Quote:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations. [10] Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you in the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things. [11]

“Abortion is a false Gospel,” affirmed Fredericks. It claims redemption through the shedding of innocent blood for the sins of the parents instead of relying on the blood shed by the Son of God. He cited Mother Teresa on the occasion of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, and the earliest non-biblical moral code the Didache:

Quote:

To me, the nations with legalized abortion are the poorest nations. The great destroyer of peace today is the crime against the innocent unborn child. … In destroying the child, we are destroying love, destroying the image of God in the world. [12] You will not kill. You will not have sex with other people’s spouses. You will not abuse young children. You will not have sex outside of marriage. You will not abort fetuses. [13][Italics supplied.]

Then Fredericks reminded his readers that Jesus was born into poverty, hardship, and suffering, which is evidenced by the nativity scene. Had Mary lived in our time, she would have been advised to seek an abortion. She was single, poor, and pregnant. God’s glory was revealed in the birth of Jesus in the midst of poverty and deprivation, bereft of the lifestyle we are accustomed to today, thus showing that the “love of money” is not the secret of happiness, but rather the “root of all evil;” and that “life does not consist in the abundance of . . . possessions.” [14]

The practice of abortion goes against the true Gospel, argued Fredericks, since most of the abortions are carried out prompted by economic reasons. Jesus did not say “Blessed are the rich,” but rather “Blessed are the poor.” Many argue that women have the right to decide what to do with their own body, forgetting that the Bible says that our bodies are not our own: “You are not your own; you were bought with a price; therefore, honor God with your body.” [15] He also suggested that it is often claimed that many of the unborn would be better off dead. Who gave this people their crystal ball? Can humans play God? asked Fredericks. He also stated:

Quote:

The greatest gospel singer of this century was the illegitimate daughter of a 16-year-old poor, black girl who was raped. Beethoven’s family background included a deranged father, a syphilitic mother, a mentally retarded older brother, and a sibling born blind. [16]

There is no doubt that Planned Parenthood would have advised Ludwig’s mother to have an abortion, Fredericks asserted. Given human’s inability to foresee the future, should SDA’s justify abortion on the basis of personal freedom? God respects personal freedom, no doubt, but there are serious consequences if we misuse said God-given freedom. Some Adventist preachers think that being pro-life may hasten the predicted curtailment of religious freedom for SDAs. Here is Fredericks’ response:

Quote:

Speculation about a future death decree should not make us actively participate in the present one. Surely, for the unborn of America, this is already a time of trouble such as has never been. [17]

Next, Fredericks related the experience of half a dozen students he had the privilege to counsel. They opted for an abortion for economic reasons, because they wanted to finish school, and in order to keep their relationship with their boyfriends and parents. The unexpected result was that two of them dropped school; others lost their boyfriends, lost contact with their relatives, or ended with terrible guilt feelings. In one case a girl would vomit every time she turned the vacuum cleaner on, causing her to experience flashbacks of her abortion experience; another girl wrote to Dr. Fredericks apologizing for her frequent absences from his classes because she felt so depressed she had a hard time concentrating and felt she was constantly in hell. Women do have the legal right to kill their unborn babies, but they lack God’s approval for such an action. Then Fredericks quoted Dr. John Willke who stated:

Quote:

It is easier to scrape the baby out of a woman’s womb than to scrape the memory of that baby out of her conscience.

Fredericks also related the story of a girl who repented of her life of sin, enrolled in school only to discover that she was pregnant. Her options were suicide, abortion, dropping out of school, or giving the baby for adoption. She opted for the last choice, but when the baby was born, she changed her mind and decided to keep the baby after all, but lacking any support from her parents, she had to drop school and moved out of her parent home in order to secure public assistance.

And Fredericks ended his article with the anecdote involving an older black Methodist pastor who was asked whether he believed that a sixteen-year-old girl was capable of raising a child. He responded that not even a 26-year-old woman was capable of raising a child alone. That is the reason we have churches. Then the black pastor added that after baptizing a newborn baby born to a young girl, he called an old couple and asked them to raise the baby, adding that he wanted them to raise the baby’s mother at the same time.

