 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
|
|
|
To perform a search, click on ==> Search
APPENDIX A: A DRAMATIC SHIFT
From Pro-life to Pro-Choice
The following material was selected from the preceding chapters with the objective of presenting, in a more concise manner, the undeniable contrast between the attitude towards abortion manifested by the early pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, and the predominant position towards this controversial issue by Seventh-day Adventists today. The evidence suggests that there has been a dramatic shift within Adventism from Pro-life to a Pro-choice position on abortion.
The attitude Towards Abortion Exhibited by the SDA Pioneers [1]
James White
| Quote: |
Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime. [2]
|
John Harvey Kellogg
| Quote: |
The idea held by many that the destruction of foetal [sic] life is not a crime until after “quickening” has occurred is a gross and mischievous error. No change occurs in the developing human being at this period. The so-called period of “quickening” is simply the period at which the movements of the little one become sufficiently active and vigorous to attract the attention of the mother. Long before this, slight movements have been taking place, and from the very moment of conception, those processes have been in operation which result in the production of a fully developed human being from a mere jelly drop, a minute cell. As soon as this development begins, a new human being has come into existence--in embryo, it is true, but possessed of its own individuality, with its own future, its possibilities of joy, grief, success, failure, fame, and ignominy.
From this moment, it acquires the right to life, a right so sacred that in every land to violate it is to incur the penalty of death. How many murderers and murderesses have gone unpunished! None but God knows the full extent of this most heinous crime; but the Searcher of all hearts knows and remembers every one who has thus transgressed; and in the day of final reckoning, what will the verdict be? Murder? MURDER [sic], child murder, the slaughter of the innocents more cruel than Herod, more cold-blooded than the midnight assassin, more criminal than the man who slays his enemy--the most unnatural, the most inhuman, the most revolting of all crimes against human life. [3]
|
J.N. Andrews
| Quote: |
One of the most shocking, and yet one of the most prevalent sins of this generation, is the murder of unborn infants. Let those who think this a small sin, read Ps. 139:16. They will see that even the unborn child is written in God’s book. And they may be well assured that God will not pass unnoticed the murder of such children. [4]
|
John Todd
| Quote: |
As to guilt, I want all to know that, in the sight of God, it is willful murder. “The willful killing of a human being at any stage of its existence, is murder. It is quenching immortal existence, it is destroying what, in a few months or weeks, would bear God’s image: and if anyone thinks she can do it without the guilt of murder, she is greatly mistaken. The very remembrance of this guilt has often upset the reason, and by remorse, turned the doer into madness.” [5]
|
Uriah Smith
| Quote: |
You show me a church that fails to take a stand on political issues that involve moral principles, [6] and I’ll show you a church that is spineless, irrelevant, and morally bankrupt. . . . No issue is too controversial for us to address and honestly in pages of our church paper. [7]
|
Ellen G. White
| Quote: |
If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering [8] his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them. [9]
|
The Predominant SDA Attitude Towards Abortion Today [10]
Pro-life Statements of the Official SDA Guidelines on Abortion [11]. The official “Guidelines on Abortion” include lofty pro-life statements such as the following:
| Quote: |
1. 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.
2. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.
3. Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness.
4. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the church.
5. Human life has unique value because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God.
6. God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God’s creation and the object of His redeeming love.
7. God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction.
8. God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed.
|
Pro-choice Elements of the Guidelines on Abortion.
The problem with the official SDA “Guidelines on Abortion” is that the force of the above quoted pro-life statements is neutralized and negated by many other statements that clearly emphasize personal freedom, individual conscience, exceptional circumstances, and freedom of choice. It seems like the intention of the creators of these guidelines was to please both the pro-life and pro-choice members of the SDA community. The net result was that pro-choice SDA members were pleased, while it left pro-lifers sad, confused, and defeated. [12] Consider the following exceptions justifying the killing of the unborn.
| Quote: |
1. God gives humanity the freedom of choice, [13] even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.
2. The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals. [14]
3. 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, [15] severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
4. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation.
5. Therefore, any attempt to coerce women [16] either to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.
|
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. [17] . . . 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 170) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person. [18] . . . 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. . . . 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. [19]
|
Ginger Hanks-Harwood
Ginger Hanks-Harwood, Assistant Professor of Religion at Pacific Union College at the time of the publication of her article, authored the seventh chapter of the book, Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options, which is a compilation of sixteen essays “selected from thirty-six presentations made at a conference entitled ‘[i]Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options’ held November 14-16, 1988 at Loma Linda University, under the auspices of the Center for Christian Bioethics.” [20][/i] Here are a couple of her statements:
| 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. [21] 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. [22]
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? [23]
|
James W. Walters
James W. Walters, Professor of Ethics Chair, Department of Religion, Pacific Union College, at the time of publication, was the author of the chapter entitled “Adventist Guidelines on Abortion” [24] in the book edited by David Larson. [25] He is also the author of the book What is a Person? [26] Below is one of his many statements about abortion:
| Quote: |
Given the denomination’s generally conservative theology and its extensive health commitment, one would guess that the denomination would be strongly pro-life; yet it is not. [27] The most official pronouncement on the subject holds that abortion in Adventist hospitals are acceptable for such common reasons as maternal health, fetal handicap, rape or incest, an early teen pregnancy and, most significantly, “When for some reason the requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lesser potential human life.” [28]
|
George Reid
[quote]Here is what Dr. George Reid, head of the Biblical Research Institute, recently stated to Teresa Beem, who had been one of the participants of the conference entitled “Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options” held November 14-16, 1988 at Loma Linda University, under the auspices of the Center for Christian Bioethics: [29]
| Quote: |
1. “Adventist are pro-choice but under strict guidelines.”
2. “Washington Adventist Hospital in Tacoma Park has become an abortion mill.”
|
Neal Wilson
On March 1970, Neal Wilson, president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists at the time, made a public announcement predicting that the church would adopt a neutral position toward the abortion issue. [30]
| Quote: |
Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population.
|
If the maximum authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church at the time the original abortion guidelines were developed unambiguously stated that the church was leaning towards abortion because of hunger and overpopulation, then can anyone have any doubts about the pro-choice position of the SDA church? The cumulative weight of the evidence analyzed in this study seems to leave no doubt about the SDA attitude towards abortion and the motivation that prompted the church to adopt such a position. The real motivation seems to have been the SDA involvement in the medical field and the profit derived from such an activity. The overpopulation argument was probably a mere excuse.
Endnotes
1. For a more comprehensive analysis of the early pioneer’s attitude towards abortion, see Chapter II of this study.
2. James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.
3. J.H. Kellogg. Man The Masterpiece (Battle Creek, Michigan: Modern Medicine Publishing Co., 1894), 424-425. For an electronic access to Dr. Kellogg’s opinion on abortion, click on the following Internet link provided by the University of Virginia Library: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KelPlai.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=21&division=div1. Accessed on 25 Oct. 2006.
4. J.N. Andrews, Editor. “A Few Words Concerning a Great Sin” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (Nov. 30, 1869): 184.
5. John Todd. “Fashionable Murder” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (June 25, 1867): 29-30.
6. If no moral principles are excluded, then it follows that abortion is included here, unless one would dare to argue that abortion is not a moral issue.
7. Uriah Smith. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Quoted by P.A. Lorenz. Adventist For Life News, Vol. III, Issue 3. ( n.d.,Heritage Edition): 3.
8. Ellen White is not specifically talking about abortion here; nevertheless, if neglecting the health needs of a pregnant woman is “almost murder,” then logic leads us to conclude that killing the unborn baby would be considered by her as actual murder.
9. White. Selected Messages, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 429-430.
10. For a detailed analysis of seventh-day Adventists attitudes towards abortion covering the 1970 through 2006 years see chapters IV through XII of the present study.
11. Seventh-day Adventist Church. Adventist Beliefs/Guidelines: “Guidelines on Abortion” (12 Oct. 1992). Accessed from http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html on 25 Oct. 2006.
12. The Guidelines on abortion were created precisely because the SDA church adopted a pro-choice position on abortion. If the SDA church were pro-life, there would be no need for guidelines on abortion. Said guidelines became necessary in order to establish the circumstances under which abortions are allegedly morally justified. Neither the Catholic Church nor the Southern Baptist Convention has any guidelines on abortion, because they opted for a pro-life position: No abortion. Period!
13. If we justify abortion because God has granted us “freedom of choice,” then perhaps we should also justify rape, incest, and stealing for the same reason.
14. Should the church cease teaching about the Sabbath, since it “does not serve as conscience for individuals”?
15. Almost every pregnancy will affect the health of the pregnant woman. This exclusion opens the door for abortion on demand!
16. The church has no power to coerce women to remain pregnant, but it has the God-given privilege and duty to help women make the right choice, and the right choice is described in Deuteronomy 30:14: “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that your children may live.” Notice that the Lord has attached both blessing and curses connected with making the right choice, and if the church refuses to warn sinners about them, then the Lord will require the blood of the innocent from the prophetic church. [Ezeq. 3:16-20]
17. Not so fast, Brother Stevens! Jesus sacrificed his own life for the sake of others. Women who choose abortion do exactly the opposite! Besides, Jesus died to make us free from sin, and not free to sin! To the woman caught in adultery Jesus said: “Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more.” [John 8:11]
18. The image of God is more than “the power to think and to do.” It is the power to do God’s will, and God’s will is that we choose life. The Devil possesses the power to think and to do, but the image of God in him has been distorted because he has lost the ability to do God’s will. We could say the same about Hitler, Idi Amin, and Bin Laden. God is described in the Bible as love. This is God’s main characteristic. God’s image includes the ability to think, to do, and to sacrifice for the sake of others.
19. John V, Stevens, Sr. “Abortion Answers and Attitudes,” Pacific Union Recorder (20 Aug. 1990).
20. See Chapter VIII of this study.
21. We should also remember that that “image of God” was marred the moment Eve exercised said freedom of choice in the wrong direction, contrary to God’s will. This is also true whenever women choose death for the unborn instead of choosing life.
22. If we justify abortion on the basis of freedom then logic demands that we also justify rape, incest, burglary, abuse, and murder.
23. When her writings are compared with that of the early SDA pioneers, the contrast is painfully evident. Dr. Hanks-Harwood’s article illustrates the SDA dramatic evolution in its attitude towards the killing of the unborn. The pregnant woman who is thinking about abortion should consider the advantage of giving her baby up for adoption, which is a redemptive and loving choice, instead of killing her own child.
24. This article, written by James Walters, should not be confused with the “SDA Guidelines on Abortion,” a document with a similar name approved by the SDA church four years later.
25. See Chapter VIII of this study.
26. See Chapter X of this study.
27. How true! Walters is probably one of the earliest SDA leading ethicists to acknowledge this undeniable fact. He should be commended for this honest assessment of his!
28. James Walters, “Adventist Guidelines on Abortion” Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options (Loma Linda, California: Center For Christian Bioethics, 1992), 173-174.
29. See Teresa Beem’s “Why We Left: A Letter to Family and Others” in Chapter XII of this study.
30. Two months later, the GC officers approved “suggestive guidelines for therapeutic abortions.” This action did not satisfy the SDA medical community because SDA hospitals had been providing therapeutic abortion for some time even before the State of Hawaii decided to legalize abortion. This quasi-official document was made available to SDA medical institutions under the name “Recommendations to SDA Medical Institutions,” which allowed Castle Memorial Hospital [CMH] to provide abortion on demand.
 Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.
|
|
| |
|
|
