Quote:

Many contemporary societies have faced conflict over the morality of abortion. Such conflict also has affected large numbers within Christianity who want to accept responsibility for the protection of prenatal human life while also preserving the personal liberty of women. The need for guidelines has become evident, as the Church attempts to follow scripture, and to provide moral guidance while respecting individual conscience. Seventh-day Adventists want to relate to the question of abortion in ways that reveal faith in God as the Creator and sustainer of all life and in ways that reflect Christian responsibilities and freedom. [5]

Bear in mind that right at the beginning of this document there is a clear reference to the “protection of prenatal human life,” which sounds very much like a pro-life statement. Nevertheless, this seemingly pro-life declaration is neutralized by references to “personal liberty of women,” “individual conscience,” and “freedom”! Does this statement agree with what the pioneers said about abortion? Did the early leaders of the SDA church ever make any reference to “personal liberty of women,” “individual conscience,” or “freedom”? The answer is “No.” What else of significance is there in these guidelines?

Quote:

Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God’s image, and requires respect for prenatal life. However, decisions about life must be made in the context of a fallen world. Abortion is never and action of little moral consequence. Thus prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. [6] Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons. [7] Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. Christians are commissioned to become a loving, caring community of faith that assists those in crisis as alternatives are considered.

Here again there are clear references to the “sanctity of human life,” and “respect for prenatal life.” But these pro-life declarations are again tempered and modified by a suggestion that “decisions about life must be made in the context of a fallen world,” that “abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons,” and that “attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.” In light of the strong and unambiguous condemnation of the practice of abortion by the early pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventists Church, with no exceptions, can the current SDA official position on abortion be equated with that of the early SDA Church? [8] The answer is “No.” of course!

The question here is not: Which position is morally more desirable, but rather: Can we define the current SDA position on abortion as pro-life, given the definition we have stated at the beginning of this study, which reflects the clear opposition to abortion by the early leaders of the SDA Church? The contrast between the current SDA attitudes towards abortion and that of the SDA pioneers seems to be very clear. In addition, it might be reasonable to wonder whether the current soft attitude towards the taking of human life during pregnancy would encourage our preachers and writers to imitate the strong and determined opposition towards the practice of abortion exhibited by the original founders of the SDA movement. But, there is more in said document:

Quote:

The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman’s life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation.

These official declarations need to be compared with those of James White, John Harvey Kellogg, J.N. Andrews and others. Do we notice a shift in our SDA attitudes towards abortion as we compare them? Can the reader visualize any of those pioneers suggesting that a woman’s “health” might be an appropriate justification for the killing of the unborn? Would the early leaders of the SDA Church have considered a woman’s health of more import than the life of the unborn? Would they morally equate the value of human life with human health? Given the many instances when the health of the pregnant woman is affected by her pregnancy, would those pioneers have allowed such an exception to their strong opposition to abortion? If they had considered such an exception, would their strong condemnation of the practice of abortion have made any sense? Now look at the following statement:

Quote:

Christians acknowledge as first and foremost their accountability to God. They seek balance between the exercise of individual liberty and their accountability to the faith community and the larger society and its laws. They make their choices according to scripture and the laws of God [9] rather than the norms of society. Therefore, any attempt to coerce women either to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom. [10]

As the reader examines this statement, he might notice the following details: There is a reference to making choices “according to scripture and the laws of God rather than the norms of society,” but this is neutralized by the evident emphasis on “balance,” “individual liberty,” “choices,” and the “infringements of personal freedom.” Again, there is a need to compare these statements with those of the early pioneers of the SDA Church. Had James White, John Harvey Kellogg, or J.N. Andrews been subject to similar guidelines on abortion, would they have been able to speak so clearly against the practice of abortion? Would they have issued such strong condemnation against the taking of human life? No wonder our modern SDA preachers avoid the subject in their sermons. [11] If they were to imitate those SDA pioneers, they would be in violation of our guidelines on abortion. Notice also this comment:

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.

This statement located towards the end of the document is quite telling. It suggests that Jesus died in order that women might have the freedom to kill their unborn. If this is the case, then someone might add that Jesus perhaps also died that we might be free to rape, steal, and murder! Does this make any moral sense? James White and the founders of the Adventist movement would probably respond that Jesus died to free us from our sins instead of granting us the freedom to sin. People are free to shoot at the president, but there are serious consequences for such an action. Some of those who have tried are now sitting in jail.

Considering the striking contrast between the attitudes towards the practice of abortion by the founders of Adventism when compared with the current SDA attitudes as revealed by the SDA official document on abortion, the reader would probably agree that there is no other logical alternative but to conclude that, if the Guidelines on Abortion truly reflect the thinking of the SDA community, then these statements seems to suggest that modern SDA’s are rather pro-choice instead of pro-life. The pro-abortion category is ruled out for obvious reasons. It is true that the guidelines include many pro-life references such as the following:

Nevertheless, the force of these pro-life statements is neutralized by many other statements that clearly emphasize personal freedom, individual conscience, exceptional circumstances, and freedom of choice; which requires the placement of the modern SDA denomination in the pro-choice camp as evidenced by the above referenced official document. [12] Of course, these official guidelines may or may not match the individual opinion of those Adventists writers who have published their comments about this controversial issue. An analysis of their attitude will be performed in Chapter XIII of this study.

The reader might be aware that the majority of Seventh-day Adventists, with the exception perhaps of those working in the medical field, have probably never read the “Guidelines on Abortion,” and may not even be informed of the existence of such a document, which points to the relevance of careful investigation and analysis before any final conclusions are drawn about where the current SDA position on this issue is.

Abortion: Consensus and Dialogue
by Gerald R. Winslow

Gerald R. Winslow alluded to the development of the “Guidelines on Abortion” in an article published by Adventist Today entitled “Abortion: Consensus and Dialogue” [13] published in 1993. In it he described the controversy that followed the adoption of said SDA guidelines and he specifically mentioned the reaction of two members of the commission: On one hand Professor Hanks-Hardwood was unhappy with the wording of the document, fearing that it was rather unfair towards pregnant women while ignoring the complexities accompanying motherhood and procreation. On the other hand, Professors Youngberg expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that the guidelines failed to adequately protect the unborn.

Millie Youngberg felt that the wording of the document would have the tendency to offer a loophole for the many illicit abortions. She did not agree with the belief that it was difficult for physicians to distinguish between the threats to the health of the pregnant woman and the threats to her life. Winslow seemed to agree with the way the document was worded:

Quote:

Is it coherent to call people to make personal decisions that protect God's gift of prenatal life, and ask Adventist health care institutions to do the same, while at the same time urging the state to permit wide latitude for the personal conscience of pregnant women? I believe so. It is, as I see it, the moral high ground, based on Scripture, and now adopted by our community of faith.

Winslow was a Professor of Religion at Pacific Union College at the time he submitted this article for Adventist Today, and he seems to have played a major role in the preparation of the “Guidelines on Abortion.” [14]

Assisted Human Reproductions

Another official document is the “Considerations on Assisted Human Reproduction,” [15] which was voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Administrative Committee on July 26, 1994, at Silver Spring, Maryland. It does not deal directly with the issue of abortion, but it contains references to the respect for human life, for which reason a few quotations from said document were included here:

Quote:

Developments in medical technology have led to a number of interventions designed to assist in human reproduction. Procedures such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, embryo transfer, and cloning increasingly provide new options in human reproduction. Such interventions raise serious ethical questions for Christians seeking God’s will on these issues. Human reproduction is part of God’s plan (Gen. 1:28), and children are a blessing from the Lord (Ps 127:3; 113:9). Medical technologies that aid infertile couples, when practiced in harmony with biblical principles may be accepted in good conscience. Human life should be treated with respect at all stages of development (Jer 1:5; Ps 139:13-16). Assisted reproduction calls for sensitivity to the value of human life. Procedures such as in vitro fertilization require prior decisions about the number of ova to be fertilized and the moral issues regarding the disposition of any remaining preembryos.

If the “Assisted Human Reproduction” were the only official document of the Seventh-day Adventist Church dealing with the respect for human life, there would be a need to place SDA’s official position in the pro-life category; nevertheless, this document must be studied along with the other official statements dealing with the sanctity of human life and the current SDA attitudes towards the practice of abortion as revealed through what Adventists have published on the topic.

Birth Control: A Statement of Consensus

Another official document of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that bears some relevance for the study of abortion and the value of human life is “Birth Control: A Seventh-day Adventist Statement of Consensus.” [16] It was voted during the Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee on Wednesday, September 29, 1999 in Silver Spring, Maryland. Notice the following comments included in this document:

Quote:

A statement of moral considerations regarding birth control must be set in the broader context of biblical teachings about sexuality, marriage, parenthood, and the value of children—and an understanding of the interconnectedness between these issues. With an awareness of the diversity of opinion within the Church, the following biblical principles are set forth to educate and to guide in decision-making.

A couple of quotations taken from principles number four and five might be suitable for this investigation since one of them makes reference to the “freedom to choose” and the other to “the intentional termination of en established pregnancy.” It’s difficult to escape the temptation to notice the significance of the particular choice of words in its reference to these principles.

Quote:

4. Freedom to choose. In creation—and again through the redemption of Christ—God has given human beings freedom of choice, and He asks them to use their freedom responsibly (Gal 5:1, 13). In the divine plan, husband and wife constitute a distinct family unit, having both the freedom and the responsibility to share in making determinations about the family. 5 A variety of methods of birth control—including barrier methods, spermicides, and sterilization—prevent conception and are morally acceptable. Some other birth-control methods may prevent the release of the egg (ovulation), may prevent the union of egg and sperm (fertilization), or may prevent attachment of the already fertilized egg (implantation). Because of uncertainty about how they will function in any given instance, they may be morally suspect for people who believe that protectable human life begins at fertilization. However, since the majority of fertilized ova naturally fail to implant or are lost after implantation, even when birth control methods are not being used, hormonal methods of birth control and IUDs, which represent a similar process, may be viewed as morally acceptable. Abortion, the intentional termination of an established pregnancy, is not morally acceptable for purposes of birth control.

The reference to “Freedom to choose,” and “freedom of choice” in this official document of the church tends to reinforce other similar pro-choice expressions contained in the Guidelines of Abortion discussed above. Notice also that a reference is made to those “who believe that protectable human life begins at fertilization,” thus implying that the official position of the church probably does not include such a belief. The following statement strengthens this suspicion: “Abortion, the intentional termination of an established pregnancy, is not morally acceptable for purposes of birth control;” since no reference is made to the morality of the destruction of embryos prior to implantation.

Statement on Well-being and Value of Children

The “A Seventh-day Adventist Statement on Well-being and Value of Children” [17] is another official document of the church that, although it does not deal directly with the welfare of the unborn; nevertheless it relates to the sacredness of human life, and it allows us to ask certain question that pertain to the well-being of those who have not been born yet. This document was voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Administrative Committee for release at the time of the General Conference Session in Toronto, Canada, June 29-July 9, 2000.Let us look at the following statements contained therein:

Quote:

Seventh-day Adventists affirm the right of every child to a happy and stable home environment, and the freedom and support to grow up to be the person God intended. In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the fundamental importance of children by voting the “Convention on the Rights of the Child.” In harmony with many of these lofty principles, and considering the value Jesus placed on children when He said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matt 19:14, NIV), we seek to aid children who suffer from the following destructive influences …

What follows is a list of destructive influences that impact the normal and healthy development of children such as: poverty, illiteracy, poor health, lack of proper health insurance, exploitation, and violence. The question the reader might ask at this point is: If children have the moral right to be protected from all these undesirable influences in the early years of their development because Jesus had stated “Let the children come to me,” then how can society deny the same benefits to those who are also in the early stages of development, but have not been born yet? Will those who have not had the privilege to be born be eventually be able to come to Jesus if they are deprived of life before they have a chance to see the light of day? This official document ends with the following enumeration of rights:

Quote:

• The right to a loving and stable home where there is safety and freedom from abuse. • The right to adequate food, clothing, and shelter. • The right to proper health/medical care. • The right to an education that prepares children for a positive role in society by developing their personal potential and giving them earning power. • The right to a religious and moral education in the home and church. • The right to freedom from discrimination and exploitation. • The right to personhood, respect, and the development of positive self-esteem.

If born children are entitled to all these rights, then someone might ask: Do the unborn have at least the right to life, the right to be free from being torn limb from limb or poisoned while waiting to be born? And how about the right to personhood as well? Do children suddenly acquire all these rights at the moment of birth, or before birth perhaps? Did Jesus possess an intrinsic right to life while waiting to be born, or did he acquire said right after taking his first breath?

Why Silence is not an Option
by Lincoln E. Steed

Lincoln E. Steed, Editor of Liberty Magazine, a Seventh-day Adventist publication whose objective is to advance the protection of religious liberty, wrote an editorial in 2004 entitled “Why Silence is not an Option.” [18] It deals with the Seventh-day position on gay marriage and the alleged homosexual rights. This is what he said:

Quote:

In discussions with a particular pastoral candidate local church elders informed him that should he come to their church, he was not to mention a word about same-sex relationships. No sermons, no Bible studies, no church discipline, could be administered over the issue. Silence on the matter was not only expected; it was demanded of the pastor. In good conscience the pastor decided that that church was not for him. He went elsewhere to minister. One could perhaps understand if the church that made such a demand were of a liberal mainline denomination. However, such was not the case. It was a local church in my own denomination–Seventh-day Adventist.

Using this incident as an illustration, Steed makes a case for eliminating silence as an acceptable moral option when dealing with homosexuality. He does not mention the abortion issue, but if the church cannot afford to be silent on the issue of same-sex marriage, which deprives nobody of life, then how can Seventh-day Adventists opt to be neutral, pro-choice, or silent in the much more serious matter of abortion which has deprived almost 50 million of unborn babies of life?