Considering all the pro-life arguments used by Richard Fredericks in defense of the unborn’s right to life, it would be improper to classify him as a member of the pro-choice crowd. Nevertheless, among the suggested guidelines for crisis pregnancies he proposed, he mentioned the following exception: anencephalic babies and fetuses diagnosed with fatal congenital defects. Pro-lifers would argue that the fact that a baby will eventually die does not justify depriving the poor little creature of the little life he/she has, and that it is not ethical to kill human beings just because they are going to die anyway. [18] A query was sent to Dr. Fredericks asking for a clarification, but no reply has been received yet.

*Richard Fredericks opinion on abortion: On hold pending clarification. [19]


When is Enough Enough?
By Gerald R. Winslow

In an article published by the Adventist Review in 2005 bearing the title “When is Enough Enough?” [20] Gerald R. Winslow [21] related how the Loma Linda University responded to a call from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists to become a leader in the area of ethics by establishing the Center for Christian Bioethics:

Quote:

In response to Wilson's call for leadership, Loma Linda University established the Center for Christian Bioethics, which opened its doors in January 1984. The founding director of the center, the late Dr. Jack Provonsha, with the aid of his colleagues, [comma supplied] professors David Larson and James Walters, created a place in which scholars can pursue research in all sectors of bioethics. During its two decades of service, the center has sponsored numerous national conferences, published nearly a dozen books, distributed a newsletter received by thousands of readers, consulted with church and hospital leaders, and hosted scores of ethics presentations at the university and its medical center. Now it is even possible for students at the university to earn a master's degree in biomedical ethics.

This development, according to Winslow, led to the creation of a Committee on the Christian View of Human Life in 1989, presided first by Dr. Albert Whiting and later on by Dr. Allan Handysides. This General Conference committee, composed of individuals from a variety of professions, including physicians, nurses, ethicists, psychologists, attorneys, and church leaders, worked for a decade and prepared guidelines on abortion, care of dying patients, cloning, genetic engineering, assisted human reproduction, as well as other issues related to bioethics.

In another article published by Spectrum entitled “Abortion Policies in Adventist Hospitals” [22] Winslow reported the result of a 1988 survey analyzing the practices of SDA hospitals located within the United States when dealing with abortion. Out of 51 hospitals, only 26 responded to the questionnaire, which is rather small to justify broad conclusions. Most of those that responded indicated that that their rules permit therapeutic abortions only--meaning when pregnancies are the result of rape, incest, malformations, or serious threats to the life or health of the pregnant woman. If other abortions are performed, they are done contrary to the official hospital policies.

Five of those hospitals indicated that elective abortions are permitted. Evidently there was confusion in the mind of the respondents between the meaning of “therapeutic” and “elective” abortions, which means that the survey results might be questionable. Four respondents stated that their hospitals do not allow any abortions at all, but one of them clarified that they do not have an obstetric department in the hospital. The survey results indicate that most of those that responded attempt to keep the moderate, middle ground attitude towards abortion procedures. Only one of those hospitals was still trying to abide by the original church guidelines adopted in 1970; the rest had adopted the more liberal revised guidelines.

The question that generated the most controversial responses asked whether the General Conference of Adventists should take an official position on abortion. Some felt that such an action would solve the problem, while others felt that hospitals should be free to design their own policies. Winslow is of the opinion that the second option is the best one subject to broad principles issued by the church. Based on this opinion of his, it would be safe to assume that Dr. Winslow’s attitude toward abortion is pro-choice. [23] For additional information about the thinking of Dr. Winslow, see Chapters V & VIII of this study.

*Gerald R. Winslow on abortion: Pro-choice.


