Quote:

My involvement with abortion is largely in the setting of the “doomed” fetus. Most of these pregnancies are wanted and desired, yet the fetus has such major malformations or abnormalities that it cannot survive outside the uterus. It is from this context that I approach the issue of abortion. I realize this is in stark contrast to the vast majority of elective abortions performed in this country and around the world: pregnancies that although unplanned, unwanted, and undesired, yet have normal developing fetuses. [8]

This statement by Dr. Sakala is significant. He seemed to establish a contrast between the abortions performed by other practitioners and his limited involvement with hard cases dealing with malformations. This places him among the pro-choice group right from the start, since he does perform abortions. Then he says:

Quote:

Since one of the key figures in an abortion is the fetus, it is appropriate to examine who or what is being aborted. The term “products of conception” or “POC” is a generic medical phrase often used when abortion is being discussed. Use of the term POC serves a useful purpose, when dealing with spontaneous abortions, to collectively designate the residual uterine contents, including placental fragments, chorionic and amniotic membranes, and remnants of fetal tissue. This same phrase, “products of conception,” however, is now also used in dealing with elective induced abortions of intact fetuses. Employment of this euphemism avoids reference to the fetus and provides a surgical context for the abortion. The expression, however, tends to downplay and obscure the striking and exquisite development of even a first trimester fetus. Even early abortion procedures do not involve formless blobs of protoplasm but delicate, finely orchestrated embryological processes following a sequence meticulously devised by the Creator Himself. [9]

Evidently, Sakala felt uncomfortable with the use of euphemisms utilized by the defenders of abortion, which tend to downplay the moral value of the unborn. Then he proceeded to define the beginning of human life, which the SDA Church has chosen to leave in limbo: [10] “Human development begins, stated Sakala, when the sex cell from the female, an ovum, is fertilized by the sex cell from the male, a sperm.” [11] Nevertheless, we should not assign too much weight to this seemingly pro-life statement, since he later contrasts the beginning of human life with the onset of personhood. Next he made reference to the incipient formation of body parts at the time most abortions are performed:

Quote:

At the end of the fourth week from conception one can identify the primordial of the eye, the ear, the limbs and the heart. The embryo is half an inch long and is developing fore-and hind limbs as paddle-shaped buds. At this stage the embryo can be visualized with high resolution ultrasound imaging and cardiac motion can be identified. [12]

This is highly significant because for a long time those who justified the pro-abortion position argued that what was being aborted lacked the markers of humanity, and because “Ninety percent of abortions are performed in the first 10 weeks from fertilization.” [13] To these observations might be added the fact that most women do not become aware of their pregnancy until after there is a heart in the developing baby, and the function of a heart is to pump blood, which means that there are probably no bloodless abortions. Does this imply that a person is being destroyed when an abortion is performed? Here is what Dr. Sakala had to say:

Quote:

A key ethical question is “When in reproductive development does a new “person” exist?” Over the millennia many “moments” of metamorphosis have been suggested: fertilization--with formation of a new unique genotype; implantation--with direct vascular contact with the mother; fetogenesis--when the embryo becomes a fetus; cerebrogenesis--with the onset of brain-wave activity; quickening--with perception by the mother of fetal movement; delivery--with physical severance of the newborn from its mother; respiration--with breath of life entering the newborn. [14]

Sakala made an effort to distinguish between human life, which he labels as “human tissue,” and a person. The apparent logical implication seemed to be that destroying human life is morally different from destroying a person. This distinction might not be so clear to those in the pro-life camp, for whom the clear demarcation between a human being and a person is non-existent. Not so for Dr. Sakala:

Quote:

The uniting of the DNA contributed by both ovum and sperm result in the formation of a unique gene sequence within the nucleus of a conceptus that over time will develop into a functioning human being. But is the zygote human tissue or a human person? . . . While the zygote does represent the first step in the cascade of development that will lead to a new person, in my judgment, the zygote is not yet either a potential person or a new person. . . . Any disruption of the reproductive process prior to implantation I consider as contraception, not abortion. [15]

For him, implantation represents a crucial step in the development of a human being. He suggests that prior to implantation we do not have a person, nor even a human being, but rather a zygote. Pro-lifers might wonder what makes the zygote inhuman prior to implantation, since there is no alteration of said “human tissue” at the moment of implantation. Then Sakala added the following comment:

Quote:

Although abortion should never be undertaken thoughtlessly regardless of the stage of pregnancy, the further in gestation the pregnancy has progressed, the weightier the reasons for abortion should be. [16] However, delivery of even an immature or premature fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy would be justified if extreme maternal risks are present. Late abortion, in the presence of a fetus with increasing potential personhood, is justified when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. [17]

Contrary to his assertion, pro-lifers would likely reject Sakala’s justification of abortion when the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or when congenital defects are detected in the unborn; but the most problematic statement by Sakala for pro-lifers would probably be the one dealing with abortions performed on behalf of women claiming that the pregnancy is impacting their mental health:

Quote:

Even the most vigorous opponents of abortion generally agree that morally acceptable reasons for abortion include: (1) rape, (2) incest, and (3) jeopardy to the woman’s life. . . . [18] It appears artificial to accept only physical threats to a woman’s life and health as legitimate indications for abortion but not recognize psychosocial threats. . . . [19] Once it is clear the fetus has no chance of extrauterine survival, I believe it is morally justified to offer a mother the option of aborting the ‘doomed’ fetus regardless of gestational age. [20]

* Elmar P. Sakala’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


2. Adventists, Abortion and the Bible
by John C. Brunt

John C. Brunt, Vice President for Academic Administration at Walla Walla College, authored the second presentation entitled “Adventists, Abortion and the Bible,” [21] selected for publication in this book edited by Larson. Right at the beginning of his discussion, Brunt made it clear that his objective was not to express his opinion on the controversial issue of abortion:

Quote:

The purpose of the study is not to offer a position on the question of abortion itself. It is rather to lay some hermeneutical foundation on which future discussion may build. [22]

Brunt began his presentation by making a reference to the frequency of publications on the subject in the SDA periodicals. This is significant, since following the publication of this book the number of articles published by the SDA media seems to have come to a sudden halt.

