; coupled with the conviction that prenatal life should be protected without any consideration of its size, location, or stage of development; and supported by a willingness to share these convictions with others both by word and example, except when the life of the pregnant woman is seriously threatened. [19]

Pro-choice: Conviction that women have the right to choose between life and death for the baby they are carrying, coupled with the belief that any interference of this assumed right is a violation of women’s personal freedom and responsibility. [20]

Pro-abortion: Belief that there is no moral guilt associated with the intentional interruption of pregnancy by any means, including the administration of poison, dismemberment in uterus, or puncturing the brain of the unborn seconds or minutes prior to full delivery.

Current: For the present investigation, the term current will mean the time elapsed since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the practice of abortion.

Seventh-day Adventists: The label Seventh-day Adventists in the present study will include all those who either are or were in the recent past members of the Adventist community.

Murder: The intentional, deliberate, and premeditated taking of innocent human life, absent a serious life or death threat to the lives of others.

Personhood: The moment in human development when the individual, regardless of its size, location, or stage of development, possesses all the genetic markers of a human being.

Abortion: The intentional, deliberate, and premeditated interruption of pregnancy, regardless of the method utilized to achieve this objective.

Anencephalic Newborns: Babies born without evidence of higher brain activity and incapable of achieving self-consciousness.

Death Criteria: Lack of respiration, heartbeat, blood circulation, and whole-brain activity.

Remnant Church: God’s church exhibiting an unwavering loyalty to God’s moral standards at a time of almost universal disrespect for its holy precepts.

Eschatological: Events connected with the time immediately preceding the return of Jesus Christ as Kings of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Sabbath: The seventh day of the week, corresponding to Saturday, a sacred day of God-ordained rest from mundane activities; a day dedicated to worship, family, and to acts of mercy.

Apocalyptic: Literary genre dealing with the imminent and final events of human history immediately preceding the return of Jesus Christ to the earth.

Beast of Revelation: Wild, predatory animal referred to in the last book of the Bible, symbolizing the persecuting power of politico-religious earthly organizations.

Seventh-day Adventist Literature: Books, magazines, Internet sites, and other published material bearing any connection, official or independent, with the name of Seventh-day Adventists; as well as anything published on the subject elsewhere by SDA or by former SDA authors.

Endnotes

[1]“Fundamental Beliefs” Seventh-day Adventist Church (2006). Accessed from
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html on 29 Mar. 2006. These fundamental beliefs of the original SDA pioneers were incorporated into the present core of SDA teachings, except the pro-life stand against abortion, which was never included among the others. See also Ministerial Association: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist, Seventh-day Adventist Believe . . .: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988), 283 pp.

[2]Ellen G. White. Prophets and Kings (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1943), 728.

[3]Rev. 12:17 KJV.

[4]Ellen G. White. Testimony Treasures, Volume 2 (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1949), 374.

[5]Ex. 20:13 AB.

[6]Mark 2:27 NIV.

[7]“Guidelines on Abortion” General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists/Seventh-day Adventist Church (12 Oct. 1992). Accessed from http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html?&template=printer.html on 25 Oct. 2006.

[8]“Considerations on Assisted Human Reproductions” Adventist Beliefs/Seventh-day Adventist Church (26 July 1994). Accessed from http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/other_doc10.html on 25 Oct. 2006.

[9]“The Roman Catholic Church's Official Teaching on Abortion” Beliefnet (2006). Accessed from http://www.beliefnet.com/story/63/story_6328_1.html on 25 Oct. 2006. “2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

[10]“The Baptist Faith and Message: XVIII. The Family” SBCNET (2006). Accessed from http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#xviii on 25 Oct. 2006. “Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.”

[11]Bettina Krause. “ANN Feature: Broader Religious Input Needed in Stem Cell Debate, Says Adventist Ethicist” Adventist News network/ Seventh-day Adventist Church (7 Aug. 2001). Accessed from http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/07/0997187695/index.html.en on 25 Oct. 2006.

[12]“Adventists laud Pope for concern on world peace, poverty and family” Adventist News Dispatch/Southern Asia-Pacific Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (11 Mar. 2005). Accessed from http://www.ssd.org/news/mar1105.html on 25 Oct. 2006.

[13]Teresa & Arthur D. Beem “Why we Left: A Letter to Family and Others” Former Adventist Fellowship Online (7 Feb. 2001). Accessed from http://www.formeradventist.com/beem9.html on 25 Oct. 2006. This information was confirmed to Nic Samojluk by Teresa Been by E-mail in August 2006.

[14]Nic Samojluk is a second-generation SDA, and he has published his views about abortion. A small sample of what he has published on this issue will be included in Chapter XI of this study. In order to avoid the use of the personal pronoun, Samojluk has been advised to refer to himself using the third personal pronoun.

[15]Matt. 12:34 RSV.

[16]Ellen G. White. The Great Controversy (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1939), 635.

[17]Samojluk felt that there was a need to keep this contrast between the pro-life position of the SDA pioneers and any deviation towards a compromise with the defenders of abortion in order to keep in sharp focus the main objective of this research, which was to discover whether the SDA community had in fact deviated in a significant way from the original attitude towards abortion as manifested by the early founders of the Adventist movement. In most cases, Samojluk elected to keep track of such deviations by documenting them in footnotes instead of incorporating them into the text.

[18]This is especially significant due to the fact that some of the comments included in this study were made by readers of SDA publications, but not necessarily active members of the SDA church. No effort was made to ascertain church membership of those who publish their views in SDA periodicals.

[19]Choosing between the life of the mother and that of the baby she is carrying should not be treated as a violation of a person’s commitment to the pro-life cause. Choosing to save one human life instead of loosing two is still a pro-life choice. This pro-life definition was a critical one in determining where to place the attitude of each SDA author whose writings were examined in the chapters that follow. Pro-lifers believe that the health exception does not justify taking the life of an innocent human being; that hastening the death of anencephalics is not morally acceptable; that we should not kill human being just because they are going to die anyway; that the moral worth of human beings in God’s view is not diminished because they are not physically or mentally perfect; that if society allows rapists and those guilty of incest to live, then the innocent babies they engender are also entitled to life; that the same reasoning applies to developing babies whose mothers are minors; and that there is no valid moral justification for labeling some human beings as of lesser potential value. The basic premise of pro-lifers is that there is no moral justification for executing innocent human beings, no matter their size, stage of development, or physical location. Pro-lifers tend to emphasize the rights of the unborn, without minimizing the rights of pregnant women.

[20]Defenders of the pro-choice position on abortion generally value human life, but they allow for a large number of exceptions such as physical deformity of the fetus, threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman, cases of rape or incest, and situations where the pregnant female is a minor. Their basic premise is that abortion rights are rooted in the notion of women’s privacy and their right to control their own bodies. They believe in the sanctity of human life, but they accept the notion that incipient human life is of lesser value than the physical and emotional well being, lifestyle, and comfort of the pregnant woman. Their emphasis is on the rights of the pregnant women over the rights of the unborn. Nic Samojluk has discovered that many SDA’s believe that they are in the pro-life camp until you begin to ask them the hard questions, at which point they clarify that abortion in the case of rape, incest, fetus malformations, and threats to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman is morally justified. Well, that is exactly the position of those in the pro-choice camp! Being pro-life and pro-choice at the same time is inconsistent.