 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
|
|
|
To perform a search, click on ==> Search
The Most Dangerous
Place on Earth
by Nic Samojluk
A. On the Brink of Nuclear War Considering the fact that both Pakistan and India do possess nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and given the unequal confrontation between a giant and a pigmy, as far as both population and number of soldiers each has at its disposal, CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer, has recently described the disputed territory of Kashmir between India and Pakistan as “The Most Dangerous Place on Earth” at the present moment. This politically precarious situation represents of grave concern for the Bush administration, because in the event of a nuclear exchange between the two countries, the lives of millions of innocent civilians would be in jeopardy, and our own American soldiers operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be at great risk. The situation is so serious, that President Bush has decided to send Secretary Rumsfeld as his personal envoy with the difficult mission of trying to defuse the tension between the two countries.
B. The Most Dangerous Place on Earth I grant the fact that Kashmir is an extremely dangerous place on earth right now; nevertheless, I am convinced that the most dangerous place on earth today is not Kashmir, but rather being inside the womb as an unborn. This is the place where a human being runs the greatest risk of being either poisoned or dismembered before he/she has a chance of seeing the light of day for the first time in his/her life. This is the reason I am borrowing from Wold Blitzer the title for the current article. And I am grasping this opportunity, because recently the Editor of Adventist Today, published two articles dealing with this problem. One of them is entitled “A Death in the Family,” authored by Gregory L. Hoenes, and the other one “Abortion and the Bible,” written by Jim Miller.
C. Breaking the Long Silence
Following the 1992 publication of the book Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options, edited by David R. Larson, the Co-Director of the Center for Christian Bioethics of Loma Linda University; the Adventist press went into a long hibernating silence on this moral issue facing America and the entire world. Believe it or not, this silence was broken by John McLarty with the publication of his recent editorial in Adventist Today, in which he issued the following challenge to the Seventh-day Adventist Church:
“Neither the Bible nor Ellen White gives detailed guidance regarding many contemporary moral issues: drug addiction, abortion, slavery, tobacco, obesity, income inequity, pornography, reproductive technology, environmental degradation, immigration policy. If the church is silent on these matters, we will become increasingly irrelevant.”
D. My Letter to “Adventist Today” Following the publication of this 2001 Winter issue, I wrote the following comments to the Editor of the magazine: “Dear Editor, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that you had the courage to include two articles dealing with abortion, and a front page picture of a developing baby, in the latest issue of your magazine. For many years now, the church has been conspicuously silent on this life and death issue, for which reason I admire you for breaking this silence. I wish we would be as ready to discuss this problem as we are to talk about the sacredness of God's Holy Time. Is human life less sacred for God?Your cover story, "A Death in the Family," written by Gregory Hoenes, senior pastor of the SDA Church of Hollywood, is quite thought provoking, but unfortunately draws the wrong moral conclusion. The fact that spontaneous abortion occurs naturally, is a non-sequitur for concluding that the intentional destruction of prenatal life is morally acceptable. Hoenes would not argue, I believe, that because some children naturally die in their sleep, that therefore a parent would be justified in intentionally suffocating a child with a pillow, thus imitating nature.Your "Abortion and the Bible" article, written by Jim Miller, is well written and it reveals great erudition and scholarship, but it misses a fundamental point. Regardless of which interpretation of the Exodus 21:22-25 text you opt for, there is no valid conclusion we can draw regarding the issue of abortion in the 21st century. If the unborn were treated as property in the Old Testament, so were slaves and women. Are we to conclude that slaves and women are devoid of personhood today? Going to the Old Testament to solve the moral issue raised by abortion is reminiscent of the theologians who justified slavery in the South a century and a half ago with the Bible in their hands.I wish my church would muster the courage to make a strong stand in defense of the unborn. In our official "Guidelines on Abortion," we describe prenatal life as a "magnificent gift of God," and then proceed to state that "God gives humanity the freedom of choice." Yes, we are free to kill even the President, but there are consequences to our free actions! In our official SDA website we affirm that "prenatal life ... should be protected," and then go on to announce that "the church has chosen not to define the precise moment human life begins." Would it make sense for the U.S. government to declare that we are serious about protecting our borders, and then admit that we have decided not to define where those borders are?