Quote:

For almost two decades Adventist periodicals (especially Ministry and Spectrum) have, with moderate frequency, included discussions and debates on the problem of abortion. It is hardly surprising, given the Adventist commitment to the authority of Scripture, to find that the Bible plays a prominent role in these discussions. [23]

Brunt then proceeded to talk about the apparent Biblical silence on the issue of abortion, which can be used to buttress opposing conclusions. He mentioned Harold Ziprick, a physician who “used the Bible silence to argue against hard and fast prohibitions of all ‘therapeutic’ abortions.” [24] At the other extreme, he cited the opinion of Richard Muller who used the Bible silence by arguing: “The thought of abortion is so foreign to Judeo-Christian thought that it is not even mentioned in Scripture.” [25]

Next, Brunt mentioned that James Londis “is on safer ground when he uses the silence of the Bible to argue for tolerance and warns against those on either side of the issue becoming dogmatic and judgmental.” [26] And he also included the reaction of those who flatly deny that the Bible is really silent on this issue: “The Bible speaks to all important topics; abortion is an important topic; therefore the Bible speaks to abortion.” [27] Perhaps we should ask Brunt the following question: Slavery and polygamy are important subjects, and the Bible speaks about these moral issues. Can we conclude from what the Bible says about these topics that the practice of slavery and polygamy are wrong?

Brunt then mentioned the opinions of those SDAs who argue that the Bible is a source of moral rules that preclude the use of violence against the innocent. The classic example is the Commandment that reads: “You shall not murder.” [28] There seems to exist a clear contrast between executing a criminal, whose guilt has been established, and taking the life of the unborn that has done no wrong. Less clear is the biblical passage imposing a monetary penalty for a miscarriage resulting from acts of violence. [29] No matter which way the injunction is interpreted, it would be hard to apply said biblical text to abortion, since there is a difference between the accidental and the intentional harm or even death of the fetus.

Brunt agrees with Gerald Winslow that there is no clear biblical reference to the precise moment the personhood of the developing baby is established, in spite of the numerous biblical references revealing “God’s purpose for specific individuals while they were still in the womb. These include Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), John the Baptist (Luke 1), and Paul (Gal. 1:15)” and “Jesus’ warning against despising ‘little ones’ in Matthew 18:10.” [30] He also made reference to the divergent interpretation of principles dealing with individual freedom and the almost universal SDA agreement that in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape, it is difficult to determine who the victim is: the young woman or the unborn baby. [31]

In his concluding remarks, Brunt stated the following: “Respect for the Bible’s agenda includes respect for its silence. We must allow it to be silent when it is silent. The Bible simply does not give a clear, unambiguous answer to the problem of abortion.” [32] This final comment of his, plus his agreement with Gerald Winslow that there is no clear biblical reference to the precise moment a baby is endowed with personhood would place him among those on the pro-choice camp. This last reference is significant because it echoes what the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1973 claiming that the unborn had no legal right to personhood, and thus no legal protection against abortion. [33]

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


3. A Biblical Perspective on Abortion
by Niels-Erik Andreasen, Jr.

Niels-Erik Andreasen, Jr., President of Walla Walla College, is the author of the third chapter entitled “A Biblical Perspective of Abortion” [34] of the book under consideration. He started with a quotation from Shakespeare’s Macbeth: “The sleeping, and the death, are but as pictures . . . Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?” The unborn could be thought of as a picture of “what may become a person,” but the result of abortion includes spilt blood. Like those who preceded him, Andreasen began with some definitely pro-life statements: “Moreover, the emerging life was considered human throughout the process. Thus a pregnant woman is said to be with child (Amos 1:13).”

He then proceeded to present the opposing interpretations of the biblical passage alluding to the unintended miscarriage resulting from violence described in Exodus 21:22-25, and seemed to side with those who think that the Bible assigns more value to the life of the mother than that of the fetus. He then made reference to the Hammurabi Code which imposed “a much larger fine” for harm done to the fetus of a woman of a higher class than that of a commoner, and which demanded life for life only in the case of a member of nobility.

He further examined several biblical passages suggesting that under certain instances non-existence is preferable to life: “Nevertheless, the Bible does seem to recognize that under certain circumstances life in this world can be so distorted that not only death but non-existence seems preferable.” In support of this position, he cited the following biblical references: Matt. 24:19; Job 3:11; and Jer. 20:17, where Jesus lamented the plight of pregnant women fleeing from the Romans, and where both Job and Jeremiah expressed the wish they had been either aborted or died after birth. [35]

He cited several examples that might “warrant interruption of the pregnancy for the sake of the unborn life and its parents” such as rape, incest and pregnancy resulting from “intercourse between totally incompetent individuals.” Pro-lifers would argue that the Bible, no doubt, includes references to individuals who, under extreme stress, wished they had never been born; nevertheless, concluding that their life was worthless would be stretching our credulity. In the case of Judas, someone might propose that his life was a mistake, but how can error-prone mortals determine the outcome of a human life at its inception? Is it safe for mortals to play the role of the Life-Giver?