Whose Baby Is This, Anyway?
by Jack Provonsha

In August 1991 Spectrum published the article “Whose Baby Is This, Anyway?” written by Jack Provonsha, Emeritus professor of Christian Ethics at Loma Linda University at the time of publication. In it he discussed the moral dilemmas resulting from reproductive technology and artificial insemination. How should Seventh-day Adventists respond to the new emerging technology with in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood? The Bible tells us, he argued, that human beings were created in the image of God, and Ellen G. White adds that the image of God entails the “power to think and to do.” [24] This definition of the image of God provides us with the basic principle of personhood--actual and potential. Human technology must be judged on the basis of whether it enhances or diminishes this human image of God.

Provonsha wondered whether surrogate parenthood enhances the image of God by strengthening the bond between husband and wife established by heaven. He told the story of a female woman married to an infertile husband who was being deprived of the joys of motherhood. She accosted a man in the apartment they lived and asked him to father the baby she wanted, and she claimed that such an act of kindness was acceptable to her husband. The man refused to accept the proposition because it would violate his religious commitments. How does this differ from surrogate parenthood? The only difference seems to be the intimate physical contact between the parties.

What about artificial insemination? Pope Pius XII accorded his blessing to this reproductive technique provided no moral law had been broken, but this requires masturbation for securing the husbands semen, which is forbidden by the Catholic church, and more so if the semen comes from a donor--implying that the adultery prohibition had been breached. The Bible tells us that through marriage the two become one, but if three are involved in the procreation process how can we say that the three become one? This in turn affects the enhancement of human personhood, for which reason Provonsha thinks that surrogate parenthood does not agree with a biblical view of procreation and the image of God human beings were blessed with.

Since this article does not deal directly with the moral problem of abortion, it would be difficult to determine Dr. Provonsha’s attitude towards this controversial issue. [25]

*Jack Provonsha’s attitude towards abortion: Unknown.


The Hardest of the “Hard Cases:” Rape and Saving the Life of the Mother
by Teresa Beem

Spectrum published in 1989 an article written by Teresa Beem entitled “The Hardest of the ‘Hard Cases’: Rape and Saving the Life of the Mother.” [26] The content of this document is similar to the material contained in the one listed under her name in Chapter VIII of this report bearing an analogous title. For this reason the redundant information will not be included here. In this document Beem described what happened at a conference sponsored by the Loma Linda University Ethics Department in which participants from a diverse background submitted their written opinions on the subject of abortion.

David Larson, the director of the ethics center, chaired the meeting, and right from the beginning Larson made it clear that the purpose of the conference was not to decide on a statement on abortion, but rather to freely discuss a diversity of attitudes toward the controversial issue. By the end of the conference, it became obvious that the majority were in favor of a middle ground approach to abortion. Larson also indicated that his preference was to allow a consensus to emerge rather than try to impose an official position on everybody.

Right from the start, Beem made her position on abortion unambiguous by asserting that she is definitely pro-life, that she is opposed to bombing abortion clinics, and that she believes that human life is a God-given gift that both the church and the state should diligently protect. Since God is the one who created human life, he is the only one with the right to take it. She reminded her readers about the far-reaching implications of the 1973 Supreme Court decision dealing with abortion:

Quote:

Roe vs. Wade and its twin case Doe vs. Bolton legalized abortion for any reason at any time during the woman’s nine months of pregnancy. Of these, 97 to 99 percent are done for social or emotional reasons. Most Americans agree that these abortions are useless genocide and should be halted. [27]

At the same time, Beem stated that she is opposed to therapeutic abortions performed for victims of rape, incest, fetus malformations, and even when the life or health of the pregnant woman is at risk. To read the dramatic account of several girls who had to deal with abortion under extremely difficult circumstances, go to the analysis of the article that bears her name in Chapter VIII of this study.

*Teresa Beem’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Modest Proposal
by Madelyn Jones-Haldeman

“A Modest Proposal” is the title of an article written by Madelyn Jones-Haldeman, who was a Loma Linda University professor of New Testament Studies at the time this article was published by Spectrum in 1989. [28] Haldeman suggested several solutions to the abortion problem: A. Male sterilization when a couple has reached the desired number of children. B. Sterilization of all men who have deposited enough semen at a sperm bank to insure that the couple will be able to have all the children they desire. C. Sterilization of all boys who have reached the age of puberty and have made the required deposits at a sperm bank. These solutions would eliminate the need to legislate sexual activity [29] and no woman would run the risk of getting pregnant as a result of rape, and all children would be wanted.

