The Puzzling SDA's Apathy

Towards the Plight

of the Unborn

by Nic Samojluk

 

I wrote the following article several months ago at the request of Dr. Ervin Taylor, Executive Editor of Adventist Today. A shortened, edited version was published in the January/February issue of said magazine. The publication generated a highly controversial exchange between the author and one of the magazine readers. This unedited exchange is posted below

*********

The Puzzling SDA Apathy Towards the Plight of the Unborn

The Plight of the Unborn. Never in the history of humankind the lives of the unborn have been at risk on such a mass scale. There is no question but that the womb, the sacred chamber God provided for the protection of the unborn, is today the most dangerous place on earth (1). According to statistics provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute [Planned Parenthood], the number of abortions performed per year in the U.S. since 1973 averages 1,560,198 (2). The statistics for the entire world is even scarier: Approximately 46 Million (3). This surpasses by far any other cause of death, including wars (4).

If car accidents, smoking, or cancer, were responsible for the deaths of such a large number of human beings, I suspect that SDA’s would be demanding that something be done to put a stop to such a waste of human life. Half of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at or before the eight week of pregnancy (5); which means that approximately 800,000 developing babies are denied the right to life each year at a stage when they look very human, with recognizable arms, legs, head and feet, as revealed by ultrasound pictures (6). This is why when an abortion is performed, the nurse must account for all the parts of the dismembered baby to avoid serious health hazards for the mother.

Evidence of Our Apathy. Considering the fact that we claim to be the “God’s remnant church on earth” possessing the “last message for a perishing world,” and keeping God’s Commandments (7), it would be natural to expect that we would be in the forefront of the pro-life movement, because one of those commandments prohibits the taking of human life (8), and because the Bible contains many similar injunctions prohibiting the “shedding of innocent blood” (9). Can an abortion be performed without the shedding of innocent blood? It must be done before day 21 of pregnancy when most women aren’t even aware that they are pregnant! A decade ago I sent a donation to the General Conference and designated the funds as pro-life. The check was returned to me with the following note: “We do not have a pro-life program in our church.” .

Our Puzzling Inconsistency. We have invested a significant amount of time and tons of ink throughout the years in defense of the Sabbath, and we have had an impressive health program and have helped thousands of smokers quit a habit that shortens their lives by four or five years (10). Well, Abortion deprives the unborn of their entire life. Have you heard any pro-life sermons lately? How many pro-life articles have you spotted in our SDA publications in the last decade? The message we send to the world is: The Sabbath and extending the life of smokers by four or five years are important. The untimely death of our children before birth is not (11). A friend of mine sent an E-mail to our local pastor asking why he never preached a pro-life sermon. The answer was: “If I did, some members might get offended.” If that is the case, then why preach at all? Can you imagine John the Baptist, Elijah, Jesus, or Paul saying that?

The Role of Our Guidelines on Abortion. Our official Guidelines on Abortion (12) includes many lofty pro-life statements such as A. “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;” B. “Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church;” C. “God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction;” and D. “God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed.”

This is great! The problem is that these wonderful pro-life statements are neutralized by others like: A. “Seventh-day Adventists want to relate to the question of abortion in ways that … reflect Christian responsibility and freedom.” B. “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.” Does the fact that we have freedom of choice mean that we have a blank check to take the life of the unborn with impunity? I am free to shoot at the president or the pope, but there are serious consequences if I do so.

This emphasis on our freedom of choice, places us as a church on the side of the pro-choice/pro-abortion group. I see in these statements the influence of our religious liberty leaders, which reminds me of one of them named John V. Stevens. On August 20, 1990, The Pacific Union Recorder published an article written by him in which he adamantly defended women's moral right to abortion. His main argument was that Jesus died to give us the freedom of choice and, by submitting to the cross, “Christ valued choice over life” (13).