*Niels-Erik Andreasen’s position on abortion: Pro-choice


4. Abortion: Some Questionable Arguments
by Timothy Crosby

Timothy Crosby, Vice President for Academic Administration at Walla Walla College, wrote the next chapter entitled “Abortion: Some Questionable Arguments,” [36] of the book edited by Larson. He started his presentation by admitting the puzzling fact that neither the Bible nor Ellen G. White discussed the problem of abortion. But he reminded us that abortion “is forbidden in the Oath of Hippocrates (460-357 B.C.), and condemned by Jewish historian Josephus, and the Christian “Didache” document.

Quote:

I swear by Apollo Physician, by Asclepius, by Health, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that . . . I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pesary to cause abortion. [37] The law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus; a woman convicted of this is regarded as an infanticide, because she destroys a soul and diminishes the race. [38] The earliest non-canonical Christian documents take a firm stand against abortion. Didache 2:2 forbids abortion along with murder, adultery, pederasty, fornication, theft, magic, and witchcraft. It is also forbidden in the epistle of Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, and Tertullian. [39]

Regarding the question of when human life begins, Crosby affirmed that the Bible does not provide us with a clear answer; but if it did, it would not help much either for the simple reason that the sacred text assigns less value to the life of a slave than that of a free man, and because today’s society condemns what the Bible didn’t: slavery and polygamy. Crosby also states:

Quote:

The pro-life position that life begins at conception is untenable. Clearly, life begins before conception. The unfertilized egg is alive … I do not believe that human life begins at conception. It began in Eden. … The question is not “When does life begin?” but ‘When does personhood begin? [40]

Crosby denied the idea that “it is possible to murder something that has no heart, no heartbeat, no brain, and no brainwaves--the state of the early embryo.” [41] Perhaps murder is not the appropriate word for describing the abortion of an embryo; nevertheless, Crosby did not ask whether it is morally right to take the life of a human individual at this early stage of development. He did answer, though, the argument that a woman has the right to control her own body with the following counter argument:

Quote:

This argument does not even stand up from the logical standpoint, much less a scriptural one. As far as Scripture is concerned, our bodies are not our own (1 Cor. 6:19-20). From a logical standpoint, the embryo is not part of the mother’s body. [42]

As far as potentiality is concerned, Crosby did not deny the moral value of the embryo, but he suggested that “potential things are less valuable than actual things. A potential election winner does not have the same rights as an actual election winner.” [43] Crosby added that such potential might possess either a positive value or a negative one:

Quote:

Jesus said of Judas that “it were better for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24, Mark 14:21). Thus the proper reply to the argument “What if the mother of Beethoven had an abortion?” is “What if the mother of Hitler had one.” [44]

Next Crosby cited Henri Leridon who estimated “that 56 percent of all embryos spontaneously abort” [45] usually due to the presence of some abnormality in them, and that anencephalic children usually die shortly after birth. [46] Pro-lifers would likely answer that doctors should not “play God,” but Crosby adds that judges “play God” every day by making difficult decisions. He also cited Ellen G. White who defined the image of God as “the power to think and to do,” a capacity not present in an embryo. [47] Towards the end of his presentation, Crosby made the following statements:

Quote:

While abortion may be justified in some cases of rape, incest, abnormality, [48] etc., such cases account for only one or two percent of all abortions. Rape pregnancy is very rare. The number of pregnancies in any given year in the Unites States as a result of rape is probably under 100. . . . The vast majority of abortions are elective. [49] A woman may freely choose to have intercourse or not. If intercourse has been forced upon her, she should not be forced to continue a resulting pregnancy. However, once a man or woman has freely chosen to enter into sexual relationship, he or she cannot freely choose to reject the responsibilities that come with that privilege. Even though I find it impossible to accept the idea that the embryo is a person immediately after conception, I oppose all abortions of convenience at any time after conception. [50] While I am opposed to the black-and-white, all-or-nothing position, I believe that the vast majority of abortions done today are wrong. I do not believe church institutions should have any part in this cheapening of life. I hope the church will take a stand against elective abortions, [51] and cease to impair its credibility by ignoring the moral climate regarding such issues. [52]

In spite of Crosby’s many pro-life arguments, given his clear statements justifying certain types of abortions, his position needs to be classified as pro-choice. Crosby represents a classic example of someone who sounds very much like a pro-lifer, but turns out to be a pro-choice individual under closer examination.

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


5. The View of Harvey Kellogg on Abortion
by Dalton Baldwin

Dalton Baldwin, Professor of Christian Theology at Loma Linda University, authored the fifth chapter, bearing the title “The View of Harvey Kellogg on Abortion,” [53] of the book we are examining. Dalton described how Dr. Kellogg, who “developed the Battle Creek Sanitarium into an internationally known health institution,” did become in the process the “best known Seventh-day Adventist in the world.” [54] Kellogg joined the American Medical Association crusade against abortion which flourished between 1857 and 1880, and he used the following adjectives to describe his opinion about the practice of abortion: “awful crime of murder,” “heinous crime of criminal abortion,” “horrible crime,” “the most revolting of all crimes against human life,” “terrible crime,” and “unnatural crime.” [55]

As a crusader against abortion, he believed that education and the pulpit [56] were the most effective methods of reaching the objective of diminishing the incidents of abortion. Here is a sample of the arguments he used in his writings:

Quote:

Would to God that we could place before the mind of every woman in the land a picture of the evils of this awful crime, the sacrilege, the profanity, the worse than brutish cruelty of this crime against God, against the race, against nature, and against the perpetrator, a picture so vivid in coloring, so horrifying in its hideousness, that it would make an impression ineffaceable by any of the selfish and frivolous considerations usually urged as reasons justifying the act. [57]

Kellogg believed, according to Baldwin, that the main culprits for the practice of abortion were males, since he had no doubt that women consented to sexual activity to please men and not as a result of their own desires: “Since sexual desire is primarily a male quality, males are most responsible.” [58] He was also convinced that sexual activity should be limited to procreation, that divorce was preferable to sexual incontinence, and that the prevention of conception was a crime of equal magnitude as abortion itself. Kellogg did not share the view that there was a gradation of fetal moral value.

For Dr. Kellogg, the fertilized egg was endowed with the same right to life as the mature adult: “At the very instant of conception the embryonic human being possesses all the right to life it ever can possess. [59] It is just as much an individual, a distinct human being, possessed of soul and body, as it ever is, though in a very immature form.” [60] To a pregnant woman considering abortion because she felt she would be unable to care for one additional child he suggested that it would be better if she were to kill one of the children she was already caring for. Of course, in this he was resorting to the “reductio ad absurdum” [61] argument.

*Dalton Baldwin’s position on abortion: Not stated.


6. Immortality of the Soul and the Abortion of the Body
by Sydney Allen

Sydney Allen, Associate Professor of Philosophy at San Bernardino Valley College, authored chapter 6 entitled “Immortality of the Soul and the Abortion of the Body” [62] of the book being examined. Dr. Allen started his article by affirming: “No innocent human being should ever be killed or allowed to die prematurely or unnecessarily;” but he immediately revealed his pro-choice attitude by clarifying: “A certain fetus may, if born into certain situations, cause more pain than pleasure to himself or herself, the parents and siblings, and to mankind in general.” [63]

As the title of his presentation at the SDA conference on abortion implies, Allen discussed the influence the belief in the immortality of the soul had on the attitude towards abortion among Catholics and members of many Protestant denominations. Such a belief, he suggested, is crucial because said individuals are convinced that ensoulment takes place at the moment of conception. Here are some of Allen’s parting comments:

Quote:

It is the contention of this paper that the absolutist position that would ban all abortions is based, philosophically, on the shaky notion of the innate immortality of the human soul. [64] The awful choice between outlawing all abortions, as the innatists wish us to do, and the laissez-faire attitude toward all of them need not be taken by the latent immortalist believer. It is consistent with this position to open a middle way for abortions [65] in cases of rape, incest, and firmly diagnosed disabling defects, while continuing to oppose the misuse of this seldom justified fail-safe. [66]

*Sydney Allen’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


7. Abortion and Adventist Interpretation: Significant Theological Themes
by Ginger Hanks-Harwood

Ginger Hanks-Harwood, Assistant Professor of Religion at Pacific Union College, authored the seventh chapter of the book we are analyzing. She chose the following title for her presentation: “Abortion and Adventist Interpretation: Significant Theological Themes.” [67] She began with a reference to the tragedy of “the American Holocaust” [68] with the hope that the SDA Church would respond to the enormous challenge in a redemptive manner, remembering that “according to the Genesis account, the intrinsic value of human life derives from our origin as the children of God.” [69] Her attitude towards abortion was revealed right from the beginning when she stated the following:

Quote:

Genesis 2 indicates that moral choice was a gift accorded to humanity from the very beginning. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was placed with the tree of life in the very center of the garden, as continual choice was a central part of being morally free, and being morally free was essential to our design as image of God. [70] The unfathomable import of freedom to choose was demonstrated by God’s maintaining its necessity at the cost of the life and death of Jesus Christ. [71]

There is no doubt that the freedom of choice granted Adam and Eve was pregnant with serious consequences in the event they made the wrong choice, which they did, and the entire human race must needs suffer the terrible results of their folly. This crude reality did not escape Dr. Hanks-Harwood. She recognized that “our choice of conduct has future implications; the reverberations released by each action come back to us. As beings who make decisions, we are both blessed and afflicted by responsibility.” [72]

Nevertheless, it must be noted that throughout her writing, Hanks-Harwood emphasized women’s freedom of choice, while the early pioneers of the SDA church emphasized the tragedy and awful sin of abortion. It is very doubtful that the early SDA pioneers would consider abortion as a redemptive way of dealing with this tragedy. [73] Here is how Hanks-Harwood defended abortion under certain tragic circumstances, and women’s right to choose:

Quote:

Whether she comes to the threshold of maternity after intentional assessment of her desire and ability to embrace parenthood only to be confronted with a pregnancy which threatens her life or exceeds her capacity to provide care, or as a result of violation, self-abasement or neglect, each woman must make a choice, exercise her obligation as an endowed moral agent. . . . With her alone stands the final decision . . . In addition to these cases, there are those of us who become pregnant because we are small or very young and do not know of our right to say no to a stepfather, brother, uncle, or family friend, or have a brutal and forced sexual encounter with a stranger or former friend. [74] The decision to embrace maternity as a God-given gift is one which only she can make for herself, and needs to be done on the basis of realistic assessment of her own resources. Does she possess the reserves required to complete the project adequately, so that she is not like the poor steward whom Jesus chided for not counting the cost before the project was undertaken and so ended up in disaster? [75]