At the end of this modest proposal, Haldeman made a call to all male Christian theologians to do whatever is in their power to implement the creation of the needed legislation in order to place the responsibility of solving the abortion problem on the shoulders of men, who in most cases are the ones responsible for the eventual destruction of human life associated with the unwise and irresponsible sexual activity. This modest proposal by Haldeman is full of irony, but it is difficult to determine whether she is pro-life or pro-choice. She fails to state her attitude towards abortion given the present circumstances under which society operates.

*Madelyn Jones-Haldeman’s position on abortion: Unknown.


Adventists, Abortion and the Bible
By John C. Brunt

Spectrum published another article dealing with the controversial issue of abortion in 1989 written by John C. Brunt, who was the dean of the School of Theology at Wala Wala College at the time of publication of his article. The document seems to be an abridged version of the one included in the book edited by David Larson Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options that is analyzed in the next chapter of the present study. Both the title, “Adventists, Abortion and the Bible,” [30] and subtitle match almost perfectly, and the content seem to be the same, for which reason a summary of Brunt’s arguments will be omitted in this chapter. Suffice it to say that Brunt’s emphasis is on the alleged silence of the Bible on the topic of abortion. [31]

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


Abortion: Some Questionable Arguments
by Timothy Crosby

Timothy Crosby was a researcher and producer at the Voice of Prophecy at the time of publication of his article bearing the title “Abortion: Some Questionable Arguments” [32] by Spectrum in 1989. A close examination of the material contained in this document reveals that it is an abridged version of the original article with the same title listed in Chapter VIII of this study, for which reason a detailed summary will not be included here. Nevertheless, a link is provided in the event the reader might desire to access it.

*Timothy Crosby’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


“The Wisdom of Solomon”?
by George Gainer

Responding to David Larson’s call for papers on abortion, George Gainer wrote a pro-life document dealing with abortion entitled “The Wisdom of Solomon?” It was presented at the “Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options” conference on abortion held in Loma Linda on November 1988. The total number of documents presented on said occasion was 36, but only sixteen of those were included in the book edited by David Larson bearing the same title as the conference. Gainers submission was not included, [33] but eventually Spectrum Magazine published an abridged version of Gainer’s article [34] in 1989.

Gainer started his article with the story of a non-Adventist pastor and his wife who were in search of a Christian physician and landed in the office of a Takoma Park, Maryland, Seventh-day Adventist obstetrician who, after confirming the woman’s pregnancy, asked the couple: “Do you want this baby or do you want an abortion?” The pastor and his wife looked at each other with shock and disbelief. They got up, said “We are sorry. We must be in the wrong place!” and walked out. Responding to a question from his audience in which he related this incidence, the pastor made the following statement: “I am sorry to tell you that the Seventh-day Adventists are aborting hundreds of babies in their hospitals.” Six months later, a Washington Adventist Hospital [WAH] nurse complained to Gainer: “Some doctors treat us like their own private abortion clinic.”

This was confirmed by a Washington Post report claiming that 1494 abortions had been performed between 1975 and 1982 at the WAH according to information provided by the SDA hospital. The article was prompted by a pro-life manifestation in front of the Sligo Church and the WAH. Gainer’s investigation into the SDA position on abortion revealed that a great step towards the liberalization of abortion had taken place in Hawaii, following the repeal of the State’s abortion laws in 1970. Castle Memorial Hospital [CMH], an SDA institution, had previously performed therapeutic abortions when pregnancy was the result of rape, incest, or when there was a threat to the physical or mental health of the patient.

Shortly after the repeal of the abortion prohibition was passed by the State of Hawaii, a man who had donated $25,000 for the construction of the hospital came demanding that the hospital perform an elective abortion for his 16-year-old daughter. He produced the copy of a brochure that read as follows: “This hospital will be a full service hospital and will provide every service that is needed by the residents of the community.” The hospital administrator contacted the office of the Pacific Union, and the query eventually reached the General Conference in Washington. It was discovered that the SDA church had no official position on the abortion issue, and the hospital decided to issue a temporary ruling allowing elective abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Soon after the General Conference officers appointed a committee to study the abortion issue, and on March 17, 1970, Neal C. Wilson, the President of the North American Division made a public statement announcing that the church would neither promote nor support the legalization of abortion, with the following clarification: “Though we walk the fence, SDA’s lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted with big problems of hunger and over-population, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population.” [35] On May of the same year the General Conference officers approved the “Suggestive Guidelines for Therapeutic Abortions,” but the plan to submit this to a vote by the 1970 General Conference session was dropped.

Some felt that the guidelines were not liberal enough, and thought that the right solution was to allow SDA hospitals to provide abortion on demand. The pressure came from half a dozen non-Adventists CMH physicians, and the hospital administrator feared that those doctors would likely take their patients to other competing hospitals in the event they were not allowed to perform said abortions on demand at CMH, which would mean a loss of revenue for CMH. He also felt that the SDA hospital should align their policies with the wishes of the community--which had contributed approximately one million dollars to the hospital--and the laws of the state.

He had one problem, though: the rest of the doctors at the hospital were opposed to the liberalization of the abortion policies, for which reason he finally appealed to the General Conference requesting for a ruling on the matter. Several committees studied the problem and much confusion ensued. The result was that during the rest of 1970 and 1971 two divergent versions of the guidelines on abortion were circulating, and each hospital was allowed to interpret those guidelines at wish, which allowed CMH to offer abortion on demand.

The stricter version of the guidelines was used for public consumption, and the liberalized version for the use of the SDA hospitals. “Not until 1986 did any church publication print for church members the more permissive 1971 guidelines.” After citing several pro-life quotations on abortion by SDA pioneers such as James White, J.N. Andrews, and John Henry Kellogg, [36] George Gainer ended his article with the following comment:

Quote:

The difference in the position on abortion between the founders of Adventism and our present policy, and the difference, all too often, between our policy and actual practice in our Adventist hospitals understandably leads to a rising concern among a growing number of Adventists. Should a church that claims to “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” continue to remain confused or even neutral about abortion? Perhaps a sign carried by a protester in front of Sligo Seventh-day Adventist church on October 5, 1985, sums up the urgency of this issue for the church. It read: “Adventists--Remember the Sixth Commandment too!”

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


Christianity and Abortion [37]
by Jim Miller

John Miller wrote for Adventist Today a commentary dealing with the only biblical text connected with abortion: Exodus 21:22-25. A text that can be interpreted as recognizing the fetus as either property, or else entitled to legal standing of its own. It all depends on the way the text is translated. The New Revised Version of the Bible text reads as follows:

Quote:

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Miller explained that the contradictory way this biblical text has been interpreted throughout history is due to the different rendering of the text in both the Hebrew and the Greek versions of the Bible.

Quote:

The problem is that we have two readings of the text: the Hebrew and the Greek. The Hebrew reading has “If there is harm,” while the Greek Septuagint reads, “If there is form.” Most commentators interpret “harm” to refer to the woman, while “form” would rather apply to the fetus, in which case the “life for life” would apply to the fetus and not the mother. Josephus equated both abortion and infanticide with murder, and so did Philo of Alexandria and the Greek speaking Jews who relied on the Septuagint translation of the Bible. “By the time Jerome restored the Hebrew reading of Exodus 21:22-25 through his Latin translation, the church position against abortion had gained a life of its own and was in no way dependent on biblical texts.” [38]

It is difficult to determine John Miller’s position on abortion from his commentary on this Exodus passage. It might be opportune to mention, though, that regardless of which way this biblical passage is interpreted, it would be rather irrelevant, since in Moses time slavery, genocide, and polygamy were condoned, while today those practices are considered immoral. Besides, Jesus repeated six times in his sermon on the mount: “It has been said . . . but I say unto you,” [39] implying by this statement that some of the Mosaic rulings were no longer valid. And we must add that the NIV version of the Bible reads "gives birth prematurely" instead of "miscarriage," which agrees with a pro-life position:

Quote:

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you re to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot . . .

*John Miller’s position on abortion: Unknown


Edward Allred in the Pulpit
By Christopher Zehnder

In 1998 Christopher Zehnder told the story of how Edward Allred ended in an interview in front of a Christian congregation. The inclusion of abortion clinic magnate Edward Allred in this study is due to several factors: A. He joined the SDA church at a young age. B. He received a Seventh-day Adventist education, including an M.D. degree from Loma Linda University. C. He owns and operates Family Planning Associates, the largest abortion clinic chain in California. [40]

Christopher Zehnder, pastor of His Nesting Place, located in Downey, California, interviewed Allred live in front of a Christian congregation. Allred admitted that at one time he seriously thought about becoming a SDA minister, but is glad he did not, since it would have proved to be a disaster. When asked about any guilt feeling for taking the life of the unborn, he responded that he was providing a needed service to the community and that all the moral responsibility for the decision to abort was not his but rather that of the pregnant women. He expressed his support for the practice of abortion on the basis of population control, [41] but he acknowledged that most abortions are performed for convenience. When asked about second trimester abortions, this is how he responded:

Quote:

Second trimester abortion is ... a much more difficult question than first trimester, both from the standpoint of the difficulty of it, the medical responsibility on the part of the operator for it, and, as far as I'm concerned, from the philosophical. You may say, “Oh no, there's no difference at all between an embryo, 15 seconds after it's fertilized, and a fetus at 24 weeks' gestation.” I can't go for that. I think there's a vast difference. A vast difference in every way. But there is a tremendous psychological burden, a moral burden, everything else, on the physician who is involved in late second trimester abortion. I'm not too sure that the Supreme Court did not err in their opinion when they basically gave a carte blanche for second trimester abortion, up to the state of viability.

Nevertheless, Allred admitted that he performed second trimester abortions, in spite of the fact that he felt it was inappropriate, because if he refused to do so, women would seek such service elsewhere. He also stated that he hoped that one day the morning-after pills would make it unnecessary for women to seek abortions anymore; and if that would take place, he wouldn’t mind if his abortion services would no longer be needed. In connection with Dr. Allred’s relationship with the SDA church, Daniel Nichols had this to say in a Catholic web site:

Quote:

And note that the Seventh Day Adventist teaching hospitals have been in the forefront of developing abortion techniques; some of the most infamous abortionists have been SDA [California's Allred, for example]. Years ago I was denouncing this to an SDA friend, a kindly old man who ran the local health food store. He was sad that his faith's hospitals did abortions, considered it a sort of apostasy. "Yes, and not only that", he said, "Many of them actually serve coffee!" I mean, abortion is bad, but coffee! [42]

Someone might think that Dr. Allred’s position on abortion should be placed in the Pro-abortion category, but due to his slight dissatisfaction with the abortion business, and his dissatisfaction with the performance of second-trimester abortions, he probably belongs among those defending the pro-choice position on abortion. He seems to be of the opinion that women are entitled to make a choice about abortion, and that they are the ones responsible for such choices. [43]

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


Abortion Answers and Attitudes
by John V. Stevens, Sr.

Perhaps the strongest defense of the practice of abortion by a SDA leader was written by John V. Stevens, Sr., who was occupying the position of Pacific Union Conference Public Affairs/Religious Liberty Director at the time of publication of his article entitled “Abortion Answers and Attitudes” by the Pacific Union Recorder in 1990. Here is one of the arguments he advanced to justify the killing of the unborn:

Quote:

The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ valued choice over life. . . . [44] Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator--individuality, power to think and to do. (Education, page 17) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person. . . . [45]Pregnancy, abortion, birth, life and death, can all be traumatic. Others have no authority over our consciences in regard to our response to life crucial events. The Holy Spirit is the only True Guardian of the conscience. To allow society--or the state--or the church--or even the family-- to replace the Holy Spirit is to be guided by the spirit of the anti-Christ. . . . [46] From the perspective of respect for God's Word, Biblical history, and the fundamental principle of free moral agency, the Adventist church could justify adopting a pro-choice position. [47]

It is interesting to notice the similarity between Stevens’ argument justifying abortion and one of the statements included in the official SDA “Guidelines on Abortion” referred to in Chapter IX of this study:

Quote:

God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and ultimately will judge their misuse. [48]

*John V. Stevens, Sr. position on abortion: Pro-abortion.


Abortion in Our changing World
by Harold F. Ziprick

Harold F. Ziprick wrote an article in 1971 entitled “Abortion in Our changing World” [49] that was published by Spectrum. In it he described the recent altered attitude towards abortion manifested by a large segment of American physicians as well as the general public. At the same time, those opposed to the liberalization of abortion felt that this was a slippery slope that would eventually lead to the cheapening of human life.

Ziprick described how many women seeking abortion services were feigning psychiatric symptoms, knowing that psychiatrists could be easily swayed into approving abortions on psychiatric grounds. This situation prompted a request from hospital administrators for guidance from the church leaders at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. A “suggestive outline for therapeutic abortion” was generated and sent to SDA hospitals in 1970 advising consultation with an abortion committee whose responsibility was to establish procedures to be followed in abortion cases in line with the standards of the community and the local church. [50]

At the Loma Linda University, some were insisting that abortion should be restricted to the most severe cases, while others felt that the plight of women in distress should be taken into account. Some were arguing that abortion should be justified in the case of rape and incest, while others were insisting that in many cases the continuation of pregnancy would harm the mental health of the pregnant woman. [51]

Ziprick analyzed many questions connected with the abortion controversy: Should physicians who are trained to preserve human life participate in ending the life of the unborn? Is it proper for those physicians who think that abortion is wrong attempt to influence their fellow professionals? Should doctors discuss with their patients the alternatives open to them before an abortion is performed? Ziprick reminded his readers that Jesus did not engage in condemnation of those he dealt with, but rather limited to advise them not to repeat their mistakes. [52]

Next Ziprick contrasted the attitude of SDAs who, on the basis of the sixth commandment which forbids killing, refuse to bear arms in the military, but willingly participate in the killing of the unborn, while Catholics have no problem with bearing arms in combat, but refuse to provide abortions to their patients. Then Ziprick asked whether it was fair for men to design and implement policies regarding abortion when in fact abortion affects women more than men. [53] Ziprick ended his article with the following comment:

Quote:

The decision to take the life of the fetus should not be taken hurriedly. The decision to sacrifice an unborn life should be made only when it is the best way to make a troubled life tolerable. [54]

This last statement by Ziprick places him on the pro-choice camp. Pregnancy is an inconvenience for the woman, while abortion makes life impossible for the developing baby. Nine months of inconvenience for the woman can never balance the total deprivation of life for the baby. Giving the baby up for adoption represents a solution that does not require the shedding of innocent blood. Forgiveness is available for those women who have made the wrong choice, but we need to help them make the right choice, and avoid becoming an accomplice in the killing of the unborn.

*Harold F. Ziprick’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


The Nurse and Abortion
by R. Maureen Maxwell and Clarice J. Woodward

An article published by Spectrum in 1971 bears the title “The Nurse and Abortion.” [55] The authors are R. Maureen Maxwell and Clarice J. Woodward. The first question the authors of this document asked was: Since the decision to perform an abortion is made by physicians, and the responsibility to issue the policies governing the same falls on the shoulders of civil and religious authorities, then why should nurses participate in the discussion about the morality of abortion? They felt that the answer is based on the following considerations: