Quote:

It will be tragic, indeed, if our church should support the free and willful destruction of human life (abortion for convenience), while urging those who are of military age not to bear arms in order to refrain from taking life--even that of the enemy. [5]

Then Beach discussed the guidelines for therapeutic [6] abortions drafted by SDA leaders with the aim of providing a list of circumstances under which it would be proper to provide abortions in SDA hospitals. These included cases involving rape, congenital malformation, threat to the health of women, [7] as well as pregnancy by unwed girls. Beach suggested that there is no such thing as an unconditional right to life. Society does approve capital punishment, [8] killing in self-defense, and abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is threatened.

This created the need to provide protection for the life of the defenseless, without ignoring the rights of the mental condition of the pregnant woman. [9] He cited the opinion of biblical scholars, some of them insisting that until birth the fetus is merely an integral part of the pregnant woman’s body, while others citing passages indicating that the unborn are members of the human race. He also stated that the plight of women seeking abortions under unsafe conditions should be taken into account. [10]

*W. R. Beach’s position on abortion: Pro-choice. [11]


Is Abortion the Answer?
by Ralph F. Waddell

In the same issue of Ministry, Ralph Waddell, the secretary of the Department of Health at the General Conference, wrote an article entitled “Is Abortion the Answer?” [12] He introduced his topic by an anecdote: He was driving towards the Los Angeles airport, when he spotted a car carrying a large number of children with the following bumper sticker: “Abortion is not the answer.” Waddell stated that SDAs place a higher priority on the rights of the pregnant woman than that of the fetus she is carrying, thus deviating from the extreme positions of the Catholic Church and that of liberals who insist on abortion on demand. He also argued that abortions are morally justified in the case of congenital malformations, but it should be done as a last resort and preferably during the first trimester of pregnancy; never on the basis of demand, but rather on the advice of experienced professionals. He also mentioned that world health leaders justify abortions for the sake of population control. [13]

*Ralph F. Waddell’s position on abortion: Pro choice.


Abortion Guidelines [14]
by J. R. Spangler

In response to the many requests from professionals as well as church members, the General Conference, in consultation with the Department of Health, did prepare the Abortion Guidelines in 1971. They were designed to serve as a useful guide for therapeutic abortions in cases like rape, incest, congenital malformation, or when there was a serious threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman. [15] Said guidelines indicated that therapeutic abortions should be limited to the first trimester of pregnancy. This meant that even before the legalization of abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Adventist Church was already committed to a pro-choice position on this issue. What a sharp contrast with the strong pro-life attitude of the early SDA pioneers!


A Reader’s Opinion
by D. E. Mansell

A reader named D.E. Mansell responded to the above Ministry articles wondering why the church was imposing a limit on abortions to the first trimester. He also asked the following question:

Quote:

Are danger to the mother’s health (physical or mental), fetal malformation, mental retardation, rape, and incest all good and sufficient reasons for destroying an unborn child? [16]

Mansell added that if society provided for liberal exceptions for abortion, it would be better for the pregnant woman to seek such services at a governmental hospital instead of seeking such questionable abortions at SDA hospitals.

*D.E. Mansell’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


Abortion: Don’t Believe All You Hear!
by Daniel Augsburger

Daniel Augsburger submitted in 1976 to Ministry an article entitled “Abortion: Don’t Believe All You Hear!” [17] In it he cited what a radio commentator stated following the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing abortion in the U.S.:

Quote:

Now that the Supreme Court has solved the moral issue of abortion, what will be the next big moral issue?

Of course, the reporter was confusing legality with morality [perhaps with tongue in cheek!] Prostitution and gambling are legal in many countries, and so is killing during wartime, but these actions are not necessarily moral in the eyes of God. Augsburger granted that a woman has a right to control her body; she has the moral right to resist the sexual advances of a rapist. Nevertheless, he clarified that the baby she is carrying once she is pregnant is not an integral part of her body. [18]

He argued as well that abortion on demand should not be justified on the false premise that, otherwise, the rich will continue to have abortions, while the poor will be deprived of this service. Abortion is often justified on the unwarranted assumption that unwanted children will suffer abuse. There are many documented cases where unwanted babies were loved even more than the other family children once they were born. Then the author proceeded to emphasize the fact that humans are incapable of predicting the future of the unborn, and should, therefore abstain from playing the role assigned to God, and rely instead on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in such matters.

*Daniel Augsburger’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


To Abort or not to Abort: That is the Question
by Leonard McMillan

In 1977 Ministry published an article written by Leonard McMillan entitled “To Abort or not to Abort: That is the Question.” [19] In it, McMillan stated that the practice of abortion is an old one, and that one of the recipes for inducing an abortion is probably over four thousand years old. This is why both society and the Christian church attempted to regulate such activities, but even church fathers disagreed on the question of when does human life begins. One view insisted that personhood begins at conception and that such terms as zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, juvenile, and adult are merely descriptions of the stages of human development.

He argued that the baby’s attachment to the mother through the placenta makes the fetus no more part of the pregnant woman than a claim that a car becomes a part of the pump filling it with gasoline, which means that personhood cannot be determined by the baby’s dependency on the mother that provides it with nourishment both prior and after birth. During biblical times children were considered an asset, but the world’s overpopulation has changed this to the point that parents tend to think of children as a liability and the unwanted byproduct of sexual pleasure. McMillan also stated that the decision not to conceive should not be morally equated with the decision to abort. He then cited the opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which determined that therapeutic abortion in cases of rape, incest, congenital malformations, and threats to the life or mental health of pregnant women were justified.

To this, he added the almost unanimous opinion of the members of the American Psychiatric Association declaring that the mental condition of a pregnant woman is an important factor in determining the suitability of abortion. Nevertheless, he cited recent studies showing that abortion tends to compound the mental problem of women who opted to terminate the life of the baby they were carrying. Regarding congenital malformations, he argued that it might make more sense to justify infanticide than choosing an abortion, because predicting abnormalities is not a 100 percent sure science. There is always the risk of sacrificing the life of a perfectly normal baby. It would be nice, he suggested, if the Bible had another commandment reading “Thou shalt not abort,” but there is one good enough for the same purpose that forbids murder. God is the giver of life, and humans should not assume God’s prerogative by taking it.

*Leonard McMillan’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


How Much is a Fetus Worth?
by Jack W. Provonsha

In 1984 Ministry published an article written by Jack W. Provonsha [20] entitled “How much is a fetus worth?” [21] In it, Provonsha attempted to reach a consensus about the value of the unborn in a pluralistic society. He believed that women, for logical reasons, should have a major say in matters of abortion; nevertheless, their opinion should be neither final nor absolute. He was also convinced that

Quote:

Conception is the only occasion in the whole course of events when something happens in a brief moment in time that is truly momentous. Those shades of gradations represented by terms like implantation, embryo, fetus, quickening, and viability, are difficult to nail to the wall. … Is the fetus, ten minutes before birth, different in a way that would affect its value from what the child is ten minutes after?

Provonsha disagreed with those who assign value to the unborn on the basis of its inability to function independently, because such reasoning would justify not only abortion, but infanticide as well. He added that

Quote:

Embryos and fetuses are of greater value than mere tissue largely because of what they may become. … But they also possess another intrinsic value, . . . They possess the marvel that is the genetic code. As soon as all those genes and chromosomes have come together, it has happened!

This means, according to Provonsha, that fetuses possess symbolic value, and symbols do possess real value. The Bible, for example, does possess real value, in spite of the fact that it stands for something else. Nevertheless, Provonsha thought that sometimes symbols must be sacrificed for the sake of the quality of life of the mother. This last statement places Provonsha, for obvious reasons, on the pro-choice camp.

*Jack W. Provonsha’s position of abortion: Pro-choice.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Richard A. Hansen

When Richard A. Hansen submitted the following comment to Ministry, he must have missed Provonsha’s last statement referred to above justifying abortion whenever the quality of the pregnant woman is affected.

Quote:

Dr. Provonsha’s article ‘How Much is a Fetus Worth? Particularly brings to light the most important ethical issues involved in abortion, and it should prove to be an incentive for our church to take a decided stand on the conservative side of this matter. [22]

The moment society allows the quality of life of the pregnant woman as an exception to its pro-life stand, it opens the door for abortion on demand. A pregnancy does affect the quality of life of women even when the baby is wanted, but more so when the woman is unmarried or financially unable to care for the baby she is carrying.

*Richard A. Hansen position on abortion: Unknown. [23]


Abortion: A Moral Issue?
by Richard Muller

Richard Muller [24] wrote an article entitled “Abortion: A Moral Issue?” [25] which was published by Ministry in 1985. In it he stated that God created man in his own image. Said image, he argued, though marred by sin, needs to be restored, but never destroyed. The biblical stories of Jesus, Samson, and others reveal that personhood starts with conception. “The thought of abortion is so foreign to Judeo-Christian thought,” Muller argued, “that it is not even mentioned in Scripture.” The Bible enjoins Christians to love their neighbors, and there are no other neighbors closer to human beings than the unborn. He also argued that Ellen G. White explained that all acts whose tendencies are to shorten human life are a violation of the sixth commandment. [26]

*Richard Muller’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Chris Harter

Following the publication of Richard Muller’s article, Chris Harter submitted to Ministry the following comments:

Quote:

Thank you so much! I’m so happy and so proud of Dr. Richard Muller, our church, and “Ministry” for printing “Abortion: A Moral Issue?” I’ve been starving for months for some affirmation that abortion is wrong. What are we ministers of God doing if we are not speaking out on moral issues? [27] I wish that at the coming General Conference session we would settle once and for all that life from conception to its natural end should be considered sacred and therefore protected. In the light of eternity our silence may be counted against us on this issue. [28]

*Chris Harter’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by John McClarty

John McClarty responded to the same article written by Dr. Richard Muller with the comments listed below:

Quote:

While I have not finished my thinking on the myriad questions surrounding abortion, I commend your courage in printing an article (“Abortion: A Moral Issue?” January, 1985) that challenges our morally lazy acceptance of, and justification of, the status quo. [29]

*John McClarty’s position on abortion: Unknown.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Robert H. Dunn

Another Ministry reader who responded with a comment on the article on abortion written by Richard Muller was Robert H. Dun:

Quote:

It is refreshing to note that Dr. Muller takes the biblical or absolutist position, which defines humanity at the moment of conception, the beginning of life, when the fetus does not “receive a soul” but “becomes a soul” and from then on can be recognized as a living person, a human being with legal and moral rights. [30]

*Robert H. Dunn’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


The Reborn and the Unborn
by John and Millie Youngberg

Ministry published another article dealing with the controversial issue of abortion in 1985 entitled “The Reborn and the Unborn,” [31] written by John and Millie Youngberg. [32] In it the Youngbergs responded to the argument of some writers claiming that, since the Bible is silent on the abortion issue, therefore the morality of elective abortion should be left to the conscience of each individual. Those SDAs who justify the practice of abortion, the Youngbergs argued, are really saying that the Bible does indicate what happens when life ends [the State of the Dead doctrine], but has no information about the beginning of human life.

This assumption is based on a false premise, they countered. When Adam and Eve sinned, God could have aborted the human race. He did not, but rather chose a redemptive option, which is based on love. We need to treat the unborn the way Jesus would do. He said, “Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least my brethren, you have done it unto me.” [33]

Abortion makes sense under a materialistic, evolutionist worldview that denies the existence of God, the Youngbergs suggested. Women may think that they have the right to do what they wish with their bodies, but the Lord says that our bodies belong to him. Reverence for the sacredness of human life should have priority over freedom of choice. This is why the Bible tells us that we need to choose life. [34] Regarding abortion on demand, the Youngbergs stated:

Quote:

We hold that elective abortions violate the fundamentals of any Bible believing community of faith, but is particularly serious to Seventh-day Adventists.

This is because, they explained, SDAs believe in the sacredness of the Sabbath, which points to God as the Creator, and taking the life that God has created denies his Lordship as Creator. They also stated that the SDA church needs to assume a redemptive attitude towards abortion, and towards those who have opted for an abortion in the past.

*John Youngberg and Millie Youngberg’s position of abortion: Pro-life. [35]


A Reader’s Opinion
by Kevin D. Paulson

Kevin D. Paulson submitted a contrasting opinion regarding the SDA attitude towards the practice of abortion:

Quote:

Adventist doctrine and practice should be based on a plain “Thus said the Lord.” And nowhere does Inspiration declare that personhood begins at conception. . . . [36] Many ancient moral codes condemned abortion, but the Bible doesn’t. Could it be that the popular Christian fury against this practice denotes moral hypersensitivity, an attempt to compensate for moral poverty in dealing with questions like racism, social injustice, and the threat of nuclear war? [37]

*Kevin D. Paulson’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Robert E. Hays

Robert E. Hays reacted to Kevin Paulson’s comments rejecting his argument based on the biblical silence on the beginning of human life:

Quote:

I have just read Kevin Paulson’s letter in the January 1986 issue of “Ministry.” To argue for abortion because the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn it would be like arguing against the moral law, or the Trinity, or against the use of the word sacrament, or against using the word omniscient or omnipresent to describe God simply because we don’t find those specific words in the Bible. [38]

*Robert E. Hays position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Jeremia Florea

Another reader who objected to Kevin Paulson’s argument from silence was Jeremia [sic] Florea: [39]

Quote:

Paulson’s letter in the January issue of “Ministry” disturbs me not a little. . . . In the Bible the sixth commandment declares, “Thou shalt not kill.” At what age of the fetus does this commandment apply? … Does the Bible condemn smoking tobacco? Will brother Paulson please explain? [40]

*Jeremia Florea’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by David Hampton

Ministry printed David Hampton’s reaction to John and Millie Youngberg’s article about abortion:

Quote:

John and Millie Youngberg say (‘The Reborn and the Unborn,” November 1985) that God could have aborted the human race shortly after the fall in a kind of cosmic abortion, but that God chose not “cosmic abortion,” but “cosmic sacrifice.” I would humbly suggest that if you read Genesis again, you will find that God actually did practice a kind of cosmic abortion. Down through the ages the church called this the Flood. [41]

*David Hampton position on abortion: Pro-choice.


The Least of These: What Everyone Should Know About Abortion
by Curt Young

What follows is a book review published in 1986 by Ministry. The title of the book is The Least of These: What Everyone Should Know About Abortion, written by Curt Young, who was a chaplain at Washington Adventist Hospital at Takoma Park, Washington, at the time of publication: [42]

Quote:

According to Young, the United States Supreme Court has given this country the most permissive abortion policy on earth. … Young draws parallels between the handling of issue today and our ancestors’ handling of the slavery issue. He also compares the declining respect for life in the United States of America with what happened in Hitler’s Germany. He fears that legalized abortion is one step too many in the direction toward legalized destruction of the elderly, the handicapped, and finally Christians. [43]

*Curt Young’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by R. M. Cargill

A contrasting comment regarding John and Millie Youngberg’s article was sent by R.M. Cargill:

Quote:

I want to congratulate John and Millie Youngberg for the article “The Reborn and the Unborn.” It is time something be said to lead our thoughts back to the truth of God’s Word. It is time to call sin by its right name. [44]

*R. M. Cargill’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


Call for Papers on Abortion [45]
by David Larson

In the December 1987 issue of Ministry, a call was published requesting papers to be presented in the fall of 1988 dealing with Adventism and abortion. The request came from David Larson, the director of the Loma Linda University Center for Christian Bioethics. The objective of the convention was not to decide the issue of abortion, but rather to provide relevant material about the controversial topic for a book that would be used by Adventist institutions in their decision-making process dealing with abortion. The invitation requested contribution from a variety of views, including conservative, moderate, and liberal.

*David Larson position on abortion: Not stated.


Abortion: The Adventist Dilemma
By Michael Pearson

In 1988 Ministry published an article written by Michael Pearson entitled “Abortion: The Adventist Dilemma.” [46] At the time of publication, Pearson was teaching at Newbold College, England. He related what happened at a refugee camp in Thailand back in 1980. Marauding fishermen had violated female Vietnamese refugees and many of the women became pregnant. The Catholic physicians at the camp refused to perform abortions for them for reasons of conscience, but SDA doctors decided to provide said service. The problem facing Adventists, who operate hospitals around the world, according to Pearson, is that both the Bible and Ellen G. White seem to be silent about the morality of abortion; consequently, many Adventist leaders felt that the church should refrain from legislating on matters where the Bible and E. White are silent. [47] The Decalogue condemns killing, but there is another Bible verse that states: “There is a time to kill.” [48]

It is true that, based on the many quotations found in the writings of Ellen White dealing with her respect for life, it would be safe to conclude that she considered abortion a rather repugnant act, but she never overtly condemned the practice, [49] explained Pearson. The 1971 liberalized version of the SDA abortion guidelines provided the following exceptions allowed for therapeutic abortions: rape, incest, congenital malformations, threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman, pregnancy of unwed children aged fifteen or less, and whenever the “requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lesser potential human life.” [50]

The document stated, Pearson added, that pregnancy interruptions [51] should be performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. One of the reasons for such a liberal set of guidelines was due to the fact that many of the physicians providing medical services at Adventist hospitals were not members of the SDA church. The result is that “the Adventist Church now finds itself to the left of center in the spectrum of opinion on the issue.” Adventists tend to value education, Pearson added, and an unexpected pregnancy may hinder their vocational aspirations. There is some evidence pointing to the fact that the legality of abortion has had an influence on SDA perception of morality, and that SDA thinking on this issue lacks consistency.

*Michael Pearson position on abortion: Not stated.


Reflection on Adventists and Abortion
by J. R. Spangler

In an editorial by Ministry published in 1988, entitled “Reflections on Adventists and Abortion,” [52] Spangler acknowledged that, since we do not live in a vacuum; consequently, the controversy about abortion in the secular world has affected the Adventist thinking as well. Adventists were embarrassed by a public demonstration in front of a SDA hospital with placards displaying the following message: “Adventists--Remember the sixth commandment, too!” Spangler included some comments about a document written by George B. Gainer in which the latter described a “Physicians Crusade Against Abortion” that took place in America between 1850 and 1890.

In connection with this pro-life movement, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald published a strong condemnation of the practice of abortion in 1867 in which its author, John Todd, labeled abortion as “Fashionable Murder.” Two years later, the same SDA periodical published another article condemning the practice of abortion in the strongest terms. It was entitled “A Few Words Concerning a Great Sin.” Again, abortion of children was labeled as a “great sin.” Three years later, James White wrote another article condemning abortion in even stronger terms. [53]

Spangler also included a reference to the strongest condemnation of abortion from the pen of another SDA pioneer: Dr. Jon Harvey Kellogg. [54] All this represents clear evidence of where the SDA pioneers stood on the issue of abortion. Spangler even included the closest comment related to abortion by Ellen G. White. In a statement connected with a fashionable women dress style originated in French brothels, White said the following: “Never was such iniquity practiced as since this hoop invention; never were there so many murder of infants. [55] Spangler ended his article calling for a ruling from the church regarding this controversial issue.

*J.R. Spangler opinion on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Edward G. Fisher

In his comments about abortion, Edward G. Fisher raised the issue of the responsibility of society for the care of unwanted children:

Quote:

To guarantee a child the right to be born, even against the will of its mother, obligates us to provide that child with other guarantees that we seem unwilling to offer: the right to adequate food, clothing, shelter, and education. [56] The problem cannot be solved by hospitals; it belongs to the whole society. [57]

*Edward G. Fisher’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Thomas Hamilton

Tomas Hamilton questioned the fairness of punishing the innocent for the sin of the parents:

Quote:

According to what I read, the Seventh-day Adventist Church considers it all right to kill an unborn baby if the baby’s father was a certain kind of sinner—a rapist or a child molester. It is also considered right to kill an unborn baby if its mother became sexually active when very young. Why should an unborn baby be put to death for its father’s or mother’s sins? [58]

*Thomas Hamilton’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by William L. Gutel
William L. Gutel pointed to the inconsistency of SDAs who condone the killing of the unborn, while emphasizing the importance of a vegetarian diet: [59]

Quote:

The greatest moral issue of the past fifteen years is the cold-blooded murder of twenty million babies--and your church says nothing! Could it be that you “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel”? What is more important--saving people from eating meat or saving the lives of innocent babies? [60]

*William L. Gutel’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


Less than Human?
by Richard Fredericks

In 1988 Richard Fredericks wrote an article entitled “Less than Human?” [61] which was published by Ministry. The content of the material presented in this article by Fredericks is almost an image of two other long documents written by him with the following titles: “A Biblical Response to Abortion” published by Spectrum, [62] and “A Compassionate and Christian ‘Quality of Life’ Ethic,” published as Chapter 9 of the book Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options edited by David Larson in 1992, which is analyzed in Chapter VIII of this study. Duplicating this material here would be redundant.

*Richard Frederick’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Shirley B. Dean

Shirley B. Dean responded to Richard Fredericks’ article with the following comment:

Quote:

I began reading “Less than Human?” presumptuously. That is to say, I decided to read it even though I felt I knew what the writer would say. … Fredericks position, though biblical, is entirely unpopular, so I thank God for his bold stand for the cause of Christ. [63]

*Shirley B. Dean position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Pauline W. Phillips

Pauline W. Phillips submitted another positive reaction by a reader to Richard Fredericks’ article dealing with abortion.

Quote:

Richard Fredericks’s article on abortion is the best writing on the subject I have ever seen published! A copy of the article ought to be made available to the administrators and doctors of all our hospitals and clinics. It ought to be the church’s official position on the matter. . . . [64] God is no respecter of persons. He is impartial. There is no reason in his sight to preserve the life of an adult at the expense of children or the unborn. [65]

*Pauline W. Phillips position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by William McCall

William McCall was also positively impressed with Richard Fredericks article entitled “Less than Human?”

Quote:

Thank you for Richard Fredericks’ excellent article on abortion. The church has the responsibility to see that the institutions that carry its name reflect its ideals. His point is well taken that 97 percent of all abortions are simply a form of birth control. We need to enforce far stricter standards than we now do. Yet what about the 2 or 3 percent? This is where some tough decisions confront us. … I suggest that if we are going to err, we err on the side of life. [66]

*William McCall’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Stephen P. Bohr

Stephen P. Bohr also wrote to thank Ministry for publishing Richard Fredericks’ article on abortion:

Quote:

I would like to thank you for publishing the article by Richard Fredericks, “Less than Human.” It is comforting to read such a clear, gutsy, and brilliant article on abortion, especially after reading so many wishy-washy, ambivalent, nonposition rationalizations on the issue. … I think that we need to take a clear position on the sanctity of all human life. [67]

*Stephen P. Bohr’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Alice Blair Wesley

Alice Blair Wesley submitted her comments reflecting a woman’s point of view related to the abortion controversy:

Quote:

It is quite remarkable that so many men write about abortion without ever mentioning that it is the man who does the inseminating, often without the slightest intention of acting as a father. How fatuous and hypocritical! Would male preachers like to eliminate abortions? Then let them preach to males. No insemination, ever, without fatherhood--20 years of daily fatherhood. [68]

*Alice Blair Wesley’s position on abortion: Not revealed.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Andrew Auxt

Andrew Auxt, a non-Adventist reader of Ministry, sent his impression about the SDA attitude towards the killing of the unborn:

Quote:

Thank you, Dr. Fredericks, for your tremendous plea for the lives of the unborn children. I am not an Adventist. I have, however, made considerable effort to meet and talk with Adventists in our area in order to establish a common ground on the basis of mutual faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It has been a gratifying experience for the most part. One thing that has grieved me is the lack of stand against abortion. …Some Christian leaders have said that God will have to judge America for its legalization and acceptance of this latter-day holocaust. [69]

*Andrew Auxt’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Jeremiah Florea

Jeremiah Florea responded to the same article written by Richard Fredericks with his view of the meaning of the sixth commandment of the Decalogue:

Quote:

The well-documented article “Less than Human?” of March 1988 was enlightening but also shocking to us. As Seventh-day Adventists we are sure about the fourth commandment and emphasize it every chance we have. This we should do. But apparently we are not so sure about the meaning of the sixth and first commandments. This is tragic! It appears also that in this area we may have to do some repenting. [70]

*Jeremiah Florea’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Glen L. Wiltse

Glen L. Wiltse wrote to express his agreement with Richard Fredericks that abortion is in fact murder:

Quote:

I say amen to Richard Fredericks’ article “Less than Human?” in the March issue. For far too long we have, as a church, pussyfooted around on the issue of abortion and failed to take a stand. For a church whose beliefs are entirely based on the Bible and nothing but the Bible, the issue seems patently clear--abortion is murder and should be clearly recognized as such. The risk of loosing some popularity with the majority and loosing some of the business in our medical facilities are not reasons enough to renege on an issue that has such a humane and Christian answer. [71]

*Glen L Wiltse’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


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]

*J. David Newman position on abortion: Not stated.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Ken Blake

Ken Blake wrote to call attention to the “flawed euphemisms” employed by those who defend the practice of abortion:

Quote:

I commend “Ministry” for . . . listing the abortion guidelines voted by General Conference officers in 1971 for Adventist medical institutions. However well intentioned, the guidelines unfortunately are flawed with euphemisms, vagueness, and lack of logic. The simple “impairment of health” qualification could be used to justify abortion for a woman who is experiencing depression because she is pregnant again or who is so under less-than-ideal circumstances. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to decide cases such as those involving rape, incest, or the very young. The guilt of infanticide is hardly easier to bear for the young than the sordid crimes that cause their pregnancies. [73]

*Ken Blake’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by George Gainer

In his comments about the 1971 abortion guidelines, George Gainer stressed the fact that one of the criterion contained therein opened the door to abortion on demand:

Quote:

When I first heard and then confirmed that the hospitals of the Adventist Health System in North America were “performing hundreds of abortions” each year, my response was stunned disbelief. I was certain that the hospitals and physicians involved must be acting outside General Conference policy guidelines. I was wrong. Criterion No. five of the 1971 guidelines states that abortion is acceptable “when for some reason the requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lesser potential human life.” Criterion No. five’s “some reason” not only rendered superfluous the first four guidelines, and the principles on which they are based, but it tragically opened the door to elective abortion (i.e., on demand) in Adventist hospitals two years before the United States Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision. … The time has come to change the guidelines. [74]

*George Gainer’s position on abortion: Pro-Life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Van Ottey

Van Ottey submitted his own exegesis of a key biblical text dealing with harm done to a fetus:

Quote:

It is my understanding that Exodus 21:22 does not describe a miscarriage but a premature birth. Simply put, the noun yeled is to be translated “child,” and the verb yatza , “to go out.” Yatza is often used to describe a normal birth. Possibly the correct translation can be found in the King James Version’s “her fruit depart from her” and in the New International Version’s “she gives birth prematurely.” If the child is born with no harm to the mother or child, then a fine is imposed for the trauma of it all. If the mother or child is harmed, then it’s “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” [75]

*Van Ottey position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Samuelle Bacchiocchi

Internationally known SDA biblical scholar Samuelle Bacchiocchi wrote to emphasize his belief in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception:

Quote:

Like much contemporary thought on this subject, we seem to be concerned to define when in the prenatal or postnatal development embryonic life becomes human and thus entitled to the protection of law. This concern is foreign to biblical thought, where the sanctity of life derives not from the size or the stage of development of the embryo but from the divine gift of life manifested from its conception. [76]

*Samuelle Bacchiocchi’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by David A. Scholes

David A. Scholes expressed his views about the euphemisms utilized by those in the pro-choice camp of the abortion issue:

Quote:

It is amazing how, in this “if it feels good--do it” age, we can call sin by any other name just to justify our actions and remove any feelings of guilt. By removing the guilt, we also remove the requirement to repent, confess, and receive God’s forgiveness. Suddenly adultery becomes “an affair,” murder becomes the “termination of pregnancy,” fornication becomes “fooling around,” drunkenness becomes “alcoholism,” homosexuality becomes an “alternate lifestyle.” [77]

*David A. Scholes’ position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Charles W. Nichols

Charles W. Nichols wrote to emphasize the “low view” of human life revealed by the 1971 SDA abortion guidelines:

Quote:

The Adventist hospital in our metropolitan area has an excellent reputation for patient care and welfare. I was therefore shocked to see in the church’s guidelines on abortion the low view Adventist have of human life. . . . The 1971 guidelines permit abortion when the child is likely to be born physically deformed or mentally retarded. Does “likely” mean that those who make the diagnosis could be wrong? That statement sends a loud and clear signal to all physically deformed and mentally retarded people that the Adventists regard them as undesirable and not worthy to live. [78]

*Charles W. Nichols position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Keith Peachey

Another reader calling attention to the inconsistency of killing the handicapped and the innocent victim of rape was Keith Peachey:

Quote:

I have noticed a common inconsistency in your statements concerning abortion. If an unborn fetus is a human being, why should being the result of an immoral act or being handicapped, to whatever degree, be considered worthy of the death sentence? Giving birth to these children might be traumatic to the mother, but abortion could also be considered traumatic to the fetus. [79]

*Keith Peachey position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Joseph L. Story

Joseph L. Storey wrote to express his disappointment with the SDA decision to provide abortion on demand:

Quote:

I am much saddened by George Gainer’s article on abortion (August 1991). It is not pleasant to note that for 20 years the overarching ethic that determines policy for our health-care institutions is money. . . . As a health-care worker I have worked in a Catholic hospital. Their stand on abortion has been firm all along. They are not going under because of their stand on abortion. Long ago the servant of the Lord wrote, “The greatest want of the world is the want of men--men who will not be bought or sold.” (Education p. 57) . . . Surely, as a church we carry a heavy load of guilt for our participation in abortion on demand. [80]

*Joseph L. Story position on abortion: Pro-life.


Abortion and Christian Principles
by Gerald Winslow

In 1988 Ministry published an article written by Gerald Winslow [81] entitled “Abortion and Christian Principles.” [82] He introduced his topic with the story of a young woman who had rebelled against her strict parents and their religion, got involved with a married man, and then came back to church. She registered for school, but a few months later, to her dismay, she discovered that she was pregnant. Under those circumstances, her choices were suicide, abortion, or dropping out of school. Women faced with such odds are forced to make agonizing decisions about the morality of abortion. As they do this, there are certain guiding principles to consider: the principle of forgiveness, respect for human life, respect for personal autonomy, and respect for justice, affirmed Winslow.

No woman becomes pregnant, argued Winslow, with the objective of having an abortion. If she opts to have an abortion, she will need a sense of God’s forgiveness, but the community she lives in will need a measure of forgiveness as well, because people do not make mistakes in a vacuum. The Bible does not explicitly address the dilemma of abortion, he added, but it portrays God as the giver of life, and assigns to human life a high value even in its early stages of development. Jewish thinking generally viewed intentional abortion as a deliberate shedding of human blood. Ellen White manifested the same attitude towards the sacredness of developing human life, in spite of the fact that she never explicitly referred to abortion, but she emphasized the care of the unborn as a sacred duty of Christians.

We admit, continued Winslow, that at the early stages of human development we do not have a person in the full sense of the word, and not even immediately after birth; nevertheless, the destruction of a fetus after the point of viability should raise serious concerns. [83] To this, we must add that the established human life should take precedence over the prepersonal human life; and we should not forget the value of personal autonomy. [84] Besides, Winslow argued, God values personal freedom to the extent that in order to preserve such human freedom necessitated the sacrifice of God’s only Son. [85] This means that the final decision about what to do with her body belongs to the pregnant woman. We do not force anybody to donate his or her blood or kidney in order to save the life of a dying patient. [86]

Someone may argue that by engaging in sex, concluded Winslow, the woman has made her choice, but most women do not consciously choose to get pregnant, but rather often hope to avoid pregnancy. Soul searching decisions involving abortion are due to the complexity of factors involved and they are extremely agonizing experiences, especially if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. [87] In the case of the girl described at the beginning, she decided to drop school, confront her parents, and give her baby for adoption. Nevertheless, after birth, she determined to keep her baby. But, given the lack of understanding by her parents and the members of her church, she finally decided to seek public assistance and moved out of her parents’ home. [88]

*Gerald Winslow position on abortion: Pro-choice.


Abortion Effects
by Ardyce Sweem

Ardyce Sweem [89] is the author of and article published by Ministry in 1988 entitled “Abortion Effects.” [90] In it she stated that one fourth of all pregnancies ended in abortion in the United States, and that in 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for states to provide information to women about the risks connected with abortion. This means that the task of informing women about those risks fell on the shoulders of physicians, nurses, and ministers; but the lack of a clear stand on the morality of abortion by the church made such a responsibility even harder.

Studies have revealed, stated Sweem, that some of those risks are: impairment of future ability to bear children, an increase in miscarriages and premature births, and decrease in the weight of babies at birth. In addition there were risks for the pregnant woman as well: fever, peritonitis, hemorrhaging, damage to the cervix, perforated uterus, thrombosis, sterility, tubal pregnancy, and even death. The psychological complications included guilt, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, anger, low self-esteem, nightmares, flashbacks, and hallucinations. These psychological effects of abortion affected the father of the aborted baby as well.

One woman stated, continued Sweem, she wished someone had told her about all these psychological feeling resulting from her decision to abort. This situation is made worse by the fact that the woman is not allowed to mourn the loss of her baby, since society does not consider that a human being has been deprived of life. Women who had gone through an abortion need to forgive themselves and those who participated in her decision process. Studies have also revealed that women who have opted for an abortion resulting from rape are not immune to the same effects described above. [91] When these women eventually marry and have other children, sometimes they manifest a tendency towards child abuse; and medical personnel are not exempted either from the undesirable effects connected with abortion.

One doctor related that following the first abortion he felt as a murderer, concluded Sweem, but after sometime said feeling subsided and the income was good, of course, but his attitude towards women changed, and he began to look at them as mere animals, and at the aborted babies as human tissue. Since statistics have shown that 75 percent of abortions are performed on behalf of unmarried women, the church’s task is to encourage women to refrain from sexual activity, and help those who choose to keep their babies in any possible way. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who gave his life in defense of the persecuted Jews in Germany during the Nazi regime, considered that abortion was plain murder. Seventh-day Adventists [92] should be in the forefront in the defense of the unborn, which is the most persecuted group of human beings today, argued Sweem.

*Ardyce Sweem’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


Chapter Statistical Analysis

A mathematical analysis of the number of individuals exhibiting a pro-life position on abortion in this chapter indicates that we have thirty in said category, while those in the pro-choice groups add up to only eight. Those who have taken the time to write about this controversial topic represent in an imperfect way the thinking of the SDA membership. It needs to be stated that no attempt was made to weed out any significant comments by either featured authors or readers from those published by Ministry within the study period [1970 to 2006].

The result is significant, and it may reveal where the power resides within the hierarchical organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In a democratic system, the will of the majority prevails, while in a hierarchical system, the will of the majority is often ignored. This seems to be the case of the Adventist organization as far as the abortion issue is concerned. More on this will be stated later.

Endnotes

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

[2]Ellen G. White seems to have been obsessed with the issue of Sabbath observance and the predicted persecution of those who would refuse to switch their allegiance to the observance of Sunday as a day of worship. SDA’s inherited this obsession from her. A search using the word Sabbath of her writings yielded a 2315 count, while a similar search for the word “abortion” yielded zero instances. History may eventually justify this obsession of her, but it may fault her for keeping silence on the abortion issue. “Seventh-day Adventist Periodical Index” Andrews University Library. Accessed from http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/sdapiindex.html on 25 Oct. 2006.

[3]In the last book of the Bible, Revelation, John describes the persecuting activities of a religio-political power symbolized by a predatory beast. Protestants believe that this prediction met its fulfillment first through pagan Rome and later by means of Christian Rome during the Middle Ages through the infamous Catholic Inquisition.

[4]The same church [SDA] that encouraged young military draftees to refuse the bearing of arms during WWII as a sign of respect for the sanctity of human life, now argues that Jesus died to preserve our right to “choose” when dealing with abortion. The message seems to be: Killing an enemy in self defense is murder, but killing a harmless unborn child is a sacred right.

[5]W.R. Beach, “Abortion?” Ministry (Mar. 1971): 3-6. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1971-03/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=3 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[6]Since when killing has become an accepted form of therapy? Would those advocating abortion as therapeutic agree to receive said type of treatment?

[7]Most pregnancies have an effect on women’s health, but abortions do pose greater risks to the health of women.

[8]There is a huge moral difference between executing a murderer, and murdering an innocent baby.

[9]Did Beach realize that allowing the abortion exception due to the mental condition of the pregnant woman would open the door for abortion on demand and no unborn baby would be safe from the chance of loosing its life?

[10]Women do have access to safer abortions now, but the price paid for this is enormous: the sacrifice of 50 million innocent lives since the legalization of abortion.

[11]See the definition for the pro-life and pro-choice terms in Chapter I of this study. Notice that if this position were to be labeled as pro-life, then the line of demarcation between pro-life and pro-choice would be obliterated.

[12]Ralph Waddell, “Abortion is not the Answer” Ministry (Mar. 1971): 7-9. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1971-03/Index.djvu?djvuopts&page=7 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[13] Does this mean that SDAs, who consider themselves among those who keep God’s Commandments, can also justify killing the unborn for the sake of population control? Neal Wilson, the president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists at the time the publication of this article, thought so.

[14]J.R. Spangler, “Abortion Guidelines” Ministry (Mar. 1971): 10-11. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1971-03/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=10 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[15]Bear in mind that the mental exception is one of the main demands of those who defend the pro-choice position on abortion!

[16]D.E. Mansell, “Feed Back” Ministry (Sept. 1971): 49. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1971-09/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=49 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[17]Daniel Augsburger, “Abortion: Don’t Believe All You Hear!” Ministry (Sept. 1976): 24-26. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1976-09/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=24 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[18]Negating this obvious truth would require admitting that a woman can have two heads, four feet, four arms, four eyes, and four ears; which would be ludicrous!

[19]Leonard McMillan, “To Abort or not to Abort: That is the Question” Ministry (Mar. 1978): 11-13. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1978-03/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=11 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[20]Provonsha was the chairman of the Department of Ethics at Loma Linda University at the time this article was published.

[21]Jack W. Provonsha, “How much is a fetus worth?” Ministry (Jan. 1984): 15-17. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1984-01/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=15 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[22]Richard A. Hansen, “Letters” Ministry (Jan. 1985): 30. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1984-04/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=30 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[23]Hansen seems to agree with Provonsha, who was labeled as pro-choice. The information provided by him is insufficient to determine his position on abortion.

[24]Richard Muller was dean of students and Bible teacher at Vejlefjord Hojere Skole, Daugaard, Denmark at the time of publication.

[25]Richard Muller, “Abortion: A Moral Issue?” Ministry (Jan. 1985): 18-20 & 31. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1985-01/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=18 on 25 Oct. 2006.

[26]Ellen G. White. Patriarchs and Prophets (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 316.

[27]Contrast this statement by Harter with that of a former senior pastor of the Loma Linda University Church who when asked why he never preached about abortion responded: “If I did that, some of the church members might feel offended.” If SDA pastors refuse to preach about morality, then it ceases to be a church, and it becomes an expensive social club.

[28]Chris Harter, “Letters” Ministry (July 1985): 2. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1985-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[29]John McClarty, “Letters” Ministry (Aug. 1985): 2. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1985-08/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[30]Robert H. Dunn, “Letters” Ministry (Oct. 1985): 2. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1985-10/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[31]John Youngberg and Millie Youngberg, “The Reborn and the Unborn” Ministry (Nov. 1985): 12-13. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1985-11/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=12 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[32]At the time of publication the Youngbergs were teaching at Andrews University.

[33]Matt. 25:40 KJV.

[34]Deut. 30:19.

[35]This might be an unwarranted assumption, since the Millers are specifically talking about elective abortion, but say nothing about their position relative to therapeutic abortions.

[36]Would Kevin Paulson insist on a “thus said the Lord” for condemning genocide, polygamy, and slavery?

[37]Kevin D. Paulson, “Letters” Ministry (Jan. 1986): 2. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1986-01/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[38]Robert E. Hays, “Letters” Ministry (May 1986): 30. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1986-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=30 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[39]Mr. Florea’s first name is spelled as Jeremiah elsewhere.

[40]Jeremia Florea, “Letters” Ministry (May 1986): 30. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1986-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=30 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[41]David Hampton, “Letters” Ministry (May 1986): 30. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1986-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=30 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[42]For a more detailed analysis of Young’s book, see Chapter IV of this study.

[43]Curt Young, “The Least of These: What Everyone Should Know About Abortion” Ministry (Sept. 1986): 31. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1986-09/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=31 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[44]R. M. Cargill, “Letters” Ministry (Nov. 1986): 28. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1986-11/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=28 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[45]David Larson, “Shop Talk/Call for Papers on Abortion” Ministry (Dec. 1987): 32 Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1987-12/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=32 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[46]Michael Pearson, “Abortion: The Adventist Dilemma” Ministry (Jan. 1988): 4-6 & 28. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-01/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[47]The Bible is also silent about slavery, genocide, and polygamy!

[48]Eccl. 3:3. Yes, there is a time to kill, and there is also a time to sit on the electric chair! The Decalogue condemns the killing of the innocent [murder], while the Ecclesiastes passage very likely refers to the death penalty.

[49] Ellen White is silent about abortion, but she is not silent about the sixth commandment, and she clearly stated that anything that shortens life, or harms life, is a violation of that commandment. See Ellen G. White. Patriarchs and Prophets (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 316.

[50]Was Baby Jesus in Mary’s womb merely potential human life or actual human life? When did he assume human form, at the time of conception or at birth?

[51]“Pregnancy interruption” may sound rather harmless, but it involves dismembering, poisoning, or crushing the baby’s head instants prior to full delivery.

[52]J. R. Spangler, “Reflection on Adventists and Abortion” Ministry (Jan. 1988): 17-18. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-01/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=17 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[53]See chapter II of this study for details.

[54]Ibid.

[55]Spangler’s guess was that White might have abortion in mind when she wrote said statement.

[56]Good point! Nevertheless, fearing that the child might suffer from a lack of food, clothing, or shelter, cannot justify depriving said child of life. Ask any child whether being hungry is worse than death!

[57]Edward G. Fisher, “Letters” Ministry (Mar. 1988): 2. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-03/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[58]Thomas Hamilton, “Letters” Ministry (Mar. 1988): 2. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-03/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[59]Gutel’s reasoning seems to be: If SDAs preach vegetarianism, which involves cruelty to animals, then they should also preach against abortion, which entails cruelty to the unborn.

[60]William L. Gutel, “Letters” Ministry (Mar. 1988): 2. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-03/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[61]Richard Fredericks, “Less than Human?” Ministry (Mar. 1988): 12-16. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-03/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=12 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[62]See Richard Fredericks’ article entitled “A Biblical Response to Abortion in Chapter VII of this study.

[63]Shirley B. Dean, “Letters” Ministry (July 1988): 2, 29. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[64]Pauline Phillips may not know that Richard Fredericks has since left the SDA Church. The church’s decision to opt for a pro-choice position may have influenced him on this drastic decision, and others have done the same [see chapter XII of this study for additional details].

[65]Pauline W. Phillips, “Letters” Ministry (July 1988): 29. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=29 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[66]William McCall, “Letters” Ministry (July 1988): 29. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=29 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[67]Stephen P. Bohr, “Letters” Ministry (July 1988): 29. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=29 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[68]Alice Blair Wesley, “Letters” Ministry (July 1988): 29-30. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=30 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[69]Andrew Auxt, “Letters” Ministry (July 1988): 30. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=30 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[70]Jeremiah Florea, “Letters” Ministry (July 1988): 30. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=30 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[71]Glen L. Wiltse, “Letters” Ministry (July 1988): 30. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=30 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[72]J. David Newman, “First Glance” Ministry (July 1988): 3. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=3 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[73]Ken Blake, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 2, 27. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[74]George Gainer, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 27. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=27 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[75]Van Ottey, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 27. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=27 on 27 Oct. 2006.

[76]Samuelle Bacchiocchi, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 28. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=28 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[77]David A. Scholes, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 28. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=28 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[78]Charles W. Nichols, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 28. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=28 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[79]Keith Peachey, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 28. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=28 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[80]Joseph L. Story, “Letters” Ministry (Apr. 1992): 2. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1992-04/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[81]Winslow was a professor of Christian Ethics at Loma Linda University at the time of his writing.

[82]Gerald Winslow, “Abortion and Christian Principles” Ministry (May 1988): 12-16. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=12 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[83]Does this mean that no serious concerns would have been raised if Mary had aborted Jesus before he reached the point of viability?

[84]Personal autonomy does not imply the right to take somebody else’s life. Autonomy means “self law.” Is Winslow suggesting that humans have the right to replace God’s Law with self law?

[85]Did Jesus die to grant us the right of depriving someone else of life? If yes, then perhaps he also died to grant us the freedom to rape, steal, and fornicate!

[86]True, but we do not poison or dismember the dying patient either.

[87]What is more agonizing for a woman: knowing that someone did rape her, or being aware that she took the life of her innocent unborn baby? Is abortion able to undo the rape? Will executing the innocent instead of the perpetrator of the crime provide peace of mind to the victim of rape?

[88]Winslow’s well written article is significantly longer than the brief summary of it included here.

[89]At the time of writing, Sweem was a chaplain at Washington Hospital.

[90]Ardyce Sweem, “Abortion Effects” Ministry (July 1988): 14-16. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1988-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=14 on 24 Oct. 2006.

[91]When a victim of rape or incest opts to have an abortion, she often makes her bad situation worse. Before the abortion, she experienced feelings of anger towards the perpetrator. After the abortion her feeling of anger will be aimed at herself, because she has now become a perpetrator of violence as well. Half of that dead baby is her own flesh and blood.

[92]It might be worth noting that recently the German and Austrian leaders of the SDA organization issued a public apology for their collaboration with Hitler during the genocide of the Jews [see Chapter XI of this study for details].
Continued below