If that is the case, then perhaps Jesus also died to give rapists, burglars, child abusers, terrorists and murderers their freedom of choice! Contrast these statements with what James White wrote about abortion: “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” (14). Some argue that Ellen White never wrote about abortion. After reading what her husband wrote, do you think she needed to add anything else?

The defenders of abortion also argue that the Bible is rather silent on abortion. Well, I have news for them: The Bible is also silent about slavery, genocide, and polygamy. Am I morally free to enslave others or take another wife? The Guidelines on Abortion call for the “protection of human life,” but “the church has chosen not to define the precise moment human life begins” (15). Science does know when human life begins (16), and other church organizations and political groups (17) do know this as well (18); but we, the “Remnant Church of God” have chosen to ignore this! I ask: What good can calling for the protection of human life do if we decide to ignore when said life begins? Would it make sense for the president to order the border patrol to protect our borders and then admit that we do not know where those border lie?

The Question of Personhood. Back in 1973, nine unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court deprived the unborn of personhood, thus making the way clear for the merciless killing of the unborn; and more recently, a renowned and highly esteemed Loma Linda University professor (19) published a book with the title What is a Person, questioning the personhood of the unborn. What does the Bible say about the personhood of the unborn? In Isaiah 49:1 we find the following statement: “The Lord called me from the womb.” How can God call a non-person to be his prophet?

We have a similar statement regarding another major prophet: "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" (20). And regarding John the Baptist, the inspired evangelist Luke said: “He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb" (21). Is this applicable to a non-person? A similar statement is made by Paul: “But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb …(22) Does the Lord consecrate non-persons as his representatives on earth?

History has shown that the deprivation of personhood on a selective basis has been practiced since the dawn of civilization. For many centuries women, slaves, and members of specific ethnic groups have been legally stripped of personhood and subjected to abuse, torture, and even death (23). The first step towards the enslavement or extermination of certain groups of human beings has been to deprive them of personhood. It took a civil war to restore the personhood of the American slaves, and a world war to restore the right to life of Jews. Do we need another civil war to restore the unborn rights to life? (24) The defenders of abortion emphasize women’s right to freedom. How about the unborn’s right to freedom?

Are We Repeating History? By looking the other way while millions of unborn are deprived of life we are repeating history. Recently, the German and Austrian SDA leaders issued a public apology for our cooperation with the Hitler Nazi regime while the slaughter of the Jews was taking place. Unless we alter our indifference towards the unborn, I will venture to predict that we are doomed to apologize again at some time in the future for our apathy towards the plight of the unborn.

My Response to Jim Walters. In his critique of my article, Jim Walters included some new issues and a couple of non-issues. The “Flat View of Human Life” and the threat to the life of the pregnant woman are non-issues. I have never equated the value of a single-celled entity with the moral value of an adult. There is a huge moral difference between shooting at the president and attempting to assassinate a burglar. The law distinguishes between first-degree and a second-degree murder. Manslaughter is not morally equivalent to murder.

Nature does kill with spontaneous abortions, floods, tornados, and earthquakes; while humans who imitate nature quite often end in jail or the electric chair. The Bible is silent on abortion; but it fails to condemn slavery, polygamy, and genocide as well; which means that the argument from silence is inappropriate. God allows for personal freedom, but there are serious consequences for misusing it. If we allow abortion on the basis of freedom, then why not allowing rape, stealing, and child abuse as well?

The image of God is more than “the power to think and to do.” It is the power to love and to act in a redemptive fashion. “God is love,” and this love prompted him to grant the human race a second chance. Abortion denies the unborn even the first chance on life, and punishes the innocent for the crimes or mistakes of others, which cannot be equated with a lesser evil. Nine months of inconvenience can never compensate the total deprivation of life.

Footnotes

1. http://sdaforum.com/page25.html

2. http://www.cirtl.org/stats.htm
3. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
4. http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm
5. http://www.bfl.org/Gestational+Age++Abortion.aspx?Page=12fbaf42-985c-491e-bd1a-ab0656891390
6. http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/
7. Revelation 12:17.
8. Exodus 20:13.
9. Proverbs 6:16,17; Deuteronomy 19:10.
10. http://sdaforum.com/page36.html
11. http://sdaforum.com/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=423
12. http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html?&template=printer.html
13. http://sdaforum.com/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=6089&highlight=abortion
14. Solemn Appeal, 1870. [Quoted from Adventist For Life, Vol. III, # 3]
15. http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/07/0997187695/index.html.en
16. http://abortionismurder.org/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html
17. http://sdaforum.com/page53.html
18. http://sdaforum.com/page53.html
19. James W. Walters.
20. Jeremiah 1:5.
21. 1:15.
22. Galatians 1:15.
23. http://abortionismurder.org/HTML/I-I-2-property.html
24. http://abortionismurder.org/HTML/I-I-2-property.html

by Janine Goffar 

Dear AT Editor:

I was interested to read both Nic Samojluk’s and James Walters’ opinion pieces on abortion and the official church statement on abortion (Jan.-Feb. 2007 issue).

I myself have leaned toward Walters’ position that “greater evil would result from an outright ban on abortion than allowing it under our circumscribed Adventist guidelines.” But I am far from morally settled in my own position, and Samojluk calls me again to reconsider. He reinforces my view that God cares about what happens to human beings before they are born, even as tiny embryos, and that we morally reduce ourselves when we take nascent human life so lightly.

What troubles me most about Samojluk’s piece is his use of Bible passages that seem to some to argue against abortion without paying even passing attention to other potentially valid interpretations, such as those Walters mentions. Those alternate interpretations suggest that the texts he marshals were not intended to address the moral worth of the fetus, and do not in fact speak to it, but have other purposes instead.

On the other hand, what troubles me most about Walters’ piece is his bald assertion that “fetuses, as such, are not souls.” He appears to base this sweeping and unqualified statement on two pieces of evidence. First, since we are created “in the image of God,” he suggests we are not of full moral worth until we can think, since God can think.

Obviously, fetal human life has not yet developed the capacity to think, and thus the Adventist focus on what it means to be in God’s image has direct implications for the moral status of fetal human life.

But this argument has the obvious danger that it can be carried over into the realm of the born (which Walters later, in fact, does, in his troubling reference to Terri Schiavo). A one-day-old child can hardly think at all, let alone like a five-year-old or a twenty-five-year-old. Is his life less morally valuable because of that fact? Harvard ethicist Peter Singer believes so­thus, his position that parents ought to have “choice” for 30 days after their child is born.

Walters’ second bit of evidence is Exodus 21:22-25, in which a man who hits a woman and causes a miscarriage is merely fined, while if he harms the woman herself, the principle of an eye-for-an-eye applies. This is fine as far as it goes. I, too, use this passage in discussion with others to show that it is simply not provable from the Bible that human life morally equal to born human life starts at conception; that at least this one passage seems to powerfully indicate otherwise.

But when I argue either way, I am never wholly convinced of my own argument. Would Jim, for example, really use this passage in Exodus­along with his other points of argument­to keep partial birth abortions legal or simply a fineable offense? Would Nic, for example, really want all abortion doctors prosecuted as murderers, which is the logical upshot to his unswerving and unnuanced view?

I’ll go further. Would Nic be morally willing to kill an abortion doctor or have one killed if that was the only way to prevent the death of hundreds if not thousands more murders of human fetuses? If he would answer that it is not his role to carry out such preventive justice, but the State’s, then I would ask, what if he saw a man shooting up children in a schoolyard, and he had access to a weapon to kill him? Isn’t it essentially the same moral situation? Would he stand by, using his cell phone to call the police, while those children were picked off one by one?

My point is that either absolutist position has problems. Asserting that all abortions are murders of fully ensouled human beings every bit as valuable as a born human being leads logically to the killing of abortion doctors by people who take you seriously. Asserting flatly that “fetuses, as such, are not souls” leads logically to what we have now­millions of aborted fetuses, a casual view of the value of embryonic human life, and legal partial birth abortion.

My tentative and therefore humbly held belief has always been that nascent human life likely escalates in moral value up until the time of birth. As a result, I have preferred to leave abortion-on-demand legal in the first trimester, and only then, with caveats applied even there. I admit it’s an arbitrary line. But everyone’s line is arbitrary, as no one knows with absolute certainty when fully ensouled human life begins.

This seems, in the latter part of his essay, to be Walters’ view, as well. But what troubles me is his air of certainty about it all, his unruffled faith in the SDA position as the best one even in light of where such fence-sitting has gotten our society, and his lack of pause for serious consideration that he and I­and our church­may well turn out to have been egregiously wrong not to have weighed in more unequivocally.

I’m shifting politically towards the pro-life stance because of the excesses of the pro-choice lobby. The fact that the laws currently in place have led to so much abortion, a trivial view of the human fetus, and legalized partial birth abortion troubles me terribly. I do not hear this angst at all in Walters, only a pro forma concession that he may turn out to have been wrong.

I am almost to the point where I would rather have the evils that would ensue from outlawing abortion altogether (and I recognize we would likely have a civil war in this country first) than the evils­including the approximately one and a half million annual US abortions­that exist presently, if we as a country can come to no better middle ground than what we have now. The status quo may not rise to the precise definition of a holocaust, but I do think it is an abomination.

Sincerely,

Janine Goffar

Loma Linda, CA

My Response to Janine

by Nic Samojluk

Janine,

Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Adventist Today. This gives me a chance to read your comments in their entirety, instead of the edited version that might come out of the magazine, and will allow you to read my unedited version of my response. I am saying this because what you read in A.T. is the chopped-up version of what I wrote. Key elements of my arguments were deleted without my knowledge after my original submission had been approved in its entirety for publication. If granted a chance, I would have gladly shortened the article without sacrificing important details if there was a problem of space.

When I was invited to write for A.T., I was given specific instructions about the maximum length of my submission, and I religiously followed the guidance I received, including the avoidance of terms that might be offensive to those who believe that taking the lives of the unborn is a God-given right. When I read the edited version of my article, I was shocked. It looked like the result of an abortion survival. Nevertheless, I am grateful that a major portion of what I wrote survived. A live baby that survives a botched abortion is still valuable in God's eyes, even if an arm or a leg is missing. In the event you would like to read the unedited version of what I wrote, go to http://sdaforum.com/page90.html . I will try to address the many issues you have raised:

Jim Walters Admissions. I would like to start with a couple of Jim Walters' admissions. In his A.T. recently published article, he admitted that "future civil society will ban abortion as barbaric." I fully agree with this statement, and I am glad that this came out of his mouth and not mine. The other admission was made by him over a decade ago in an article that was included in the book edited by David Larson Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options: "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. ... we could reason that progressive revelation of God’s will on abortion is leading us to declare the “present truth” that the million-and-a-half abortions each year in this country are nothing short of mass murder." I am glad that those are his words and not mine, since I was warned that any use of strong language like "mass murder," "genocide," and the like would be excised from whatever I submitted to A.T., which means that perhaps David Larson should delete those offending terms from Walters' article.

The Price of Living in the Future. If "future civil society will ban abortion as barbaric," then my question is: What is the price of living in the future now? The cost is quite simple--merely nine months of inconvenience for the pregnant woman--in exchange for the life of the innocent. Is this too much to ask from women? Do women really prefer to bear a life-long guilt associated with having been accomplices in the murder of an innocent human being?--sorry! I meant the interruption of an unwanted pregnancy! Isn't nine months of inconvenience significantly less evil than the permanent and irreversible deprivation of life of a totally innocent individual? After all, the law allows the pregnant woman contemplating abortion to carry said pregnancy to term and leave the unwanted baby at any hospital without incurring in any penalty. Why kill the poor creature when there is a viable alternative?

Who Should be Penalized? If our thirst for blood is so great, why not targeting the culprit responsible for the unwanted pregnancy? The rapist is responsible for the terrible wrong done to the woman, why not punishing the guilty instead of taking the life of the innocent? But if society has decided that the rapist must live, then for the sake of fairness, equity and justice, let us not penalize the innocent with the ultimate punishment: death. If the rapist must live, so much more the unborn child.

The Image of God. Jim Walters argues that the unborn has not fully developed the "image of God," which Ellen White equates with the "ability to think and to do." You pointed quite adequately that if we follow this logic, then we must deprive small children and the old and senile of legal protection as well, because they have either not developed yet or else have already lost the ability to think and to do. This definition of the image of God is incomplete. God is defined as "love," not merely as someone with the ability to think and to do. God's image includes the ability to love and care for humanity the way Jesus did. Jesus was in the business of healing, not killing! If we limit the image of God to the ability to think and to do, then the most infamous criminals of human history would qualify as having the image of God, including Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein.

The shedding of the Blood of Innocents. The Holy Book condemns the shedding of innocent blood. Does this apply to the unborn? I think it does. By the twenty-second day of conception, the developing baby--fetus if you prefer. It means the same in Latin--has already a beating heart. The hearts function is to pump blood throughout the developing child's circulatory system. This means that by the time a woman discovers that she is pregnant, there is already blood in the child's body. This is why abortion is such a bloody business. You may think that the blood of the unborn is not worth very much. This is not the way heaven values human life.

The Exodus Passage. Regarding the controversial biblical passage found in Exodus 21:22-25, remember that the original Hebrew term has a double connotation: "miscarriage" and "premature birth." You are free to choose either one, but remember that the second option fits the context much better. This is why the NIV reads as follows: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined ... But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life." The "miscarriage" choice in this context doesn't make sense, unless you think that the death of an unborn baby is not the result of injury. Nevertheless, if you still think that "miscarriage" is the better choice, then remember that in the O.T. society the life of women was not worth more than the life of a slave: thirty pieces of silver, and slavery, genocide, and polygamy were unjustly tolerated for centuries due to the "hardness of their hearts."

The Moral Worth of the Fetus. You suggest in your Email that the texts I used in my A.T. article "were not intended to address the moral worth of the fetus." You are partially correct. They were not intended to deal with the abortion issue, but God's concern for the unborn is clearly evident in them. This is the reason I included those biblical statements. Jesus concern for children is patent in the New Testament. He told us in Matthew 25 that our eternal destiny will be determined on how we treat the little ones. We value human beings on the basis of their achievement. Heaven does the opposite and values them on the basis of their vulnerability and their need for love and care; children qualify better than anybody else, and this includes the unborn. Jesus also stated that he came that we "might have life, and have it more abundantly." How can the unborn enjoy life more abundantly if their life is snuffed before they have a chance to take their first breath? And let us not forget that the term "fetus" is the Latin equivalent for "child."

The "Lesser Evil" Argument. Jim Walters and the SDA official "Guidelines on Abortion" argue that killing the unborn is the lesser of two evils. My question is: Lesser evil for whom? For the pregnant woman, for society, or for the unborn? Can anything be worse evil than being burned by chemicals, being torn limb from limb, having your brains vacuumed out by a machine, or having a needle inserted in your heart to stop its beating? This argument won't stand careful and loving scrutiny. The "lesser evil" theory does not apply to the pregnant woman because she will have to live with a guilty conscience for the rest of her life, burdened with the knowledge that she did take the life of her own child. It does not apply to society either because it condones the destruction of the innocent, and it could never apply to the innocent victim--the unborn.

Should Society Prosecute Abortionists? Society has no right to prosecute those engaged in the abortion business until the time that Roe vs. Wade is either repealed or else the U.S. Congress musters the courage to do what is right, declaring that the unborn are members of the human race and entitled to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Once either of those legal steps are taken, then those physicians engaged in the killing of the innocents should be penalized, and this includes the physicians working in those SDA medical institutions who engage in this questionable practice of medicine. Physicians are ordained by heaven to heal, not to kill. By the way, one of those SDA institutions was described by an influential employee of the General Conference as "an abortion mill." If you are interested in learning some of the things that have been said and done by leading SDA leaders of the church, you need to read my doctoral dissertation entitled: "From Pro-life to Pro-choice: the Dramatic Shift of Seventh-day Adventists' Attitude Toward Abortion." It is currently being examined by my doctoral dissertation committee. I intend to eventually publish it on my SDA Forum website.

Is It Morally Right to Kill an Abortionist? In the short run, killing an abortionist might result in saving the lives of some unborn children. This has been tried already. Did this produce the desire effect? Did God approve Moses' action when he killed the Egyptian? In the long run, Martin Luther King's example is more effective. Do you think that if Martin Luther King had started killing white racists the benefits would have been desirable and lasting? When Saint Peter took his sword in defense of his Master and cut the ear of the servant of the High Priest, Jesus told him that whoever kills with the sword will likely die by the sword. Jesus restored the poor man's ear, showing us that we need to stick to the job assigned to us: the art of healing--not killing!

Would Another Civil War Solve this Problem? Who wants another Civil War? Can't we see what is taking place in Iraq? The American Civil War did partially accomplish the objective of freeing the slaves, but at a tremendous cost in human lives. I rather admire what Martin Luther King achieved in a peaceful way. Jesus could have led the Jewish army in order to liberate the Jews from their bondage to Rome. He preferred to give his life, and several centuries later Rome was conquered by Christianity through their peaceful efforts in reforming society. Nevertheless, if you prefer a Civil War, then you have to let politicians handle that. The church should not engage in violence. The sword was given to the state. The only sword the church should use is the Bible. When threatened by a criminal I call the cops, and they better know how to shoot straight. When in need of spiritual guidance, I call the pastor.

Your Questions to Jim Walters. You have some questions directed at Jim Walters. I will let him handle those. Nevertheless, I would like to respond to some of the comments Walters made in his A.T. article published in the January/February issue of said magazine that have not been dealt with adequately in my comments up to this point.

The Moral Gradation of Human Life. Walters is convinced that the person with the ability to read the A.T.magazine is morally worth much more than the unborn. I question that assumption, because it represents a humanistic approach to the value of life. From God's perspective, as I have noted above, the reverse is true. Jesus told us in Matthew 25 that our eternal destiny will hinge on the way we have treated the least. I think that the unborn do qualify as the least among the members of humanity. The life of a president might have more value in the eyes of men. Not so in the eyes of the Creator. We have no idea about God's plan for every developing human life.

Individual Freedom and the Right to Choose. The Lord did grant us the right to choose, but he advised us to "choose life." We do have the freedom to engage in criminal behavior, but if we do, then our own freedom and even life may end as a consequence. Those who abuse their freedom quite often end in jail or even the electric chair. There is, unfortunately, one exception: those who engage in the destruction of the most vulnerable members of society--the unborn. Those can kill the most innocent members of society with impunity.

Our SDA "Carefully Crafted Position" on Abortion. Walters says that our official position on abortion is the result of a "carefully crafted" work of individuals appointed by the G.C. I agree. It was carefully crafted to justify the killing of the unborn under certain circumstances. The question is: Who were the main contributors to our official "Guidelines on Abortion"? The evidence shows that the General Conference delegated the main responsibility of dealing with this issue to the University of Loma Linda. Was this a wise decision? I don't think so. It is the equivalent of asking the tobacco industry to set the guidelines for the sale of cigarettes. It would have been much wiser to have assigned this task to Andrews University.

What Circumstances Led us to Justify Abortion? You need to examine the circumstances that led us to justify abortion. Two years before the legalization of abortion, the State of Hawaii removed the legal protection from the unborn, and a group of liberal non-SDA physicians employed by our main hospital in said state demanded the right to engage in elective abortions. The SDA physicians disagreed, and the non-SDA doctors threatened to take their patients elsewhere. Then a former contributor to the hospital foundation demanded that the hospital provide en elective abortion for his teenage daughter. The then president of the G.C. declared that due to the world's overpopulation, SDA's would probably decide to lean towards the pro-choice position. The G.C.issued the original guidelines of abortion but left hospitals free to determine their own policies. This set the stage for our eventual embracing of the pro-choice position on abortion. Do not forget the main motivation behind what happened in Hawaii: monetary profit and financial survival of the institution. Such a foundation is morally bankrupt, I believe.

The Spontaneous Abortion of Fetuses. Walters argues that there is a large number of spontaneous abortions effected by nature. This is true. Nevertheless, do not forget that nature also kills by means of tornados, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Does it follow that we should imitate nature. Is it morally acceptable to kill the innocents just because nature does this spontaneously? Nature does kill innocent children, but we should not.

With this, I rest my case, although there is much more that can be said about this controversial issue.

How About a Compromise Leaving it Legal

During the First Trimester?

by Janine Goffar

Hello, Nic,

Thank you for such a lengthy and thoughtful response to what I wrote. I have read it carefully.

First off, let me assure you that your experience with AT is not unique. I had the very same experience with a book review I once submitted. I asked to see the final version, but never was sent it. What got published was an embarrassment. If they publish my letter at all, I am assuming it will receive the same treatment.

I will try to address your points one by one.

1. On the first point, "Admissions," I cannot make a comment other than that I will accept what you state as being said by Larson, not having the book, but I do not read Walters the way you do. I read him as saying you may be right that "future civil society will ban abortion as barbaric," implying that you may not be, also. He is simply conceding the possibility, since no one knows what the future holds.

Your quarrel about what was permitted in Larson's book and not in your article is between you and Larson, or between you and AT. What one publisher permits may not be the same as what another publisher permits, as I am sure you are aware.

2. On your second issue, the nine months of "inconvenience," I completely agree. And you have stated it well. There is simply no excuse for most abortions, in my book, when adoption is so readily available an alternative.

3. On why make an exception for rape, I have always found yours to be a compelling argument once one posits the "fully-human" view. If taking the life of a four-week-old fetus is murder, then it makes no difference how that fetus was conceived: it is still murder. But I do not accept the view that it is unquestionably murder. My position is that we don't know for certain, and we can't know for certain from the Bible at just what point the nascent human life attains the full moral significance of a born human being. This essential difference between us will make discussion on some of your points --well, pointless.

4. Your "image of God" enlargement is acceptable to me in all points.

5. "The shedding of the blood of innocents." You wrote: << The Holy Book condemns the shedding of innocent blood. Does this apply to the unborn? I think it does. >>

Therein, I believe, lies the whole problem. You think it does. Someone else thinks it does not. I am unsure, as are many. This is not a case where there has been general universal agreement on a moral issue, such as on murder or stealing or adultery. Instead, there has been general universal disagreement, even within the Christian church, even within the Adventist church. There is nothing like the virtual unanimity we have on murder, theft, burglary, child abuse, etc.

That is why I am inclined to compromise: leaving it legal in the first trimester (as I conceded, a mostly arbitrary line), with caveats such as adoption counseling and a brief waiting period for reflection; then making it illegal after that, except when the mother's life is in real danger. Such a compromise acknowledges the lack of universal certainty on when fully morally significant human life begins, and at the same time it affirms the moral seriousness of the taking of these entities at the later stages of a pregnancy, during which most people agree it's wrong. Such a compromise, as is the nature of compromises, pleases no one, but grants a measure of respect to all the various views.

6. The Exodus passage. I am not a theologian, but my reading of the text leaves open either possibility. There is not even close to universal agreement on what the text means, or how significant it is for the modern-day abortion issue. Again, because of all the uncertainty, I tend to have a much less harsh view of those who want to leave it legal but discouraged than do you, and more of a willingness to compromise.

7. The moral worth of the fetus. Here again, you and I simply disagree on the probability of the cited Biblical passages telling us unequivocally when fully valuable human life begins. You see them as certainly making your argument; I see them as having no such certainty. Until one of us changes our mind about such texts, we are likely at an impasse.

8. Your paragraph on the "lesser evil" argument again presupposes that a two-minute-old embryo is as morally significant as a born human being. I completely respect that view, and would welcome sharing it if it were as clear to me as it is to you. It simply is not. It may be as morally significant; it may not be. My hunch is that it has increasing moral significance up until the time it is born, or possibly up until it is simply "viable." I cannot give you chapter and verse, beyond the questionable Exodus text; it is simply my intuition, from what I know of God being a kind of "common sense" God. To me, "common sense" argues that a newly joined embryo has significance beyond a sperm or an egg, but not the same moral significance as a born human being. In no way do I think of an abortion doctor in the same terms as I think of Adolph Hitler, and would not want them prosecuted the same. Would you, in your ideal world--if you could make the laws?

9. Prosecution of Abortion Doctors: See end of my response to #8.

10. You ducked my question, as phrased. I will restate it: If you were witness to a schoolyard mass shooting, and had access to a gun (and were a skilled sharpshooter), would you use it to prevent the shooter from shooting more children if that were the only way possible to stop him? If not, because you could not personally shoot another human being, would you say another person who shot the shooter was morally wrong to do so? Here's another question: If a person could have safely gotten to within shooting distance of Adolph Hitler, and had a gun, would it have been morally wrong for that person to shoot him dead? These hypotheticals have a purpose, of course: they flesh out whether you really believe the killing of a four-week-old fetus is the exact moral equivalent of the killing of a four-day-old baby. I would appreciate your not avoiding them, but answering them exactly as posed.

11. You wrote: << ...If you prefer a Civil War, then you have to let politicians handle that. The church should not engage in violence." Obviously, I did not write that I preferred a civil war. Please! I will try to read you carefully if you will grant me the same courtesy. I said that before Roe v. Wade were overturned and all abortions were made illegal, we would likely have a civil war in this country. My point was, that is how passionate the pro-choicers are about keeping abortion legal. Perhaps it is worth having such a heated, possibly lethal battle. Perhaps not.

12. You wrote: << Walters is convinced that the person with the ability to read the A.T.magazine is morally worth much more than the unborn. I question that assumption, because it represents a humanistic approach to the value of life. >> You question that assumption, and I respect you for it; many good Christians question yours, and I respect their doubts. My whole point is that once we concede that it is far from clear to millions of otherwise good and intelligent people just when fully morally significant human life begins, we can then begin to think clearly how to approach the topic with a measure of respect for those who differ from us. It really isn't perfectly clear in the Bible. You may think it is, but many decent and studied Christians disagree that it's that clear, and I am among them.

13. Your next few points show again how varied are the views within even our own church, let alone outside our church in the broader polity. To me, this broad disagreement argues not for imposing one extreme view or the other on all, but for compromise. What troubles me is that the "compromise" this society has reached leans heavily toward the pro-choice extremists, and that by judicial fiat; it gives very little to the "pro-life" camp.

14. Your last point about nature taking many innocent human lives is a good one, I think. Hurricanes in no way justify murder. You and I simply disagree on how certain it is that aborting a day- or week-old fetus is the exact moral equivalent in God's eyes to murder.

Again, thank you for taking the time to so thoroughly and intelligently respond to my letter. It is a pleasure to discuss with you. I admire your passion, and share, to a great extent, your concern. Believe me, I am just as hard on the extreme pro-choicers as I am on you! Many act as if they are certain the early developing fetus has NO moral worth, and I am at least as unimpressed with their certainty as I am with yours.

Respectfully yours,

Janine

"I'll Show You a More Excellent

Way," St. Paul

by Nic Samojluk