Quote:

I recently read your article titled “Less than Human?” (March 1988), and I am pleased to see that some Adventists are beginning to take a clear stand on today’s issues. [1]

*Danny Kumamoto’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Willard D. Regester

Willard D. Regester joined his voice to the many readers who had been impressed with Richard Fredericks’ article on abortion:

Quote:

I just read the article “Less than Human?” by Richard Fredericks. It is the finest article I have read on the subject. [2]

*Willard D. Regester’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by John G. Kerbs

John G. Kerbs shared his personal experience as a result of reading the material on abortion in the pages of Ministry.

Quote:

I consider your article on abortion in the March “Ministry” to be a classic and believe it will be recognized as a historic statement in the Adventist Church. It is the best thought out and researched article on this topic that I have read within the church. It is extremely persuasive and has definitely affected my viewpoint. [3]

*John G. Kerbs’ position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
By John Kurlinski

John Kurlinski wrote about a girl names Kezia who was a good specimen of those considered by experts as “less than human,” and how his dad loved her as long as she lived. A short life, indeed, but a life that spiritually enriched the life of her dad.

Quote:

Richard Fredericks’ article on abortion brought to my mind one who was considered “less than human” by society’s norms. Her name was Kezia. She was born in a Third World country to a young ministerial couple. Because of complications in labor and inadequate medical facilities, she suffered brain damage . . . All the doctors agreed that if she lived to an advanced age (3 years or older), she would need constant attention and the quality of her life would be poor. Doctors and friends who were sympathetic to the couple stated their opinion that it would have been a blessing if she had died right after delivery and that the sooner she died the better . . . One tragic February morning, when she was fifteen months old, Kezia died. . . . Though Kezia was not physically or mentally normal, her father had loved her. . . . No one could tell him that Kezia’s life had no value, that she was any less than human, that she was not worth sacrificing for and suffering gladly for. Because of Kezia her father is a better man, a better minister, and a better father to his son. [4]

*John Kurlinski’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by John Ferguson

In contrast to all the positive responses to Richard Fredericks’ article on abortion, John Ferguson expressed his opinion that both the Bible and Ellen White are rather silent on the issue.

Quote:

While I commend Richard Fredericks for his impassioned and sincere presentation of the antiabortion case, may I point out that he does little, if anything, to refute Michael Pearson’s observation that “the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen White . . . are silent, [5] or at least less than equivocal about abortion.” . . . I would suggest that his right-wing stand on the issue gives an imbalanced view, since it fails to deal with the other side of the coin. [6]

*John Ferguson’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


A Reader’s Opinion
by M.L. Whiting

M.L. Whiting wrote to express his appreciation for Gerald Winslow’s article on abortion:

Quote:

I appreciated Dr. Winslow’s perspective on abortion (“Abortion and Christian Principles,” May 1988). I have been wrestling with this issue in my own mind for quite some time, and this article helped me put this matter in perspective. [7]

*M.L. Whiting position on abortion: Pro-choice.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Gordon E. Jackson

Gordon E. Jackson was also impressed with Dr. Gerald Winslow article on abortion, which helped him understand why so many Adventists are both anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time.

Quote:

Thank you for publishing the excellent article by Gerald Winslow. In an atmosphere of sometimes nearly hysterical emotion, when polemics confuse instead of clarifying the issues, this well reasoned, balanced, and inclusive brief study articulates better than most statements on abortion the fundamental problems and dilemmas, especially for a Christian. In carefully dealing with the total issue, Dr. Winslow lays the groundwork for understanding why many of us are both antiabortion and pro-choice. Those who are stuck on either pole have become dogmatists for whom moral truth or biblical/theological truth are not really live options. [8]

*Gordon E. Jackson’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Richard Fredericks

A contrasting opinion about Dr. Gerald Winslow’s article was expressed by Richard Fredericks, who rejected the theory that human beings possess personal autonomy [self rule]:

Quote:

Dr. Gerald Winslow’s article on abortion (May 1988) presents many biblical principles (often with great skill and clarity), but offers as its bottom line and decisive principle a total unbiblical ultimate of “personal autonomy.” His definitions and application of grace and freedom are distortions. These biblical terms do not defend personal autonomy, but condemn it, including autonomy over what one does with one own’s body: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit . . ., and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price [grace]: therefore glorify your God in your body [freedom]” (1 Cor. 6:19,20 NASB). I believe that while a woman does have the legal right and the personal freedom to take the life of her child, she does not have God’s grace or approval in such an action. Killing any innocent human life is a violation of God’s commandment; it is futile in healing a damaged life, and it is sin. Doing so will not solve an emotional and moral crisis, but will only horribly deepen it. … In the New Testament grace always calls us to accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It never defends “personal autonomy” or defines freedom in terms of autonomy: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.” (Luke 9:23 NASB). God’s grace never covers willful, cherished sin, [9] and autonomy is the primordial sin. Autonomy literally means “self-law”-- the sinful desire to be one’s own ultimate authority. [10]

*Richard Fredericks’ position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Ernie Sanchez

Ernie Sanchez shared his personal experience as a child who, according to the physicians, should have been aborted due to the toxemia developed during pregnancy. His mother refused to heed the advice of her doctor. She had the baby, and both of them survived.

Quote:

Los Angeles California, 1953: an Adventist doctor advises a woman who had developed toxemia to have an abortion, telling that she will not live if she tries to have this baby. He says, “If you die, who will take care of your other two children? And what about your husband? You must live for them. Think about this.” This woman has been taking Bible lessons and has begun to trust in the mercies of God. Knowing that killing is a grievous sin against God, she determines to have the baby and commits her own life to God’s keeping. To make a long story short and in the words of this very woman: “Well, praise the Lord; here it is 1988, I had my child and I am still alive.” I have a keen interest in this woman, and I know that this story is true, for that woman is my mother, and I am that child! [11]

*Ernie Sanchez’ position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Timothy Jessen

Timothy Jessen, evidently a non-Adventist reader of Ministry, wrote to the magazine in order to share his disappointment with the SDA church’s position on abortion.

Quote:

It does not surprise when a liberal mainline denomination like my own advocates a policy against life, but the Adventists--the paragon of healthcare, concern for others, adherence to the Scriptures? What about “Thou shalt not kill?” [12]

*Timothy Jessen’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by R. F. Westendorf

R. F. Westendorf shared with the readers of Ministry his view that the child conceived as a result of adultery should not be penalized for the sin of its mother.

Quote:

The child conceived in adultery is not guilty of that sin. That child should not die so that the woman may escape the consequences of her sin. Any appeal to justice must certainly favor the one who cannot defend himself. [13]

*R. F. Westendorf’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by [Anonymous]

An anonymous reader wrote in order to share his belief that the child conceived as a result of rape has the right to live.

Quote:

I know a person who is not a victim but the product of rape. This person is a child of God, a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. I wonder how this person feels, thinking that it was God’s will that he should have been aborted? . . . I think the Devil has pulled a fast one on us ethical Christians. Abortion has become our Achilles heel. [14]

* Anonymous reader’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by C. L. Hubbell

C.L. Hubbell used Jesus’ statement about Judas in support of the view that abortion is a concept that can be justified on biblical principles.

Quote:

Speaking of Judas at the Last Supper, Jesus Christ said something that put Him on the side of proabortionists in some cases: “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24 RSV). [15]

*C.L. Hubbell’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Dennis Fortin

Dennis Fortin wrote to Ministry in order to share his view that, had Mary lived in our time, baby Jesus would have been at risk of being aborted in an Adventist hospital.

Quote:

I can’t but think of Mary. Still a teenager, not married, very poor, she declared she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit. What we would do with such a case today in our society that has become so permissive about the sacredness of life? Would we find her guilty of teenage sexual promiscuity? Would we diagnose her a schizophrenic with religious delirium? Would we find her too young, too immature, too poor, to raise a child properly? If because of her situation society told her to get an abortion, would we as a church remain silent? Could this abortion be carried out in an Adventist hospital? Could Christ, our Lord, be born in the cities of America? [16]

*Dennis Fortin’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Jim Fielding

Another negative reaction to Gerald Winslow’s article came from Jim Fielding, who thought that Dr. Winslow’s approach was a humanistic one.

Quote:

The article “Abortion and Christian Principles,” by Gerald Winslow (May 1988), was cleverly written to play on emotions--e.g., “poor Joan.” The truth is that on the whole, abortion is now used as a form of contraception. Mr. Winslow states that “to have real freedom is to have real alternatives.” [17] This is a humanistic viewpoint; God is a God of absolutes . . . You do the body of Christ a disservice with your sidestepping approach to abortion. [18]

*Jim Fielding’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Willard D. Regester

Willard D. Regester, who has been on both sides of the abortion issue, believes now that abortion is murder:

Quote:

As a physician who has been (I am sorry to say) actively involved on both sides of the abortion question, I am puzzled, baffled, and finally incensed about our church’s unwillingness to come to grips with the abortion question and take a stand. What is produced when a sperm has met the ovum and is embedded in the wall of the uterus is a human being, and to destroy it thereafter is murder. [19]

*Willard D. Regester’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Terry C. Grimm

Terri C. Grimm wrote to express the inconsistency of justifying the killing of the unborn, while telling that it is wrong to kill in war:

Quote:

We, as a church, take the stand that it is wrong to take another’s life. For this reason we strongly urge our young people to stay out of the military. We base this position on the commandment that states, “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet we don’t seem to apply this same commandment when it comes to abortion. Isn’t it strange that we can see clearly the application of this commandment to those already born but not see how it could possibly apply to the unborn? [20]

*Terry C. Grimm’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


Deciding About Abortion
by David C. James

In this article entitled “Deciding About Abortion,” [21] David C. James reported how the Loma Linda University Center for Christian Bioethics convened a conference dealing with the abortion issue. It took place in November, 1988, and papers on the subject were presented by 35 [22] individuals from a variety of professions, including some representatives from around the world. A wide spectrum of opinions was discussed and there seemed to be an agreement among participants that the church needed to establish appropriate guidelines on abortion. A decision was made to publish a selected number of papers in book form by the Center of Christian Bioethics. [23]


Do We Need an Abortion Standard?
by J. David Newman

In this editorial bearing the “Do We Need an Abortion Standard” [24] title, J. David Newman reported that the Christian View on Human Life Committee appointed by the General Conference met in Washington on April, 1989 to discuss the need of official SDA guidelines on abortion. One scholar, Dr. Carsten Johnsten, argued for an absolute position against abortion, stating that, since God is the giver of life, He is the only authorized to take it, and that a six-months-old baby has no more right to life than the unborn. Others responded by stating that our planet is already overcrowded, [25] and that it is irresponsible to let children be born whose chances of suffering [26] deprivation and abuse is undeniable.


Provisional Statement on Abortion
by J. David Newman

In another editorial entitled “Provisional Statement on Abortion,” [27] J. David Newman described how, following the conclusion of its third meeting, the General Conference Christian View of Human Life Committee issued its preliminary “Seventh-day Adventist Statement of Consensus on Abortion.” The members of the committee felt that in a fallen world, a compromise must be made between the ideal and what is practical. God never intended for humans to be either enslaved, or killed. Nevertheless, God tolerated slavery, [28] and provided rules designed to ease the harsh treatment they received. Newman feels that ideally, there should be no abortions, but Christians have no right to force a woman to bear a child she is unable to care for. [29]

*J. David Newman position on abortion: Pro-choice.


A Seventh-day Adventist Statement of Consensus on Abortion
by J. David Newman

On July 1990 Ministry published a new document entitled “A Seventh-day Adventist Statement of consensus on Abortion,” [30] which was approved by the General Conference Christian View of Human Life. It included an explanation detailing the reasons for the need to revise the 1970 abortion guidelines in order to clarify, revise and expand the original abortion document.

The statement included the following points, which are summarized here as follows: 1. Prenatal life is a gift of God, for which reason abortion [31] should be performed only for the most serious reasons. 2. The church should refrain from exhibiting a condemnatory attitude [32] towards those seeking an abortion. 3. The church must play a positive role through education and assistance on behalf of women going through a crisis pregnancy situation. 4. The church does not approve abortion for convenience; nevertheless, women might be faced with a need to resort to abortion when the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, [33] congenital malformation, or if there exists a threat to the physical or mental health [34] of the pregnant woman. 5. “Attempts to coerce women to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.” 6. Church institutions must be provided with guidelines on abortion, and no one should be required to participate in abortions against his/her conscience. 7. Church members should be encouraged to participate in the ongoing dialogue about abortion.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Hugo Meier

Hugo Meier wrote to express his dissatisfaction with the SDA “Statement of Consensus on Abortion.”

Quote:

I read the preliminary Seventh-day Adventist statement on abortion (July 1990) and don’t think much of the document. It is very weak. . . . Our institutions should be at the forefront of institutions that refuse to kill the unborn. Guidelines will be subject only to the economic concerns of doctors who perform life-terminating procedures in our institutions. [35]

*Hugo Meier’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Van Ottey

Another reader who wrote to express his unhappiness with the SDA position on abortion was Van Ottey:

Quote:

When physical or mental health takes precedence over life, our priorities are out of order. When the fetus’s not measuring up to our standards of perfection is grounds for taking its life, our priorities are out of order. When the circumstances of conception (rape or incest) are the determining factor, our priorities are out of order. When it comes to life-or-life situation, then and then only with much prayer abortion should be considered. Jesus said, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” We say, “Father, please remove this cup from me. If you don’t, then I will.” [36]

*Van Ottey position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Mark Fulop

A contrasting opinion regarding the Adventist attitude towards abortion was submitted to Ministry by Mark Fulop:

Quote:

Never in my 10-plus years of membership in the Adventist Church have I seen a more responsible statement, one that combines a solid biblical foundation and a strong compassion for a difficult issue. . . . It affirms the sanctity of life while preserving the integrity of the concept of free will. [37]

*Mark Fulop’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


A Reader’s Opinion
by R. W. O’Ffill

R. W. O’Ffill wrote to share his conviction that capital punishment should not be left to the whims of a single individual:

Quote:

It seems unbelievable to me that one person should be able to decide whether another living person shall continue to live or die. To my knowledge, our criminal justice system never gives the decision on capital punishment to one person. [38]

*R. W. O’Ffill’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Ron Thomsen

Ron Thomsen wrote to express his rejection of the Adventist pro-choice position on abortion:

Quote:

Saying the “Final decision … should be made by the pregnant woman” and rejecting “attempts to coerce women to remain pregnant” is a virtual acceptance of the pro-choice position. If we truly want to protect human life, we need to affirm a pro-life document that has some teeth--not some duplicitous attempts to be all things to all people. [39]

*Ron Tomsen’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by George M. Ricker

George M. Ricker reacted in a positive way towards the “balanced” SDA attitude towards abortion:

Quote:

Your provisional statement on abortion was one of the best to come out of church circles. I appreciate the way you struggled with balancing the sanctity of unborn life with the sanctity of born, relational life. The anti-choice groups seem intent on using terms such as “murder” and “shedding innocent blood” in reference to all abortions. They fail to realize the complexity of the issue. In using Psalm 139:13, 14, 16, for instance, anti-choice people fail to recognize that the book of Psalms is poetry. [40]

*George M. Ricker’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Sarah Endres

Sarah Endres submitted her opinion that the SDA church should not engage in the performance of abortions:

Quote:

I think that the church should take a strong stand against abortion. And I definitely believe our hospitals should not be allowed to perform abortions. The church’s wishy-washy way of dealing with abortions is causing people--in and out of the church--to loose respect for the church. [41]

*Sarah Endres’ position on abortion: Pro-life.


How Sacred is Human Life?
by J. David Newman

In a Ministry editorial entitled “How Sacred is Human Life,” [42] dated February 1991, J. David Newman reported that in their fourth meeting, the Christian View of Human Life Committee set by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists finally did what they should have done in their first meeting: “Develop a set of biblical principles on which to base our view of human life.” Now the task ahead was to investigate to what extent the SDA abortion guidelines reflected these biblical principles. [43]

Some of the biblical principles included were: A. “God is the source, giver, and sustainer of all life.” B. “Human life has unique value because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God.” C. “God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God’s creation and the objects of his redeeming love.” D. “Self sacrifice in devotion to God and his principles may take precedence over life.” E. “God calls for the protection of human life and holds those who destroy it accountable.” F. “God is especially concerned about the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed.” G. “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.” [44]


A Reader’s Opinion
by David Glenn

After reading Newman’s editorial, David Glenn wrote to express his concern about two of the principles adopted by the Christian View of Human Life Committee [CVHLC]:

Quote:

I am perplexed about two points in the February 1991 editorial “How Sacred id Human Life?” Point nine seems to indicate that since God has left it with individuals to make choices for God or evil, we, then, have no business to enact laws to protect life. [45]

*David Glenn’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Luis F. Acosta

Another reader who wrote back to share his concerns about the work of the CVHLC was Luis F. Acosta. He lamented that the committee waited till the fourth meeting before deciding to search the Bible for principles upon which to develop the abortion guidelines. He also had trouble understanding how a decision to abort could be “healthy” for the baby being killed:

Quote:

I applaud the attempt to develop a set of biblical principles. Still, it was a sad admission of the direction of the leadership in our church when the members of the committee were on their fourth meeting before they decided to go at it from a biblical perspective. . . . The flaw with principle 11 is that the “healthy” in “healthy family relationship” remains undefined. Will a family with a relationship that’s “healthy” consider abortion a “healthy” decision for the unborn child? [46] The church as a faith community should always be supportive of people who need us most: people in a crisis. Adultery is a crisis. Theft is a crisis. And so is murder. So how do we as a faith community show our support in these crises? We show it by loving care, notwithstanding our disapproval of the sins committed. We show our disapproval through disfellowship. By taking that stand, we don’t take away people’s right to “take” someone’s life, or the “right” to sexual permissiveness. But we hold them responsible. [47]

*Luis F. Acosta’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Clifford Laurell

Clifford Laurell wrote to share the experience of an atheist physician who lamented having presided over the deaths of 60,000 abortions:

Quote:

I believe the members of the committee should view ultrasonic pictures of a developing human being in the womb. It is this scientific development that led Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an atheist, head of one of the largest abortion clinics, to make the following statement: “I am deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I have in fact presided over 60,000 deaths. There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy.” [48]

*Clifford Laurell’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


Abortion: History of Adventist Guidelines
by George Gainer

In 1991, Ministry published an article entitled “Abortion: History of Adventist Guidelines,” [49] written by George Gainer. [50] At the time of publication, Gainer was a chaplain at Columbian Union College, Takoma Park, Maryland. This article is similar in content to another one he wrote entitled “The Wisdom of Solomon,” which is summarized in Chapter VII of the present study, for which reason the redundant material will not be included here. Gainer began his article with an anecdote related by a non-Adventist pastor in his sermon regarding the experience he and his wife had at the office of a Takoma Park, Maryland, SDA physician who asked the couple whether they wanted an abortion on their initial visit, which story prompted Gainer to investigate Adventist practices dealing with abortion.

He discovered that one of the earliest SDA views about this issue were expressed by John Todd in an article entitled “Fashionable Murder,” published by the Advent Review and Sabbath herald, the precursor of the Adventist Review, back in 1867, in which he praised the work of the late nineteenth century Physician’s Crusade against abortion, and made the following comment about abortion: “The willful killing of a human being at any stage of existence is murder.” Two years later, the same SDA periodical published another article on the same issue entitled “A Few Words Concerning a Great Sin,” in which the author stated the following: “One of the most shocking and yet one of the most prevalent sins of this generation is the murder of unborn infants.”

The following year, James White, the then president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, published a book entitled A Solemn Appeal, in which he condemned the practice of abortion in the strongest terms. [51] In addition to this, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the founder of the SDA medical work, expressed one of the harshest condemnations of abortion in his book Man, the Masterpiece, in which he asserted that a new human being comes into existence from the very moment of conception, and that abortion is, therefore, a heinous crime against God. Ellen White never used the word abortion in her writings, but she did refer to the sanctity of human life. She did state, for example the following: “Human life, which only God can give, must be sacredly guarded.” [52]

At the conclusion of the Physician’s Crusade against abortion, there followed a century of silence. And even as recently as 1963, a Planned Parenthood pamphlet stated the following warning: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has began. It is dangerous to your life and health.” [53] The turning point, as far as the SDA church is concerned, took place in Hawaii, where non-Adventist physicians employed by the Castle Memorial Hospital [CMH], operated by the SDA church, threatened to take their patients elsewhere in the event they were limited in their ability to continue providing abortions to their patients.

This situation was the result of the passage of a bill in Hawaii liberalizing the abortion laws. The hospital had been providing for therapeutic abortion involving rape, incest, congenital malformation, and when there was a threat to the pregnant woman’s physical of mental life. But now the hospital began to receive an increased number of requests for elective abortions. To read the rest of the dramatic development of the Seventh-day Adventist Guidelines on Abortion, go to the analysis of Gainer’s article listed in Chapter VII of this study. [54]

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


A Reader’s Opinion
by Robert C. McPherson

Robert C. McPherson wrote to Ministry to express his concern about humans deciding between life and death for the unborn:

Quote:

Where in God’s revealed Word do we find justification for men to judge in cases of life and death between the “greater good” and the “lesser good”? . . . I suggest that we take another look at the Word. It still says “Thou shalt not kill.” [55]

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


A Reader’s Opinion
by Jay Gallimore

Jay Gallimore wrote to share his sorrow that SDA hospitals were now allowed to offer abortion services on demand:

Quote:

Let’s go back to the 1970 abortion guidelines and insist that Adventist hospitals comply with them. While I am very thankful for those Adventist hospitals that have been very careful in this area, I feel great sorrow that others have chosen to grant abortion on demand. [56]

*Jay Gallimore’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Paul F. Bork

A contrasting opinion was received by Ministry from Paul F. Bork. He felt that neither the Bible nor Ellen White had much to say about abortion:

Quote:

Surely it should be clear by now that the fact that this issue has been debated ad nauseam is an indication that neither the Bible nor the Spirit of Prophecy makes a clear, [57] unequivocal statement on the interruption of pregnancy, a practice as old as time itself. [58]

*Paul F. Bork’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Ralph Harmon

Ralph Harmon wrote to Ministry in order to express his opinion that the church should adopt the right stand regardless of popular opinion.

Quote:

Have we become so intoxicated by the praise of the world that we want to retain our “good” image even if it means not calling sin sin? I believe we again should let the world know where we stand whether such a stand is popular or not. [59]

*Ralph Harmon’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Kenneth B. Blake

Kenneth B. Blake wrote in order to call for the repudiation of the 1971 liberalized abortion guidelines, which included the mental health of the pregnant woman as a valid exception for the provision of abortion on demand:

Quote:

I call on all SDA pastors and laypersons who feel strongly that the slaughter of the innocents in our hospitals must end to move as God directs them and to petition current church leaders to repudiate the liberalized abortion guidelines (as amended in 1971), and to reject the Christian View of Human life Committee’s draft statement (“Ministry”, 1990) that would add the pregnancy’s adverse effects on a woman’s mental health as another justification for abortion. [60]

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


A Reader’s Opinion
by Leo Schreven

Another strong condemnation of the amended set of abortion guidelines was received from Leo Schreven, who felt ashamed that the “Remnant Church” was ignoring the sixth commandment of God’s Law by allowing its church operated hospitals to offer abortion on demand while Catholic hospitals were refusing to offer said murder services.

Quote:

Would an Adventist ordained minister be tempted to leave the “remnant church”? For me the issue of abortion is nearly the cause. My head hangs in shame before all Christian leaders who receive “Ministry.” Are we not the remnant that keep the commandments? Is the sixth commandment less important than the fourth? In evangelism I have lost at least a dozen souls because of this inconsistency. Driving by Adventist hospitals and seeing anti-abortion picketers brings tears to my eyes. Especially [sic] when the Catholic or Baptist hospital down the road is known as a “non-murdering” facility. [61]

*Leo Schreven’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by David F. Crawford

David F. Crawford wrote to challenge the Adventist church to follow the example of Catholic hospitals, which refuse to offer abortion services:

Quote:

Although I do not adhere to Catholic theology, I applaud that [Catholic] church’s stand on abortion. I challenge my church leadership to abolish administering abortions in all SDA facilities--at the very minimum, abortion on demand. [62]

*David F. Crawford’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Jeremiah Florea

In his comments about the SDA attitude towards abortion, Jeremiah Florea wondered whether there would be a SDA church today if financial incentives had been the guiding principle dealing with the fourth commandment:

Quote:

Upon reading the articles by Kis and Gainer, I didn’t know what to think. Suppose during the past hundred years we had handled the fourth commandment from an economic standpoint, as we appear to be doing with the sixth now, would we have a Seventh-day Adventist Church today? [63]

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


The Fetus in Biblical Law
by Ron Du Preez

In 1992, Ministry published an article entitled “The Fetus in Biblical Law,” written by Ron Du Preez. At the time of publication, Du Preez was an assistant professor of religion at Southern College of Seventh-day Adventists, Collegedale, Tennessee. The entire article is an exhaustive analysis and interpretation of a biblical passage found in Exodus 21:21-25. The text deals with the penalty imposed by Moses on someone who hurts a pregnant woman. Instead of detailing Du Preez’ long exegesis of said passage, which has been used in the past both by pro-lifers and pro-choicers to support their positions, [64] it might be proper to quote the writer’s summary provided at the end of Du Preez’ article:

Quote:

A textual analysis of our passage suggests that it discusses a live premature birth for which a fine is to be paid. If harm or death comes to either mother or fetus, the lex talionis is to be invoked. Because the fetus is regarded on a par with its mother, this passage protects the sanctity of life for the unborn and gives no support whatever for the practice of abortion. [65]

*Ron Du Preez’ position on abortion: Pro-life.


The Abortion Dilemma
by Martin Weber

The same year (1992) Ministry published an article entitled “The Abortion Dilemma” written by Martin Weber. At the time of publication, Weber held the position of associate editor of Ministry. In this article Weber lamented the inconsistent way society deals with people. Students who revel in drunkenness, nudity, and revelry are arrested; while other students are taken to jail for praying, singing Christian songs, and crusading against the killing of unborn babies through abortion. This controversial issue of abortion divides Seventh-day Adventists into two camps, because SDA’s treasure both the sanctity of human life and religious liberty and freedom at the same time.

What troubled Weber was the fact that society has adopted an abortion lifestyle that is applied to all facets of life. People have assumed a defeatist attitude towards life: If you encounter difficulty in dealing with your education, your job, or marriage, abort them and start over again. If you encounter problems at school, quit! If your holy wedlock has turned into an unhappy deadlock, divorce! If your religious experience is failing, abort even Jesus! This means that this abort-it attitude towards life is an attempt at escaping the consequences of our actions, forgetting in the process what the Bible clearly teaches: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever man sows, that he will also reap.” [66]

Weber next related the experience of a girl he named Jennifer. She got pregnant while in school, and opted for the easy way out. The next summer she got pregnant again, and solved her problem with another abortion. By age twenty-one she had gone through four abortions. Then she aborted Christianity. Had Jennifer decided to face the natural consequences of her first mistake, she would have been inconvenienced with nine months of pregnancy, but she might have learned a valuable lesson as a result of that experience. Society seems to have their values turned upside down: If the life of a dolphin is in danger, tireless efforts are made to save it, but if an unborn baby is threatened with death, nothing is done to save its life. [67]

What Christians need to ask themselves, suggested Weber, is: Is the unborn baby alive? If it is, then, what has it done to deserve death? The theory that the unborn is not entitled to life because it has not taken its first breath is erroneous. It is using oxygen with the help of its mother. When a patient is connected to a breathing machine during surgery, does this mean the person has ceased to be a living human being? If not, then why treat the unborn as a non-human? This means that viability--the ability to survive outside the womb, has nothing to do with personhood. The unborn bears the markers of humanity. By day 21, before the woman is aware that she is pregnant, the unborn baby’s heart is already beating and pumping blood.

Pro-choice individuals, continued Weber, call abortion a “pregnancy interruption.” Perhaps historians should describe what John Wilkes Booth did to Abraham Lincoln’s as merely presidency interruption. The most practical solution to the question, “when does human life begin” is to set it at conception. If the fetus is not a human being, why does it have a beating heart? And if it is not a child, why does the baby suck its thumb? If the unborn are not human beings, then where was Jesus during Mary’s pregnancy? Did he cease to exist for nine months? Now listen to what Martin Weber said in his own words:

Quote:

Scripture explicitly defends the right of preborn babies. If an assailant in Old Testament times struck a woman and caused to give birth prematurely, he was fined. But if that unborn life was lost, the sentence was death: “You shall appoint as penalty life for life.” (Ex. 21:23 NSAB). [68] To many atheists and agnostics, and unborn baby is just fetal tissue evolving in the womb--a symbol of the evolutionary process. Such a denial of life that God has granted violates the sixth commandment. Also the fourth. The Sabbath commandment requires respect for created life. Abortion, by sabotaging God’s life in the womb, undermines the Sabbath. . . . Feminists of the radical type warn, “Get your hands off my body!” Well, if God has seen fit to grant life to those babies in the womb, shouldn’t we get our hands off their little bodies?

From the above, Weber concludes that those involved with abortion are in fact usurping the prerogative that belongs to God. Does this imply that women do not have freedom of choice? In fact, they do. Nevertheless, by the time they get pregnant, they have already exercised their freedom of choice. They have chosen to engage in sexual activity, knowing full well that pregnancy is one of the natural results of said choice. Someone may ask: What about pregnancies resulting from rape and incest? What about the cases where the unborn suffers from congenital malformations, and what should we do if the life of the pregnant woman is threatened by the pregnancy. Weber thinks that while we debate about these special cases, we should do something about the 95 percent of elective abortions that plague our society.

Weber ended his article with an appeal to women going through a crisis pregnancy, and invited them to consider the advantages of making the right choice for them and their unborn babies. He also stated that George Lawson has opened a crisis pregnancy center called “Loving Options” [69] staffed with medical personnel volunteering their free time in order to assist women who wonder what the best course is for them and their unborn babies.

*Martin Weber’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Kit Watts

Reacting to Weber’s article discussed above, Kit Watts asked the poignant question about the role of men in abortion:

Quote:

The Writers of these articles happened to be all men. No matter how thoughtful, compassionate, or empathetic men are, the dilemma of an unwanted pregnancy is something they will never experience personally. . . . Weber asks this rhetorical question: “If the woman willingly engages in sex that results in conception, hasn’t she already exercised her freedom of choice?” I doubt it. Most literature suggests that males are the primary aggressors in such relationship. Is there some male culpability [70] in this matter? [71]

*Kit Watts’ position on abortion: Unknown.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Lyndon K. McDowell

Lyndon K. McDowell contacted Ministry to express his belief that the unborn does not have the same right to life as a breathing person. [72]

Quote:

I have yet to read a clear theological treatise that can prove that a developing fetus has the same rights as a living, breathing person. Ron Dupreez’s article was a good attempt, but I suggest that the final word on Exodus 21:22-25 has not been said. The contents of the passage and its historical/social associations would seem to support the traditional majority opinion--that the value of the fetus [73] is not on par with that of the mother. [74]

*Lyndon K. McDowell’s position on abortion: Unknown.


A Reader’s Opinion
by William L. Gutel

A non-SDA reader of the Ministry wrote wondering about the propriety of a Christian church emphasizing vegetarianism and Sabbath keeping while assuming a “cowardly” position on a life and death issue like abortion.

Quote:

It is really unforgivable that any denomination such as the Seventh-day Adventist Church has never taken a stand on abortion. Abortion is the greatest moral issue of three decades, and your church is silent! Why? Are you more content to talk about Saturday Sabbath and meatless meals than to be a true prophetic church? The “Ministry” editor’s “middle ground” approach to abortion reflects the Adventist Church’s concept of Christianity--the middle of the road, or sitting on the fence--a cowardly position that disgraces Christ and makes the church saltless in an ever-increasingly evil and immoral world. [75]

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


A Reader’s Opinion
by W. G. Dick

W. G. Dick submitted his opinion that killing is a sin, which is what should be emphasized:

Quote:

Everybody is talking the politics of pro-life and pro-choice, but nobody says much about the sin of killing. Here is where we should stand and be counted. [76]

*W. G. Dick’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Jim Anderson

Richard G. Habenicht expressed his opinion about abortion condemning the practice, but felt that in cases of rape or incest, the pregnant woman should be supported in whatever decision she opted for.

Quote:

When does human life begin? Martin Weber’s article brought this sharply into focus. Adding strength to the truth is the statement that John was indeed a baby while still in the womb, when Elizabeth filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41) spoke of the leaping of the baby in her womb. As to the “hard cases,” Scripture can help us here when we consider that by the Creator’s design, a new life results from two consenting individuals. A woman who is forced either by rape or incest should not be compelled by either the state or the church [77] to carry the pregnancy to term. [78] (Two wrongs don’t make a right!). However she should be lovingly supported, encouraged, and nurtured regardless of her “choice” in that situation. . . . As to the severely malformed or retarded, let’s face it, we are all defective. How can we sit in judgment as to who should live when it is within our ability to preserve life? [79] [Question mark supplied]

*Jim Anderson’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


Guidelines on Abortion
by J. David Newman

In 1992, Ministry printed the "Guidelines on Abortion" approved by the Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee. Some of the salient points of this document were and still are: 1. Human life is a gift of God, for which reason abortion should be considered only for the most serious reasons. 2. Attitudes of condemnation should be avoided and assistance should be provided to those considering crisis alternatives. 3. Assistance to women in crisis should be accompanied by education encouraging healthy family planning and sexual behavior. 4. The final decision regarding abortion should be made by the pregnant woman, especially if the pregnancy was the result of rape, incest, or in the event congenital malformation are present in the fetus or if there are threats to the life or mental health [80] of the pregnant woman. 5. Any attempt to coerce a woman to remain pregnant should be considered as infringement of women’s freedom. 6. Individuals having an ethical objection to abortion should not be required to assist in the performance of abortion.

These guidelines included a list of “Principles for a Christian View of Human Life.” Some of those principles are: 1. God is the source of life. 2. Human life has special value because humans were created in God’s image. 3. God values humans not on the basis of human contributions or accomplishments. 4. Self-sacrifice may take precedence over human life. 5. “God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction.” 6. God has a special concern for the “weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed.” 9. “God gives humanity the freedom of choice even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwilling to coerce obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.” [81]

*Seventh-day Adventist official position on abortion: Pro-choice. [82]


A Reader’s Opinion
by David Miceli

The implication of David Miceli’s comments published in Ministry was that the sixth commandment is as, or even more, relevant than the fourth one: [83]

Quote:

Our church has a moral responsibility to uphold God’s law. How can we realistically expect others to take our Sabbath message seriously when we have remained silent on the moral implications of the sixth commandment while millions of unborn children perish in our midst? Is it reasonable to anticipate that the Sabbath commandment, historically the most dispensable of the ten, will some day judge the sixth, arguably the most inviolate of the ten, without somehow having a moral imperative inherent within it? [84]

*David Miceli’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Alfred Lemmo

Alfred Lemmo wrote to express the following conviction: A. Humans have value regardless whether they are wanted or not by those who are more powerful. B. Abortion has increased sexual exploitation of women.

Quote:

The universal law is to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. But America is suffering for its failures to heed this law. Legal abortion has ruptured the ties that bind us, delivering the message that human lives have value only when wanted by those more powerful. This has deepened the alienation, anger, rebellion, and hopelessness that feed crime and other social ills. . . . Abortion easy availability has exposed young women and girls to increased sexual exploitation and subsequent coercion to use this deadly cover-up. [85]