We seem to be eager to pretend we are pro-life, when in fact we are enamored with the pro-choice position on abortion. It is time, I believe, that we stop straddling over the life fence, and throw the weight of our influence on behalf of those destined to perish before they have a chance to take their first breath. We have spent a lot of ink warning smokers about the dangers of the deadly tobacco habit, because it threatens to deprive smokers of a few years of their life, yet keep strangely silent about abortion, which deprives its victims of the entire span of their lives at its inception. It is high time that we reverse this mistaken course of action!” Nic Samojluk, Editor, SDA Forum.Net, www.sdaforum.net [now known as www.sdaforum.com ]
E. Reaction to My Letter What follows is a sample of the reaction generated by my letter to Adventist Today.
“Nic, Well done letter. Thanks for writing.”
John McLarty, Editor
Adventist Today
*********“This is a good letter, Nic. I hope A Today publishes it.”Dalton Bladwin
********* “A short response to your note since a lengthy conversation is precluded by my schedule.1. No Adventist I know favors "abortion." It is always a tragedy. And, if there are no good reasons permitting it, it is immoral. The kicker is in "no good reasons." That is the moral dilemma. Now, if you argue that from the moment of conception we have a "person" with an intrinsic right to life that cannot be overruled by any circumstance, then there is no way out of the dilemma. You let nature take its course. That is why the Roman Catholic position is logically tight. On the other hand, if you take the view (which most Americans do) that the moment of conception creates a person with A right to life that should not be overruled without strong moral justification, then you are implying that the "personhood" of the fetus with an intrinsic, non-overrulable right to life, does not exist until that fetus is separated from its mother's body. This allows a moral basis for aborting (actual case) a fetus (or unborn child if you like) in an 11 year old girl from India raped by her uncle. Her gynecologist feared that the pregnancy would kill her. If this case is a morally justifiable abortion, then we must work on what other cases would be justified, and try to isolate the principles and guidelines within which we would make our decision.2. There is also a legal problem. Some pro life supporters want to make abortion illegal, equivalent to murder. This goes back to point one. If you do that, there is little or no room to resolve some of these true moral dilemmas. Furthermore, in the absence of a societal consensus, it would be unenforceable. And the rich would have the money to fly away, and the poor would not. So, the law has some restrictions on it, but not many. It is deemed too personal an issue for the legislatures and the courts to decide.
3. There is also a social issue. Run out of time however.
Appreciate your thoughtful response to those articles.”
James Londis,
Director of Ethics and Corporate Integrity
Kettering Medical Center Network
Dayton, Ohio
*********“Dear Editor,
Why should the church answer all questions, ethical, doctrinal or otherwise for each member? Who would decide which issues to address? Why should the church "have a position" regarding abortion and so many other issues? It is obvious that some feel a need for answers to questions that are meant to be personal and local not global, but a church is not a place to think for you, it is a place to learn about principles not rules.
Give me a church that talks about principles and let people apply those principles via family and local community efforts. Follow the "Guidelines on Abortion" that the GC voted some time back, they provide a good model to apply at a personal/family/community level."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. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships.” <http://www.adventist. org/beliefs/main_guide1.html> Johnny Ramirez
F. My Answer to James LondisThis is what I wrote back to James Londis in response to his well crafted comments about my letter to Adventist Today.
“Thanks for your comments. As I consider the actual consequences of the legalization of abortion and the recent silence of the SDA church on the issue, I conclude that between the two extremes you have delineated so well, I am ready to pick the first one: “let nature take its course”. The gynecologist you make reference to was mistaken, I believe. Pregnancy is much safer than abortion. There are thousands of documented cases of botched abortions with dreadful consequences to women who were never warned of the risks associated with the choice of either poisoning or else dismembering their unborn child. I recommend to you the book Lime 5 Exploited by Choice, written by Mark Crutcher.I wish the Pro-choice Pandora box had never been opened. Healthy unborn babies are deprived of life by the thousands; physicians who were trained to save lives are openly advertising late abortions on the internet with impunity; baby parts are sold for research purposes on the open market with top prices being paid for the best specimens; and we, the “Remnant church of God”, having the “last message for a perishing world”, have decided to remain silent while the genocide goes on.A friend of mine asked Elder Loveless sometime ago why he never preached about the abortion problem, and he answered: “If I do that, some church members might be offended”. This attitude illustrates, I believe, the general position of Adventist intelligentia. Nevertheless, we tend to be very vocal about other issues like the Sabbath, health, and doctrine. Do you believe that health, and worshipping on the correct day of the week is of more concern to God than the merciless killing that is taking place inside American abortion clinics?Fortunately, there are a few exceptions among SDA leaders. I will cite one example: John McLarty, who argued in his last editorial found in Adventist Today that “neither the Bible nor Ellen White gives detailed guidance regarding many contemporary moral issues: drug addiction, abortion, slavery, tobacco, obesity, income inequity, pornography, reproductive technology, environmental degradation, immigration policy. If the church is silent on these matters, we will become increasingly irrelevant”. I believe that he is right.
Every time I participate in the distribution of Pro-life literature in nearby communities, I have the pleasure of meeting committed Christians of many denominations: Catholics, Evangelicals, Methodists, Baptists, and Pentecostals. I have yet to see any Adventists interested in performing this type of saving ministry. Why is this so? Because we have chosen to remain silent, while the enemy, the one who has been a murderer from the beginning reigns supreme over the dormant conscience of God's people.
May the Lord have mercy on us!”
Nic Samojluk, Editor
SDA forum.Com
G. My Answer to Johnny Ramirez What follows is my answer to Johnny Ramirez, who teaches at the Loma Linda University.“Thanks for writing! I do not consider the intentional and premeditated destruction of human life as a personal, and private matter. The sacredness of human life is protected by the same Decalogue that designated the Sabbath as God's Holy Time. Jesus stated that "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," which implies, I believe, that human life is at least as sacred as the Sabbath. The church has utilized a ton of ink with the objective of warning the world about the sacredness of God's chosen day of rest. If we need to be silent about abortion, then there is more reason for us to be silent about the correct day of worship. Likewise, we should also be silent about issues like tobacco and health. Addiction to smoking deprives a person of a few years of life, while abortion deprives and innocent baby of the total span of life.There is no reason to be concerned about the danger pregnancy poses to the mother, since there has never been a time when society has prevented physicians from saving the life of the pregnant woman in the extremely rare event when the pregnancy placed her life in danger. Experience has shown that pregnancy is much safer than abortion. I recommend to you a book written by Mark Crutcher entitled Lime 5: Exploited by Choice, in which the author lists thousands of cases where a botched abortion caused irreparable damage and even death to unsuspected victims of the highly lucrative abortion trade.I would like to submit to you the opinion of the Editor of Adventist Today, who stated the following in his latest magazine editorial regarding the silence of the church about abortion and other highly relevant moral issues society faces today: “neither the Bible nor Ellen White gives detailed guidance regarding many contemporary moral issues: drug addiction, abortion, slavery, tobacco, obesity, income inequity, pornography, reproductive technology, environmental degradation, immigration policy. If the church is silent on these matters, we will become increasingly irrelevant”.
May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry!”
Nic Samojluk, Editor
SDA Forum.Com
H. Nature Kills! Should We? Quite often, I hear the following argument justifying the practice of abortion: “Nature kills. There are spontaneous abortions resulting from genetic defects. What is morally wrong with doing under difficult circumstances what nature does so frequently?” The argument that abortion isn't so bad, since nature does it quite frequently is based, I believe, on a wrong premise. In many instances it is based on the so called "Acts of God" premise: the false notion that everything that nature does can be attributed to God. We tend to forget that many of what we call Acts of God are really the Acts of Man, and the rest are most likely the Acts of Satan, the "Destroyer," who, according to Jesus, has been a "murderer from the beginning."If you search the Internet, you will discover that a large number of spontaneous abortions are caused by numerous unhealthful factors such as smoking, lack of proper diet, the use of birth-control pills, and so on; which means that they are Man Made and not the Acts of God. I am including a few links you can try: 1. "http://www.arhp.org/clinical/ clinical1/effects.htm". 2. "http://www.mttu. com/Advocate/9_97/cover_s.htm". 3. "http://www.medfaq.com/abortion. htm". Nature kills, there is no way to deny this. We have tornadoes, storms, floods, earthquakes, and thousands of people perish. Nature kills innocent men. Does it follow that it is all right to kill innocent men? Nature kills loving mothers. Should I imitate nature and start doing what nature does? Nature kills innocent children. Will I be blameless if I do the same? Nature is sometimes very cruel with the old and the infirm. Does this justify my mistreatment of the old and sick? Babies sometimes die in their sleep. Does that mean that I am justified in killing a sleeping baby?As far as genetic defects is concerned, let me mention the following: My sister had a baby with Spina Bifida. The baby lived a few weeks and died. Isn't this much better than carrying the guilt of having intentionally killed the baby? Old people die a natural death, but the Glendale Hospital "angel of death" will spend the rest of his life, perhaps, in prison for intentionally terminating the life of several older patients. Evidently he wanted to imitate nature, and speed up what nature does at its own pace. Society determined that he is a murderer.Pro-abortion individuals are of the opinion that forcing a woman to keep the baby until birth is a violation of a moral principle. You could also argue that keeping old and infirm people alive against society's will is a violation of a moral principle. I do not think that there is a highest moral duty than protecting the life of a human being from violence, be this inside or outside the womb. It is high time that we require physicians to concentrate on their sacred mission of healing instead of killing!Jesus went about doing good and healing the sick. This is what we need to imitate, and not the acts of nature, which in many cases is controlled by the enemy, the "god of this world," the one who has been a "murderer from the beginning." Jesus stated: "I have come that you may have life, and that you may have it more abundantly." How can the unborn have it more abundantly, if we slaughter them by the millions every year before they have a chance to take their first breath? I believe that the intentional and premeditated destruction of innocent human life is morally wrong, whether done prior or after birth, whether carried out in America, the Middle East, or Afghanistan. I am persuaded that targeting the innocent is morally indefensible.
I. Mass Repentance in Great Britain Occasionally, an individual who has committed a criminal act, moved by a strong sense of guilt, will return stolen goods in order to make amends for his unacceptable behavior, but mass repentance is something unheard off. This is why, the Norfolk police in Great Britain are at a loss trying to understand why thousands of stolen goods are being turned in as a result of John John’s sermon entitled “Thou shalt not steal.” He is planning to deal with each one of the Ten Commandments recorded in the Old Book. I wonder what will happen following his sermon entitled: “Thou shalt not kill”? Will there be a mass confession from all those who have participated in the mass destruction of the unborn that is so prevalent in our society today? Or will they say, “Nature kills spontaneously, and so do we?”
Nic Samojluk, June 5/2002
A Letter from Hugo Schmidt
I thought you might be interested in reading a letter written by one of the SDA Forum contributors to the editor of the Adventist Review.
The LetterAugust 23,2000 Dear brother Johnson:In the Adventist Review, North American Edition, you wrote an article entitled: "The Jordan Fundamentals." Under the caption "Work Ethic" for Adventists you stress Sabbath observance. As an addition to that work ethics you say: "And faithfulness to spouse, children and friends." A very timely and challenging thought indeed, in an age when humans are treated in reality, more like things, where divorce and abortion (killing an unborn child) are invading Adventism in an ever-alarming rate!However, I wish to ask you a very simple and very childlike question: Does your encouragement to faithfulness, somehow deep down in your soul, include the unborn child, living so very secure and peacefully in a mother's friendly womb, waiting for the day to join you and me where God, yes God, in his miraculous ways puts us all together, as so beautifully explained by David in Holy Writ? Jesus, the Savior of the world, himself spent sometime in such a safe place, some two thousand years ago! Adventists, along with millions in the world, celebrate that very happy event every year, in great anticipation of his return!I humbly ask you whether you do or not consider this facet of faithfulness? If you do, would you kindly somehow let me personally know, and even perhaps the whole World Church family? A still unborn child turned into a mighty Evangelist "promoting" eternal life, or just a one who very quietly is a witness for Jesus doing a very menial task, might someday step up to you and with a broad smile thank you for rescuing him at the most important time in his life when the Lord was very closely involved in his development inside his mother's womb, the most dangerous place to be on earth today. In the name of God I urge you to consider my concern!May God continue to bless you and us all!
Submitted by H.D. Schmidt, Loma Linda, California
 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.
|
|
| |
|
|