*Ginger Hanks-Harwood’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


8. Reverence for Life and the Abortion Issue
by Jack W. Provonsha

Jack W. Provonsha authored the next chapter of the SDA book we are examining now, which he entitled “Reverence for Life and the Abortion Issue.” [76] He wrote mainly about Albert Schweitzer’s respect for life: “The essence of Goodness is: Preserve life, promote life, help life to achieve its highest destiny. The essence of Evil is: destroy life, harm life, hamper the development of life.” Such a statement does not deal directly with the issue of abortion, but it can be applied to the protection of the life of the unborn. Provonsha believed that:

Quote:

Hard bioethical choices often arise in circumstances of competing claims where, for example, instead of asking whether a person shall be allowed to die, the question is more likely to be which one shall live or die? Perhaps the present case, which shall die, the mother or her fetus? How does one resolve conflicts where the issue is not just life itself, as in reverence for all life, but which life, when someone has to go? The competition can also appear as a conflict over scarce resources. [77]

He also commented on the cases of “selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies” which forced physicians to terminate the life of some of the developing babies in order to insure the survival of the others, [78] and he cited the following exceptional case: “One author writes of a series of seven gravid patients who received selective reduction. One of these had nine fetuses, one sextuple, two quintuplets, two quadruplets, and one triplets.” [79]

Fertility clinic experts have a preference for the creation of multiple embryos knowing that some of them will have to be destroyed. Is this ethical? Pro-lifers will argue that it is not! Provonsha failed to deal with these facts. At the same time, he sided with those who justify abortion if the pregnancy has an undesirable impact on the mental health of the pregnant woman: “There is also the possibility that the self quality may be in jeopardy even though mere physiologic life is not, as in the case of serious threat to the mental health of the mother.” Likewise, he sided with those defending the practice of abortion cases where there exist malformations in the unborn babies, and he labeled Albert Schweitzer’s reverence for life as unsatisfactory:

Quote:

Introducing this quality also helps in deciding what to do about seriously defective fetuses, especially those with severe central nervous system abnormalities. If the defect is so severe as to preclude the development of selfhood at any level, it would surely seem appropriate to assist the body in doing what it [nature] most often does spontaneously (spontaneous abortion often represents the body’s own housekeeping work. Nature opposes prohibition-of-abortion-under-any-and-all-circumstances). [80] The ethic of reverence for life as proposed by Albert Schweitzer must be taken seriously. Surely there is none but can be impressed by the simple grandeur of the statement that “the essence of Goodness is: preserve life, promote life, help life achieve its highest destiny. The essence of Evil is: destroy life, harm life, hamper the development of life.” As a simple statement of general attitude it is compelling, but it is incomplete.

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


9. A Compassionate and a Christian ‘Quality of Life’ Ethic
by Richard Fredericks

Richard Fredericks, Associate Professor of Religion at Columbia Union College, was the author of chapter nine, “A Compassionate and a Christian ‘Quality of Life’ Ethic,” [81] of the book under consideration. He started his analysis of the abortion issue by reminding us that “since 1975 the ‘war on the unborn’ has produced twice as many casualties each year as have all the major wars in U.S. history, from the Revolutionary War through Vietnam,” and that “fewer than three percent of all abortions are for serious defects, rape, incest or danger to the mother.” [82] Then he made the following alarming comment:

Quote:

The time spent in the mother’s womb is now the most dangerous time in the entire human lifespan . . . Abortion has made medical professionals, whose entire orientation was once toward preserving life, the nation’s foremost terminators of life. [83]

He cited the 1973 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court as the historic point when the change of attitude towards the unborn was manifested, when the majority of the justices determined that the unborn, though human, did not possess the right to personhood, for which reason it was justifiable to deprive them of life if their development and continued existence adversely impacted the quality of life of the pregnant woman. Such a drastic legal change in attitude towards the unborn paved the way for “passive euthanasia, allowing a ‘good death’ for those deemed no longer fit to live,” [84] and for even isolated cases of infanticide where born infants with genetic deficiencies “were placed in a hospital nursery crib marked ‘Do Not Feed’ and allowed to die of dehydration--a process that took six days in the case of Bloomington Indiana ‘Baby Doe’ in April 1982.” [85]

Next, Dr. Fredericks cited the 1857 Dred Scott case in which the Supreme Court ruled that “the black race was less than human and the property of the owner. To free a slave would violate the Fifth Amendment by causing an undue financial hardship to those who were truly human (white slave owners).” [86] On that occasion, one of the justices, Roger B. Taney, wrote the following opinion defending the court’s decision:

Quote:

They [blacks] have for more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no right which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it (emphasis supplied). [87]

Slave owners could legally “choose” to treat human beings of a certain color as being non-persons. Such a line of reasoning should be familiar to those examining the current attitude towards abortion. Fredericks asserted that the same argument was also used by Hitler in his “final Solution” to the Jewish problem. Hitler and his henchmen determined that Jews were of an inferior race and not entitled to personhood. The handicapped and non-productive members of society were deprived of personhood, the Hippocratic Oath was declared null and void, and the killing of the innocent began in earnest:

Quote:

Before the first Jews entered the gas chambers, the “charitable Transport Company for the Sick” carried 250,000 German citizens deemed “unfit to live” to places where they were given “good deaths.” Among those no longer fit to live were World War I veterans who were amputees, the incontinent elderly, and Gypsies. [88]

While the genocide was taking place in Germany, “the majority of Christians in Germany continued to attend church regularly but remained silent. Silent!” [89] affirmed Fredericks, and he did discover that a similar apathy towards the plight of the unborn is manifested by SDAs today, especially among the clergy, coupled with the belief that biblical principles have nothing to do with the problem of abortion. This is why he declared that God forbids “murder,” [90] condemns the “taking of any innocent human life by violent means,” [91] hates those that shed innocent blood, [92] and views with abhorrence the sacrifice of children for the sins of their parents. [93] The Lord affirms the personhood of the unborn as well, argued Frederick, and he cited the following biblical passages in support of his contention:

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.” [94] “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord am the Maker of all things”; “Thus says the Lord who made you and formed you from the womb, who will help you.” [95] “Thou didst form me in my mother’s womb. … Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were written, the days that were ordained for me as yet there was not one of them.” [96]

Dr. Fredericks also cited many other biblical passages demanding that God’s people “vindicate the weak and fatherless, do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.” [97] And he made the following observation regarding the practice of abortion:

Quote:

While the “quality of life” ethic is totally consistent with an evolutionary, atheistic “survival of the fittest” worldview, it is antithetical to the spirit of the Gospel. Since Eden, God has shown Himself to be redemptive through great personal self-sacrifice. He didn’t respond to sin by ripping Adam and Eve to pieces, even though they were now morally deformed and would cause Him great suffering and inconvenience. Instead He opened a way back to the tree of life by giving Himself. Abortion promises redemption and peace through the blood of the unborn rather than the blood of Christ. [98]

He reminded those who defend abortion with the “quality of life” argument that the Son of God did sacrifice his quality of life for the sake of humanity. He left the heavenly abode for our sakes, and was born in a filthy stable, wrapped with rags, and lived his life with “no place to lay his head.” By modern standards, it would have been much better for Mary to have terminated her pregnancy. Most of the abortions performed today, Fredericks argued, are justified on the basis of economic reasons. An unexpected pregnancy tends to threaten the lifestyle of the pregnant woman and quite often alters her plans for her future. Sin did alter Jesus’ plan for his future, but he chose personal sacrifice instead of the sacrifice of those who had altered His quality of life.

The quality of life argument “is rooted in the greatest sin of all: man’s desire to play God,” [99] said Fredereicks. In the Garden of Eden, Eve was tempted with the desire to be like God, and she yielded to the allure of reaching said illusory goal through disobedience of God’s command to refrain from eating the forbidden fruit. In this, Eve imitated Lucifer who said in his heart: “I will exalt myself . . . I will make myself like the Most High.” [100] Those contemplating abortion would do well to remember that Jesus said to his followers: “For inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, My brethren, you have done it unto Me.” [101] This is why the early Christian community included the following admonition in their moral code, the Didache:

Quote:

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. [102]

One of the common arguments justifying abortion is that the unborn will be better off dead than living in poverty and deprivation. This quality of life is based on false premises. According to Fredericks, statistics have demonstrated that:

Quote:

Suicide among the poor is extremely rare and among the handicapped it is almost nonexistent. The lives of most successful men and women are lives of endured hardship and obstacles overcome. Beethoven’s family background included a deranged father, a syphilitic mother, a mentally retarded older brother and a sibling born blind. [103]

Many SDAs justify abortion on the basis of freedom. They argue that Jesus died to make us free. We are free. No doubt. “Individuals are free to practice adultery or cruelty,” affirmed Fredericks, “but such choices are neither moral nor Christlike.” [104] Religious freedom has been high on the SDA agenda as a result of the SDA preoccupation with the eschatological expectation of a predicted time of trouble. This is what Dr. Fredericks says regarding this SDA obsession with freedom:

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.” [105]

Towards the end of his article, Fredericks asserted that “abortion not only destroys a child, but damages and sometimes destroys the very person it is suggested it will help.” [106] He cited the cases of women who showed evidence of psychological damage resulting from their decision to opt for an abortion. In one case, a “girl, who worked in the women’s residence hall, following a suction abortion, vomited uncontrollably every time she turned on a vacuum sweeper.” [107] Another girl expressed her post-abortion experience as follows: “Things got so bad that I felt there was no hope anymore--I now know what it feels like to cry for help within the depths of your soul--when you feel like you are in hell.” [108] Dr. Fredericks also cited a comment by Dr. John Wilke who stated: “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.” [109]

*Richard Fredericks’ position on abortion: Pro-life


10. Control of the Body—Control of the Mind: Autobiographical and Sociological Determinants of a Personal Abortion Ethic in Seventh-day Adventism
by Michael D. Pearson

Michael D. Pearson, Senior Lecturer in Ethics and Philosophy at Newbold College authored chapter 10, “Control of the Body--Control of the Mind: Autobiographical and Sociological Determinants of a Personal Abortion Ethic in Seventh-day Adventism,” [110] of the book edited by Larson. Pearson began his article by enumerating the numerous autobiographical determinants that contributed to the formation of his attitude towards the practice of abortion. He even identified himself as a pro-choice individual:

Quote:

If you wish to attach a label to me, it would have to be the “pro-choice” label. Such labels are often unhelpful, and oversimplify all kinds of complexities, but I believe there are circumstances in which it is legitimate to abort a fetus--to do so is to choose the best of the options available. [111] Though I have become more conservative in my views of late, I still find the pro-life case less than compelling. I hold this view against a background of experience which is clearly deficient in important respects. Not being a member of the medical profession, I have never been present on an occasion when a fetus was being aborted; I have never seen the contents of the womb on the dish; I have never had to consign the contents of the womb to the garbage can. [112]

In spite of the fact that he has made the task of the investigator quite simple by placing himself among those who are on the pro-choice camp right at the start of his discourse, it might be beneficial to consider some of the salient comments he made regarding the issue of abortion.

Quote:

The first rather obvious but important biographical details about me is that I am a male. I have never experienced, and could never experience, the process of bonding with a child growing within. It seems to me that an adequate Adventist response to the question of abortion can never be formulated until Adventist women have articulated their views on the subject. Conclusions in a male dominated forum like this must remain partial. [113]

This observation might seem very logical, but pro-lifers might counter that if a group of nine males made the wrong decision to legalize abortion in America, it should follow that another group of males should be allowed to undo what was allegedly erroneously decided. If nine unelected male judges decided that taking the life of innocent human beings was legally permissible, why should another group of male-dominated individuals be deprived of ruling on this moral issue? If bonding between the pregnant woman and the developing child she is carrying is essential for making life and death decisions, then perhaps fathers should abstain from participating in decisions of a lesser consequence like disciplining children.

Pearson cited the case of a female student whose decision to abort might be justifiable, according to his judgment, because her relationship with her drug dependent father did induce her to seek affection elsewhere, and she was not emotionally mature enough to assume the responsibility of motherhood. [114] He also related the case of a severely mentally handicapped child who was allowed to be born as a result of the strong influence of a minister who told the pregnant woman that it would be a sin to abort a defective fetus. “My instinct,” said Pearson, “was that it would have been better had the child never been born.” [115]

Pearson also made allusion to another personal experience following the birth of his second child, which event was accompanied by a noticeable deterioration of the physical and mental condition of his wife. He felt that in case his wife became pregnant again, abortion would have represented a lesser evil than allowing her to remain pregnant until birth. Similarly, he mentioned the cases of young couples pursuing a course of study for whom a pregnancy might interfere with their professional objectives. [116] Under such circumstances, many SDA’s might be tempted to resort to an abortion in spite of the fact that “the prohibition against killing is only a couple of lines down from the call for Sabbath observance.” [117] Pearson admitted that “Roman Catholics have a better record for doing moral theology,” while SDAs tend to be more pragmatic in dealing with moral issues. Here are a few of his parting statements:

Quote:

They [SDAs] see that their church really has often preferred to talk about wedding rings, coffee-drinking, theater-going, and the like, rather than discuss weightier matters of an ethical or socio-political nature. They could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that the church regards such an issue as of only minor importance. . . . In Catholic theology, a soul is infused into the embryo at the very moment of conception, and it, as an inheritor of original sin, must not be allowed to perish without baptism. The matter is clear-cut. There is a soul to save as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg. [118] It goes without saying, I hope, that none of us, no matter how well-informed we may be on the subject of abortion ethics, has the right to tell a woman or a couple that a particular course of action is right or wrong in a given situation. To do so would be to usurp the role of God’s good Spirit in guiding them to a free and wise decision. [119]

Pearson’s ended his article by emphasizing the moral responsibility of the church to provide the needed support for women in crisis:

Quote:

If we think it morally desirable that one of our sisters should go through with an unwanted pregnancy rather than seek an abortion, then we the church have to be prepared to offer the emotional, financial and social support that would make carrying the baby to term seem a possible option. To the extent that we withhold that support, remain content to be judgmental, and fail to generate an ambience of concern, we bear some measure of responsibility for those abortions which do take place in our midst. [120]

* Michael D. Pearson’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.

11. The “Hard Cases” of Abortion
by Teresa Beem

Teresa Beem, President of Adventists for Life, Keene, Texas, is the author of Chapter 11, “The ‘Hard Cases’ of Abortion,” [121] of the book under consideration. She started her article with a reference to the Baby Jessica case, a child who fell into an old well. The news of the tragic accident was carried by television stations around the world while rescue crews worked for 60 hours before managing to save the girl from a sure death. Beem highlighted the value of the girl’s life with the following comment: “There was no doubt in anyone’s mind that Jessica must be saved at all cost.” Then Beem drew an interesting pro-life conclusion:

Quote:

She was no more human, no more valuable, no more vulnerable, no more a member of God’s family than an unborn child. So where are the rescuers of those children when their mothers wish to kill them by abortion? Where are the cries of millions around the world for them?

With this introduction, the author of this chapter revealed her position on the moral issue of abortion, and she identified herself as a member of the pro-life group when she added:

Quote:

I am a pro-lifer. I believe that upon conception a unique individual, a gift of God, has entered the human family. No one but God created that life, and no one has the right to take that life but God. [122]

Next, Beem related a number of cases to illustrate her conviction that even the “hard cases” of abortion can be viewed from a pro-life position without having to compromise the high moral stand of those who believe that saving the lives of those destined for abortion is worth the effort. This attitude is reminiscent of those who spared no effort to save the life of little Baby Jessica. According to Beem, her strong pro-life attitude was rooted in her own experience.

Before Beem was born, her mother’s physician told her not to have any more children, since another pregnancy would put her life at risk. She did get pregnant again, and refused to have an abortion, and Teresa Beem was born. Actually, her mother had four more children after the birth of Teresa, and all of them survived, including her mother. So much for the physician’s ability to determine when a pregnancy places the pregnant woman at risk.

Beem related the 1973 story of a Dallas woman named Kay who became pregnant following a gang rape. The Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion came rather late for this woman, and when the baby was born she named her Robyn. She gave the rape baby for adoption. Was she disappointed for having missed the opportunity of aborting her baby? Not a chance. This is what she wrote:

Quote:

I can live with the fact that I have been raped, but I could not live in peace if I had killed my child. I do not agree with those who advocate abortion for rape or incest. One violent, cruel act doesn’t justify another. Our laws do not condemn the rapist to death, so it is insane that we would issue a death sentence for an innocent baby. [123]

Beem cited the following biblical statement in support of her pro-life position: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers, a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” [124] The implication is clear: The unborn should not be executed for the mistakes of their parents. Beem included some relevant abortion statistics: More than 95 percent of the abortions performed in the U.S. are done for social or emotional reasons; Less than one percent of rapes end in pregnancy; and less than one percent of abortions are needed to save the life of the pregnant woman. [125]

The next “hard case” dealt with by Beem concerned a woman named Jackie, who was sexually assaulted at knifepoint in Hollywood, California. She became pregnant, and had an abortion. She was told that the abortion would solve her problem and heal her emotional wounds. It didn’t. For the next three years she experienced “horrible depression and nightmares.” She would dream that she had given birth, but someone had taken her baby away. She could hear the baby crying in the distance, but could not find it anywhere. Jackie eventually named the baby she aborted Jennifer, and wrote a letter to her, which she ended with: “Until we meet again, My Jennifer, I love you.”

Beem concluded from this experience that “Abortion does not un-rape a woman.” [126] Women seemingly have an easier time forgetting the rape--what someone else has done, but have a harder time forgetting what they did--take the life of their own baby. This contrasted with the experience of Kay who decided to let the baby live. As the pregnancy progressed, the emotional wounds resulting from the gang rape began to heal. Beem also believed that allowing a legal exception for abortions resulting from rape is not the best way to deal with the problem:

Quote:

It seems all too clear to me that making abortion illegal, except in cases of rape, incest, invalidates the whole argument of illegal abortions. The reason we should not kill pre-born people is that they are people and have the right to be protected. Biologists, geneticists, fetologists--to name a few professionals--have proven that human life begins at conception. . . . We cannot pick and choose those who are “really human” by the way in which they are conceived. [127]

Then Beem detailed the case of an anonymous caller to a talk show who was the product of rape. An intruder broke into her parents’ home, tied up her dad, and raped her mom while the husband was watching the terrible ordeal. The woman became pregnant, and abortion was a legal option for this victim of forced rape, but her husband said: “Even though not mine, that is a child and I will not allow it to be killed.” The anonymous caller ended her story with the following comment:

Quote:

I do not know how many times that, as I lay secure in the loving arms of my husband, I have thanked God for my wonderful Christian father. [128]

A 16-years-old named Kathy is the protagonist of another rape case discussed by Beem. Kathy made the mistake of accepting a ride home from a man with evil intentions. She was taken near a lake and raped in spite of her persistent screams. This took place years before abortion became legal in the U.S. “She drank poison, jumped off tall haystacks, and punched her stomach” to no avail. The baby refused to die, and was eventually born. She named him Patrick. This is what Kathy had to say about her experience:

Quote:

Patrick is now 22, and I thank God abortion was illegal when he was conceived. If it had been available, I do not know for certain what I would have chosen, but I am glad I did not have the option. I pray for the day when it will again be outlawed. I guess both Patrick and I are classic examples of God’s mercy and grace and what He can do in the case of rape. . . . Every life is of immensurable value and importance, no matter what the circumstance of their [sic] conception. [129]

From this experience, Beem draws the following conclusion: “If Christianity demands that we forgive the father, we must also forgive the child. We often forget that the child is still a part of the mother. The baby may be half the rapist, but it is still the mother’s flesh and blood. Can we justify killing all of the child to rid of its ‘ugly’ half?” [130] Then Beem adds some comments by Patrick, Kathy’s son, who is a happily married young man:

Quote:

As a child of rape, I have a unique outlook on abortion. If abortions had been legal when I was conceived, I would not be alive. I would have never had the chance to love and give of myself to others. I have a wonderful opportunity to share my testimony, too. Whenever someone says, “What about rape?” I have the perfect answer. [131]

“What about a woman who has AIDS and becomes pregnant?” asks Teresa Beem. “Shouldn’t she abort that child? It is going to die anyway.” Her answer is: “If we are going to kill someone because that person has AIDS, why not start with the mother! Let’s begin killing the transmitters rather than the innocent receivers!” Then Beem adds the following:

Quote:

When we speak of a woman’s “right to choose” we are speaking of her right to choose to kill her child. If we give her that right before birth, why not extend the right to the time immediately following birth? Maybe even to three days after birth? Why not declare a baby legally alive a few days after his or her birth? Then we can give the parents a real choice! Since only after birth can we test that baby for AIDS or some other grave handicap . . . We must not kill people because they will soon die. [132]

The last “hard case” presented by this writer refers to a twenty-three-year-old mother who was dying of tuberculosis. She asked her hospital physician permission to go home for Christmas as her last wish. The permission was granted, and upon her return to the medical institution, her condition took a turn for the worse: she vomited continuously, and a test revealed that she was pregnant. From the medical perspective, an abortion seemed to be the best alternative, but the woman and her husband refused to consent. Then the unthinkable happened: She began to gain weight, and as the baby started to push against her diseased lung, the TB advance stopped and began to recede. To everybody’s amazement, she gave birth to a healthy baby and “the baby whom everyone said would hasten her death actually saved her life.” Teresa Beem ended her article with a biblical quotation:

Quote:

“Deliver those who are drawn towards death, and hold back those who stumble to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Surely we did not know this, Does not He who weighs the heart consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And He will render to each man according to his deeds.” [133]

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


12. Adventist Guidelines on Abortion
by James W. Walters

James W. Walters, Professor of Ethics Chair, Department of Religion, at Pacific Union College at the time of publication, is the author of the chapter entitled “Adventist Guidelines on Abortion.” [134] Walters started his article with the following statement: “Seventh-day Adventism is in many ways a paradoxical faith which defies stereotyping,” [135] and he explains why with this revealing comment: