 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notice that I could yield to the temptation of suggesting that you also did exactly what you are asking me to avoid:
The Distinction Between a Moral and a Political Question The context of this exchange of ideas about abortion is a moral one. The parable appearing at the beginning of this thread deals with the Adventist Church proper role in this controversy. The church has no power fo "force" anyone to carry an abortion to term. Its role is to help our church members to distinguish between good and evil. If you are interested in finding my political opinion on this matter, that would be another issue. The Morality of Abortion I believe that choosing the abortion alternative is a morally flawed decision. Why? Because there is a better option: Adoption. The Bible has many definitions for sin, and one of them is "missing the mark." If you accept this definition, and if you accept that an embryo is a human being, then you need to conclude that the woman who opts for an abortion has missed the mark. She has failed to opt for the best alternative, or if you prefer, she has sinned against the Creator. The Value of Human Life You wonder whether I have read the biblical passage found in Exodus 21:22-24. My answer is: Yes, I have read that passage not once, but rather numerous times. From it I draw a totally different conclusion, and it looks like I am not alone on this. Please, read how the NIV renders the same passage:
The Humanity of the Human Embryo You seem to wonder whether the human embryo is really human:
If you think hard, you might realize that your argument that a human being in its embryonic stage is not a human being yet, because it has not reached the stage of consciousness, is precisely the philosophical reasoning that gave us abortion. By coincidence, in his Sabbath School lesson this morning Paul Giem dealt precisely with this. The book he is using is "Icons of Evolution," and there is a chapter in it dealing with the view of evolutionists who seem to argue precisely the way you do. Their theory is that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," and that in its embryonic stage there is hardly any difference between a human embryo and that of a frog, fish, or any other creature. As you can see, the theory of evolution tends to deny the humanity of the unborn in its embryonic stage of development. I do not believe that this reasoning can stand the biblical test. Exodus 21 provides no exception for the "first few weeks of pregnancy:" The mother of Jesus was "with child" at the moment of conception:
What to do in Case of Doubt You also state the following:
My Political Opinion Regarding Abortion Now that I have established the difference between our moral and our political duty, let me tell you what my civil duty is: My duty as a citizen of our country is to vote for candidates that would come as close as possible to the ideal moral duty I have towards God and the sanctity of human life. In most of the Latin countries there is no legal abortion alternative for women, and our SDA members in those countries are happy with this situation, and our evangelistic program is quite successful. God does bless our mission efforts whenever we seek to do his will. The only option pregnant women have in those countries is whether to keep the baby or else give it up for adoption. Couples who can't procreate are spending up to $25,000 for the privilege of adopting a child in the U.S. This could be avoided. The Best Alternative for Pregnant Women in Crisis I believe that adoption is a better alternative than abortion. You seem to think otherwise:
The Question of Fairness and Justice In addition, I would like to address the question of fairness and justice. Justice demands that the guilty be punished, and not the innocent. Abortion turns this fairness rule upside down. The guilty of rape or incest usually goes free, and the unborn is executed. The Impact of Abortion on the Church's Mission Finally the legalization of abortion tends to make it easier for people to engage in deviant behavior which is forbidden by the Seventh Commandment: They see no big harm in the practice of adultery and fornication, since an abortion seems to solve the unwanted pregnancy problem. When the church justifies abortion, the mission of the church is compromised. The SDA church should never have defended the practice of abortion, which it did even before the legalization of abortion, and I am talking about elective abortion--not the therapeutic type. If you need documentation, I am willing to provide. The practice of abortion was condemned by the early Christian church and the Hyppocratic Oak was in force in the West for thousand of years. Abortion is a new morality influenced by the theory of evolution which teaches that a human embryo is not really human. On this issue, the SDA church has developed a blind spot. This needs to be corrected. Nic |
| Quote: |
| Important disclaimer The quotations listed in this allegory are really composite paraphrases of statement that have been made by several individuals over the years in the last four decades. If they seem to match something that you have expressed, do not be alarmed, since this must be a mere coincidence. If you want to find out what real people have stated regarding this issue, you need to locate their actual verbatim quotations, most of whom are in this forum. And remember that this is a parable and not an actual report of what people you know have stated. |
When I initially wrote said allegory, I made an honest attempt not to misrepresent what others had once stated over the years. In my paraphrase, I did try to stick to what I interpreted to be the position of several individuals. You may notice that I deleted the last two paragraphs and replaced them with a disclaimer. I have been faithfully posting the comments you have been sending to me. For any future mailings, if you have any comments which you do not want me to include in the forum, please label them as STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. Otherwise I will assume that anything that comes my way is intended to be posted.
By the way, do you know what the main characteristic of an allegory is? An allegory or a parable is like a caricature where some of the features are intentionally distorted for the sake of effect, and they might represent what several individuals have stated in the past. This is true about most parables, including the one that Erv Taylor wrote. Evidently you took this quite seriously, and I do not blame you. I probably would have reacted in a similar fashion had I been the object of a caricature. Although, I have seen people who dismiss the temptation to get offended and laugh at themselves with everybody else.
Nevertheless, as I was writing it, I did make a serious attempt to avoid distorting what I had understood other people had stated, and if I did misinterpret anything, you did have a chance of making the proper correction, and you did take advantage of this by posting a clarification. This is what a forum is for. Making corrections in the original posting has its own problems, since the postings that follow may not make very much sense, because readers have no idea why certain comments that followed were made. If I had chosen to quote people verbatim in a parable, the literary piece would have ceased to be what it is. It would have become an actual report instead of being an allegory. I hope you can see the difference.
The Value of the Unborn
Evidently you assign a lot of credit to your favourite interpretation of Exodus 21. I don't, and I will tell you why:
First Reason. I believe that the authors of the New International Version of the Bible must have had good reasons for having chosen the "premature birth" option when translating said passage instead of "miscarriage." The Hebrew is inconclusive and the original term can be rendered either way. You have chosen the translation that tends to justify abortion, I prefer the one that condemns it and which reads:
| Quote: |
| "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury [the baby lives] the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, [the baby dies] you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." |
| Quote: |
| "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art. " [ http://sdaforum.com/page183.html ] |
Fourth Reason. The early SDA pioneers condemned the practice of abortion in the strongest possible terms.
| Quote: |
| James White: 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. [James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100. |
| Quote: |
| J.N. Andrews: 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. [ J.N. Andrews, Editor. “A Few Words Concerning a Great Sin” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (Nov. 30, 1869): 184.] |
| Quote: |
| Ellen G. White: 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 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. [ White. Selected Messages, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 429-430.] |
Now notice the stark contrast between the opinion of the SDA pioneers, and that of a modern president of the General Conference. Do you detect the 180 degree turn of the church regarding abortion? And do not forget that this declaration was made immediately prior to the time when our Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii authorized the provision of elective abortions to women who didn't want to carry their babies to term--not for therapeutic reasons, but rather for convenience.
| Quote: |
| Neal Wilson: 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,[1] we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population. [ George B. Gainer, “Abortion: History of Adventist guidelines” Ministry (Aug. 1991): 11-17. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1991-08/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=11 on 25 Oct. 2006.] |
Fifth Reason. The SDA church states that the unborn should be protected from the time a pregnancy has been detected.
| Quote: |
| Gerald Winslow: "What we have said is that we take every stage of prenatal life very seriously. It should be protected," explains Winslow. "But the prenatal life we're protecting exists once an 'established pregnancy' can be ascertained." [ http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/07/0997187695/index.html.en ] |
You state:
| Quote: |
| In Exodus the lost fetus was a property offense only. |
Seventh Reason: The argument that the human embryo is not really human in the early stages of development, which you seem to defend, is actually a truly evolutionists tenet. I suggest that you read the book authored by Jonathan Wells entitled "Icons of Evolution." In it he has an entire chapter dealing with this issue. My question to you is: How can you feel so strong about the need to dismiss those SDA teachers who believe in evolution and at the same time adamantly defend a basic premise of evolutionists regarding the non-humanity of the human embryo?
My friend, I would like you to reconsider your position on abortion. I have invested thousands of hours--that I could have employed in my business--to this topic, and my doctoral dissertation deals with the dramatic shift of the SDA church regarding this issue. The more I study this, the more convinced I get that the church needs to repent and alter its course and practice. Our hospitals should stop offering abortion services and follow the lead of those operated by the Catholic church. They will not perform abortions. They remain faithful to the Christian tradition in this respect, a tradition that goes all the way to the early Christian church.
You stated:
| Quote: |
| I don't believe that DNA alone, the mere potential for a human, reaches the level of humanity. I don't believe a single fertilized cell is a human either - and neither is a small collection of cells. There is no brain, no thinking, no feeling, no potential for suffering, nothing but a collection of cells with the potential to be human - someday. At this point, there is no murder of an actual human with the destruction of a pre-thinking pre-conscious cell or collection of cells. |
| Quote: |
| But, you argue that humanness begins at conception because of texts that point out that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Sure He was! But, that doesn't mean that he became a thinking feeling human being at conception - regardless of how He was conceived. That means that Mary could indeed have opted for abortion without committing murder. |
The twins sins of adultery and fornication are at the root of the abortion business. How can we continue to label ourselves as the "Remnant Church" having the last message to a perishing world while ignoring two of God's Commandments: the Sixth and the Seventh one. This blows my mind! Our Washington hospital was decribed by a GC official as an "Abortion Mill." And we have labelled the Pope--who defends the life of the unborn--as the "Beast of Revelation." Who is really the beast, the one who protects the innocent, the weak and vulnerable or the one who destroys, or condones the destruction of the innocent?
There is much more I could say, but I will rather stop with reason number seven--the number representing perfection!
Nic
The Bible is Ambiguous Regarding Abortion
by Sean Pitman
Nic,
I appreciate your efforts and your motives regarding the issue of abortion. I also thank you for modifying your parable. However, at the very least it seems that the Bible itself is rather ambiguous with regard to the issue of abortion. The available texts dealing with the issue are few and can be easily interpreted to mean completely opposite things. That is why I think it is best to leave this issue as a personal decision between the individual and God without any official SDA Church stand. There simply isn't enough Biblical support to take a fundamental position as a Church Body - in my opinion. The arguments on both sides have reasonable support.
Personally, I'm convinced by the pro-choice arguments when it comes to the first few weeks after conception while you wish to "give the benefit of the doubt", in an official way as stated Church doctrine, to the fetus at all stages of development regardless of the position of the parents.
There you have it. There is too much doubt here for the Church to take any definite stand to the degree you are promoting. The Church's definite stands on right and wrong, with the resulting implication of guilt on contrary parties, should be only on those issues which seem to have overwhelmingly clear Biblical support. I'm afraid that your position, at least in degree, does not have adequate Biblical or even traditional support.
Again though, I admire your motive and your efforts to do what you think is right. I also thank you for the very good job you are doing in maintaining your own website dealing with such issues.
Sean
There is no Condemnation of Slavery
in the Bible Either!
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,Thanks for your prompt response. You stated the following:
| Quote: |
| The Bible itself is rather ambiguous with regard to the issue of abortion. The available texts dealing with the issue are few and can be easily interpreted to mean completely opposite things. |
In your response to Erv Taylor in another thread in this forum, you quoted extensively from Ellen G. White, which would indicate that you consider her to be a recognized moral authority for Adventists. If her statements regarding the "Alpha and Omega" deceptions are authoritative for you, how about her statement regarding the sanctity of human life? Aren't those pertinent for SDA's today as well? And how about the opinions of her husband, James White, who was for many decades the editor of our official magazine, and who also occupied the presidency of the General Conference of SDA's? Should those be ignored and set aside in order to compromise with the liberal attitude towards this issue?
Should I ignore what Mr. White said about the sacredness of human life:
| Quote: |
| Ellen G. White: 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 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. [ White. Selected Messages, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 429-430.] |
| Quote: |
| James White: 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. [James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100. |
How can we tolerate and permit that elective abortion services be offered in at least two SDA hospitals? Doesn't this bother you? How can we ignore what a recent president of the GC stated asserting that abortions were a proper response of the SDA church due to the hunger and overpopulation in the world?
| Quote: |
| Neal Wilson: 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,[1] we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population. [ George B. Gainer, “Abortion: History of Adventist guidelines” Ministry (Aug. 1991): 11-17. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1991-08/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=11 on 25 Oct. 2006.] |
You feel strong about the need to do something about the teachers that are teaching the theory of evolution as factual in our schools. I feel strong about the need for our church to stop offering abortion services in our hospitals. Can we join hands on both of these issues? Both are important, and the church needs to do what is right about them regardless of the consequences!
Nic
No Revelation from God on this Issue!
by Sean Pitman
Nic,
Ellen White often wrote on the basis of her own personal opinion on a topic - without any sort of revelation from God on the topic. James White often became frustrated by Ellen constantly telling him what to do with regard to matters of her own opinion. At least one time James told Ellen to leave him alone unless she had a direct message from God.
As far as the issue of abortion is concerned, I think the early SDA Church leaders were speaking of their own opinion on the topic, as you are, without clear Biblical support or any direct revelation from God. I haven't been able to find where any of them were directed by God in their statements concerning abortion. Given this, their knowledge of fetal development was also extremely limited. They simply had no idea of the stages of development involved, that for several weeks there simply is no internal or external morphologic or functional features that anyone would call "human".
For me, there is no human until there is a brain that can sense and appreciate external stimuli. At least until this point is reached, no official recommendation should be given to the parents outside of their own convictions.
Sean
www.DetectingDesign.com
No Revelation from God on the Issue
of Slavery Either!
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,You did surprise me with your reason for ignoring both what Ellen White and her husband, James White, had stated about the sacredness of human life which I quoted above. Here is your argument for setting aside the counsel of these SDA pioneers, one of them a recognized prophetess, and the other a lifelong editor of the church's paper and president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists:
| Quote: |
| Ellen White often wrote on the basis of her own personal opinion on a topic - without any sort of revelation from God on the topic. James White often became frustrated by Ellen constantly telling him what to do with regard to matters of her own opinion. At least one time James told Ellen to leave him alone unless she had a direct message from God. |
Should I also set aside all the biblical passages where the writer failed to claim to have received the information from heaven? Is divine inspiration limited to those instances where there is a direct allusion to a vision or special revelation from God? Can I from now on set aside what I find in Generis 1 and 2, since we have no idea where the author got his information from and there is no reference to its source?
Notice that Moses had the habit of atributing to God everytime he had specific instructions from above. This is evident and clearly patent from Exodus through Deuteronomy. Such a claim is missing from the story of Creation. Am I free to treat this story anyway I fancy because it doesn't contain a claim to a visionary experience or a direct revelation from above.
As you can see, I am a bit perturbed, because you assign great value to the Creation story, but if you reject what Ellen White and James White, and the early SDA pioneers stated about abortion, then I am at a losss as to how to interpret the double standard you seem to be using when dealing with the inspired writings.
A Personal Opinion from
the NARLA Director
by James Standish
The following Pro-life comments by the North American Religious Associacion Executive Director were sent to me by Hugo Schmidt:
| Quote: |
| Thank you so much for your note. I am a firm believer in the right to life and have been outspoken to this effect on a number of occasions. It is my prayer that one day our church will speak in one accord on behalf of the most innocent, the most defenseless, and the most vulnerable in our society. Until that happens, I encourage all of those who feel strongly on this issue to follow their conscience and speak up in our individual capacity, as I do. May God bless you, James Standish |
To access the NARLA website, click on the following Internet link:
http://www.religiousliberty.info/article.php?id=7
The Opinion of a Well-known SDA
Former Religious Leader
by Nic Samojluk
Notice the contrast between James Standish' opinion on abortion and that of John V. Stevens, Sr., who was also a Religious Liberty Director of the SDA Church. Here is a portion of what I reported some time ago:*********
The Background. On August 20, 1990, The Pacific Union Recorder published an article written by John V. Stevens Sr., the Pacific Union Conference Public Affairs/Religious Liberty Director, titled Abortion Answers and Attitudes, in which he adamantly defended the women's right to abortion. His arguments were mainly based on human freedom. I will insert here a few quotes to illustrate his position:
| 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 ... 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 ... 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. ... |
For more on John Stevens and Abortion, click on the following Internet link:
http://sdaforum.com/page67.html
What John V. Stevens Recently Wrote
About Abortion
by Nic Samojluk
Again, compare James Standish' Pro-life statement cited above with John V. Stevens' recent defense of abortion. Notice that both of these men have had extensive experience as Religious Liberty Directors.
*********
Sixteen Years Later. Sixteen years later, John Stevens is still defending the practice of abortion with the same arguments; and in doing this, he reflects the thinking of many leaders, as well as lay people, in the SDA Church, as evidenced by the official document titled, Guidelines on Abortion. Recently, in the March 1, 2006 of the same SDA publication, he stated the following under the Title:
| Quote: |
| Abortion Commandment? Having served the Pacific Union Conference for 20 years as PARL director, I naturally was interested in the Ten Commandments being written in the heart. Ten Commandments issues mentioned were “abortion, marriage, divorce and homosexuality.” Many people view abortion as killing, therefore a Ten Commandments issue. However, nowhere in Scripture are we told that abortion is a crime, or killing, or even a sin. We have been subtly conditioned by religious propaganda from the fundamentalists. The abortion issue is the catalyst that will establish religion in our nation and then everything else will follow. Only two passages in the Scriptures deal with an induced miscarriage. Exodus chapter 21 treats the fetus as property and one causing the accidental miscarriage is required to pay a fine. If a fetus were a person, it would be a manslaughter charge. The other passage is the trial of jealousy in Numbers chapter 5. In that passage, the husband suspects his wife is pregnant by infidelity and God gave a law requiring the suspected wife to go through a procedure that causes an abortion if she is guilty and pregnant. If she is innocent, nothing happens to her. E.G. White never touched the subject in spite of the raging controversy on abortion in the latter 19th century. We need to guard against letting our national religious culture change us, for a day is coming when Sunday worship and Sabbath desecration will be national religious culture with heavy penalties for non-conformists. John V. Stevens, Sr. |
http://sdaforum.com/page67.html
Readers' Strong Reaction to Stevens'
Defense of Abortion
by Nic Samojluk
In the same report I wrote sometime ago, I quoted a couple of readers' strong reaction to Stevens' defense of abortion. Here they are:
*********
A Strong Reader's Response Such a statement by a renowned and widely respected former leader of the SDA church generated the following response by a church member who had a hard time believing what she was reading, plus the reaction of another SDA member who left the church as a result of Steven's comments:
| Quote: |
| Abortion Letter I cannot begin to tell you how horrified I am that a man on the Adventist Church payroll for 20 years, and no doubt receiving retirement benefits, would be so bold as to endorse abortion in a church paper! ["Abortion Commandment" by John V. Stevens, Sr., Letters to the Editor, March 2006] How he can make the nexus between right to life and freedom of worship based on two of the 10 Commandments? "Thou shalt not kill" being the undoing of the right to keep the seventh-day Sabbath is a stretch. Mr. Stevens mentioned two places in the Bible that abortions are referenced. I don’t know how Mr. Stevens was able to construe abortion from these Bible references (Exodus 21 and Numbers 5). One can deduct from these Bible references that wrong deeds would break the law. Kathleen Jones |
| Quote: |
| I left the Seventh-day Adventist Church almost 20 years ago and one of the troubling issues, then, was the position of the church on abortion ... The fact that the Recorder published John Steven's letter in 2006 is an indication that the church still hasn't taken a position to defend life in the womb. Jim Sconza |
http://sdaforum.com/page67.html
My Response to Stevens' Defense
of Abortion
by Nic Samojluk
Following the publication of Steven's article in defense of abortion, I wrote my response in defense of the Pro-life position on the issue. The Pacific Union Recorder refused to publish my comments. The editor explained that the magazine's mission was not to engage in controversial issues like abortion. I fully agree with this reasoning, but then why did they include John V. Stevens defense of the practice of abortion--and we are not talking about therapeutic abortion, but rather elective abortions. Stevens' argument is that the unborn do not become human until they are born.
Of course, this response should not have surprised me, since it was a repeat of what had taken place in the 90's when the editor of the local Loma Linda University church paper published an article critical of the activities of Pro-lifers. I asked for the privilege of being granted equal time for presenting a defense of the right to life of the unborn. The response I received was: "Sorry. We do not engage in controversial issues." The editor had ample space to criticize Pro-lifers, but no space for anybody desiring to act in defense of the unborn.
Following this experience, I decided to write to the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and I accompanied my message with a donation for the Pro-life cause of the church. My donation was returned with the following explanation: "The church does not have a Pro-life program." This seemed to imply that the church was interested in abortion, as evidenced by the fact that some of our hospitals have been offering abortion services--therapeutic and no therapeutic-- but not time or interest in protecting the life of those destined to the execution chamber.
If you are interested in my response to John V. Stevens' arguments favoring abortion, which the Pacific Union Recorder refused to publish in their paper, click on the following Internet link and scroll down halfway to the bottom:
http://sdaforum.com/page67.html
Were Ellen White's Personal
Opinions Inspired?
by Sean Pitman
Nic,
There are many things Ellen White and the other early church founders said that were simply their own opinion. While these should be considered with at least some weight in light of their individual experiences, they are not to be given the same weight as those statements that we believe were inspired by directly by God beyond personal opinion. For example, consider that St. Paul pointed out that several of the things he wrote were simply his own opinion; not from God. I personally don't agree with several of Paul's opinions - especially those regarding the roles of women or advice to avoid marriage. Yet, I still believe that Paul was a prophet directly inspired by God in many things that he wrote.
It is interesting to me that you use this argument both ways when it suits you. On the one hand you have argued that the Genesis account need not necessarily be taken literally because Moses didn't directly say that it was an inspired account (even though Ellen White says that she was shown, in vision, that Moses wrote Genesis under direct revelation). On the other hand, you argue that the personal opinions of prophets should be binding when it comes to the topic of abortion? How can you have it both ways?
Beyond this, you fail to provide any convincing reasons why an embryo in the first few weeks of life should be classified as "human" vs. a non-human collection of cells with the potential of becoming human. In my view, a potential human is no the same thing as being human. Again, Ellen White did not know or comment about how such a collection of cells should be treated. She never said, under inspiration or otherwise, that human-type life begins at conception. That notion simply doesn't make sense to me and I see no inspired guidance that says otherwise.
Given that there is no clear logical or inspired reason to go one way or the other, the SDA Church should not take an official stand on this issue when it comes to the first few weeks of pregnancy. I really don't think there is much more I can say on this topic. And, I'm not out to convince you here. I think this issue is a personal one that should best be left to the individual, not the Church. In those issues where there is clearly room for doubt, when it comes to what has been revealed by inspiration, the "benefit of the doubt" should be a matter of personal decision.
Sean
Back to the Editorial Index? Click Here ==>
How to Interpret Inspired Writings?
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,You stated the following:
| Quote: |
| There are many things Ellen White and the other early church founders said that were simply their own opinion. ... |
| Quote: |
| For example, consider that St. Paul pointed out that several of the things he wrote were simply his own opinion; ... |
| Quote: |
| I personally don't agree with several of Paul's opinions - especially those regarding the roles of women or advice to avoid marriage. ... |
| Quote: |
| It is interesting to me that you use this argument both ways when it suits you. On the one hand you have argued that the Genesis account need not necessarily be taken literally because Moses didn't directly say that it was an inspired account (even though Ellen White says that she was shown, in vision, that Moses wrote Genesis under direct revelation). ... |
By the way, can you cite the White's reference to a vision in this case? I hope you do not equate all the expression "I was shown" with visionary experience!
| Quote: |
| Beyond this, you fail to provide any convincing reasons why an embryo in the first few weeks of life should be classified as "human" vs. a non-human collection of cells with the potential of becoming human. In my view, a potential human is no the same thing as being human. Again, Ellen White did not know or comment about how such a collection of cells should be treated. She never said, under inspiration or otherwise, that human-type life begins at conception. ... |
| Quote: |
| Human life, which God alone could give, must be sacredly guarded.[Ellen G. White. Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1958), 516.] |
| Quote: |
| Given that there is no clear logical or inspired reason to go one way or the other, the SDA Church should not take an official stand on this issue when it comes to the first few weeks of pregnancy. |
| Quote: |
| 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. [John Todd. “Fashionable Murder” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (25 June 1867): 29-30.] |
| 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. ... 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, 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 enemythe most unnatural, the most inhuman, the most revolting of all crimes against human life. [ J.H. Kellogg. Man the Masterpiece (Battle Creek, Michigan: Modern Medicine Publishing Co., 1894), 424-425. Also John Harvey Kellogg. “Infanticide and Abortion” Plain Facts for Old and/Electronic Text Center/Young/University of Virginia Library. Accessed from 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 on 25 Oct. 2006.] |
| 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 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. [Ellen White. Selected Messages, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 429-430.] |
I have a hard time understanding how you can be so adamantly opposed to the teaching of evolution, and at the same time be so generous in the treatment of abortion, which is the child of the sexual revolution, and an appendix of the theory spawned by Darwin as I stated in another posting above.
Nic
Items Dr. Pitman Failed to Address
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,
Thanks for your brief response. Unfortunately you failed to address some of the issues I have raised. My guess is that you have no interest in digging any deeper into the issue of abortion during the "first few weeks of life." I quoted Ellen White where she talks about the need to protect human life, and I asked you whether the "collection of cells" in the "first few weeks of life" were human or not. If not human then what? You failed to answer my question. You do admit that it is life, but you seem to refuse to put it in the category of human. If not human, you need to tell me what kind of life those collection of cells are. Avoiding this issue will never solve the problem of whether abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy is morally acceptable or not! Here is Mrs. White's quotation again:
| Quote: |
| Human life, which God alone could give, must be sacredly guarded.[Ellen G. White. Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1958), 516.] |
| Quote: |
| As I see it anyway, the references you cite are nothing more than a matter of personal opinion.They do not speak for God on this issue. As far as I can tell there is no clearly inspired text supporting your views when it comes to deliberate abortion in the first few weeks of life or of the relative value of life during this time of development. |
I also cited official statements of the SDA Church. Are you brushing those aside as well for the same reason? How can you defend the 28 Fundamental teachings of the church--which you zealously do-- based on your argument that whatever is not the result of a vision is merely "personal opinion'? How can you defend the church's justification of abortion--which is based on "personal opinion" instead of visionary experience--but reject any argument in defense of the life of the unborn in the "first few weeks of life"?
If visionary experience is so crucial for you, then I have another question for you: What would have happened if Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln had waited for a vision before deciding to outlaw the institution of slavery? Wasn't such a demand the theological argument used by those defending slavery? Ellen White did support the emancipation of the slaves.
Did she wait for a vision from God before acting on behalf of the slaves? Would the practice of polygamy have been outlawed if those determined to put an end to said institution had waited for a vision from the Lord? Would genocide have been proscribed if those willing to condemn such practice had waited for a vision from above?
Can't you see that all these men did appeal to Common Sense and the Weight of Evidence in their fight against institutionalized evil supported by centuries of morally twisted traditions? You are probably aware that on one occasion an SDA member refused to allow the administration of quinine to an individual infected with malaria, and he did so on the basis of what Ellen White had stated about the use of drugs--which advice resulted in the death of the unfortunate patient.
When she learned about this tragedy, whe asked: "Don't these individuals have common sense?" This seems to indicate that common sense should sometimes overrule the appeals to visionary experience.
| Quote: |
| Sean P.S. When Ellen White says, "I was shown" she is indeed talking about a vision or direct guidance from God. |
This argument seems to have strong support by the internal evidence of her writings, where you can see that she was either quoting or else paraphrasing what other people had written. Sometimes even the title of chapters and illustrations where the authors of said pictures were deleted had been borrowed from her human sources. Are these the kind of visions you put your trust in?
Besides, what do you do with Ellen's vision about the "shut door," which was misinterpreted by her to mean that there was no point in preaching anymore to the unconverted, because the door of mercy had been shut to those who had rejected the Adventist warning about the imminent coming of the Lord?
You also ignored my argument regarding the close connection between abortion and the theory of evolution and the tight nexus between the sexual revolution and the resulting apparent need to dispose of the consequences of the millions of unwanted pregnancies that resulted from the rejection of the Seventh Commandment.
All these are serious issues that you seem to sweep under the rug with your suggestion that they represent merely "personal opinions" to be ignored by the church. If the church refuses to deal with patently moral issues, then isn't the core of the church's mission compromised. Here is another statement by an SDA pioneer, which you will probably label as "personal opinion" as well:
| Quote: |
| You show me a church that fails to take a stand on political issues that involve moral principles, 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. [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. |
I do believe in a literal creation and the sanctity of the Sabbath Day, but I can't ignore the sanctity of human life, which belief has the full support of the SDA pioneers, and which was inherited from the Christian church--a belief that survived for two thousand years--which you dismiss with your argument that it represents mere "personal opinion." Abortion is the child of the sexual revolution, which the church should condemn, because it violates two sacred Commandments of the Lord: the Sixth and the Seventh. How can you and the church ignore this?
Nic
An Embryo doesn't Have a Mind!
by Sean Pitman
Nic,
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| "Notice that all these SDA pioneers, including James White, J.N. Andrews, John Todd, John H. Kellog agree that abortion is murder. And Ellen White added that neglecting the health of a pregnant woman is "almost murder." do you need more? If Mrs. White thought that neglecting the health of the pregnant woman was almost murder, can you imagine what she would have said about the actual killing of the unborn?" |
Now, as I said before, an embryo doesn't have a "mind". It cannot think or feel. It therefore has nothing about it that I would call unique to humanity. For me, being human is all about being able to function as a human. It is about a specific physical arrangement of parts that produce a particular type of "function" that I would call the "human function". It is not simply about DNA or the shell of the body.
That is why I don't have a problem using the organs of children born without a brain ( i.e., anencephalics) to save the lives of other children. A child born without a head or without a brain is not "human" in my book. Neither is an embryo that is nothing more than a collection of cells that do not have the ability to think or feel. And, I'd hardly quote Kellogg as a source of higher inspiration or authority against this point - especially considering his other interesting views (like pantheism, etc).
You go on to write:
| Quote: |
| "I have a hard time understanding how you can be so adamantly opposed to the teaching of evolution, and at the same time be so generous in the treatment of abortion, which is the child of the sexual revolution, and an appendix of the theory spawned by Darwin as I stated in another posting above." |
But, you ask:
| Quote: |
| "I have a question for you: Is that collection of cells human or not? If it is not human, then what is it? It cannot be part of the woman's body because it does not match the DNA of the mother." |
Beyond this, do you know that sometimes fertilization happens where two spermatids fertilize the same ovum at the same time? The resulting pregnancy produces a deformed fetus or fetal parts called a partial molar pregnancy which never survives to term. Such a pregnancy also has a risk of turning cancerous. In other words, all the fetal and placental elements must be physically removed and the mother carefully followed to reduce the risk of cancer.
I'm not sure what Ellen White "would have said" with regard to actually aborting an embryo within the first few weeks of development. She may have had her personal opinions on the topic, which would not be any more or less valid than yours or mine. What is important here is that she didn't receive any information from outside herself on this topic by Divine inspiration - at least not that she wrote down or told to anyone we know of. Therefore, we all do the best we can with what seems most reasonable to us as individuals with regard to this very hot topic. The Church should keep out of it.
This is unlike the topic of origins where we have clear and abundant light of Inspiration. Moses wrote Genesis under direct inspiration from God; a God he talked to face-to-face. God himself wrote, with His own finger, that He created the world in "six days and rested on the seventh day." - confirming what Moses wrote. Regardless of what the late and great Jack Provonsha said, many other Biblical figures, to include Jesus, testify quite directly, to a recent creation within seven literal days. No source of inspiration disagrees with regard to the origin of life on this planet. All you are left with to possibly counter are "assumptions" - which are not reasonable if you wish to use the notion of Divine inspiration in support of anything else you believe. In this case, there is no clear source of Divine inspiration supporting your position when it comes to the first few weeks of embryo development. I just don't see your arguments as holding any water.
In short, a human is more than DNA or the potential of becoming human. Being human, in my book, is a functional definition. Without this human function in place, there is no human. For me, the human function requires a brain that can process and appreciate and store the memory of sensations and feelings. Without this ability, the definition of "being human" has not been met any more than it has been met by my appendix or by the potential of an unfertilized egg and spermatozoan that have not yet met.
Why not argue that we should make every effort to fertilize all eggs in every ovary? - so as not to loose the potential of producing another human that is just waiting to form? After all, the egg and spermatozoan are each already "possessed of its own individuality, with its own future, its possibilities of joy, grief, success, failure, fame, and ignominy." Note, however, that a future possibility is not the same thing as a present reality. They do not have the same relative value. The "potential" of being human is not the same thing as actually being human - of actually having an established memory or the ability to think and feel; and suffer.
Sean
Is the Baby's Body of Less Value
Than its Mind?
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,
Thanks for your comments. We may never agree on the details regarding how to deal with the controversial issue of abortion, but I think that we are making some progress. Your carefully crafted comments do help me understand more accurately your position and the reasons behind it; and our discussion may provide someone else the basis for making his/her own mind about the propriety of the SDA church position on this issue. I will quote some of your statements and follow up with comments of my own:
| Quote: |
| I happen to agree with Ellen White when she argues that a man who doesn't take care of the health of his wife while she is pregnant is guilty of injuring the health of his own children - to the point of murder in some cases. The health of the mother affects the developing child primarily during the time of major organ development - especially the mind. Such injuries can last throughout an entire lifetime. And, for me, the destruction or injury of the human mind, once formed, is criminal. |
And here is another question for you: You seem to focus on the "injury of the human mind." How about injury to the baby's body? Can you really hurt the baby's body without affecting its mind? Is the baby's body of less value than its mind? Can a body exist in fact without a mind?
| Quote: |
| Now, as I said before, an embryo doesn't have a "mind". It cannot think or feel. It therefore has nothing about it that I would call unique to humanity. For me, being human is all about being able to function as a human. It is about a specific physical arrangement of parts that produce a particular type of "function" that I would call the "human function". |
Has the Lord given human beings the right to destroy what he is building? Isn't this the essence of our respect for human life? Has the Lord ever stated: "Do not fornicate, and do not commit adultery; but if you do, you have my permission to destroy the evidence of your disobedience?"
| Quote: |
| It is not simply about DNA or the shell of the body. That is why I don't have a problem using the organs of children born without a brain ( i.e., anencephalics) to save the lives of other children. |
| Quote: |
| A child born without a head or without a brain is not "human" in my book. Neither is an embryo that is nothing more than a collection of cells that do not have the ability to think or feel. |
| Quote: |
| But, you ask: "I have a question for you: Is that collection of cells human or not? If it is not human, then what is it? It cannot be part of the woman's body because it does not match the DNA of the mother." It is not what I would call "being human" any more than I would call the appendix "a human". That is why I don't have a problem taking out and "killing" the appendix. Even though it is part of a human, and does in fact have all the genetic information necessary to make a human (it has the genetic potential) it isn't human. |
| Quote: |
| Your argument that the DNA of the embryo doesn't match the mother isn't helpful because the DNA of her eggs before they are fertilized don't match her own DNA either. The DNA in each of her eggs is uniquely different - even before fertilization. The same thing is true of a man's spermatids; they each have unique DNA. |
| Quote: |
| Beyond this, do you know that sometimes fertilization happens where two spermatids fertilize the same ovum at the same time? The resulting pregnancy produces a deformed fetus or fetal parts called a partial molar pregnancy which never survives to term. Such a pregnancy also has a risk of turning cancerous. In other words, all the fetal and placental elements must be physically removed and the mother carefully followed to reduce the risk of cancer. |
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure what Ellen White "would have said" with regard to actually aborting an embryo within the first few weeks of development. |
| Quote: |
| She may have had her personal opinions on the topic, which would not be any more or less valid than yours or mine. What is important here is that she didn't receive any information from outside herself on this topic by Divine inspiration. |
Likewise, you cannot equate the experience of a physician doing his residency with the expertise of a physician who has practised for many decades in his profession. The same could be stated about musicians. A beginner will never play with the perfection and dexterity of an accomplished violinists. A prophet is no exception to this rule where experience and wisdom increases with time. The opinion of someone who has never received any messages from heaven could never compare with the one who has been the Lord's mouthpiece for seven decades.
| Quote: |
| Therefore, we all do the best we can with what seems most reasonable to us as individuals with regard to this very hot topic. The Church should keep out of it. |
| Quote: |
| This is unlike the topic of origins where we have clear and abundant light of Inspiration. ... In this case, there is no clear source of Divine inspiration supporting your position when it comes to the first few weeks of embryo development. |
If while driving in a foggy day you detect an object on the pavement and you are not sure whether it might be a human being, you do not step on the accelerator. You do stop and do not proceed until you are sure about the identity of the object. You ask me for a specific inspired message from above prohibiting the abortion of an embryo. I will reverse this and ask you to show me evidence that heaven does authorize the killing of an embryo. Can you produce such a statement? If you can't, I suggest that you use common sense and rather err on the side of caution. Am I wrong on this? Isn't common sense on my side here?
| Quote: |
| I just don't see your arguments as holding any water. |
| Quote: |
| For me, the human function requires a brain that can process and appreciate and store the memory of sensations and feelings. Without this ability, the definition of "being human" has not been met any more than it has been met by my appendix or by the potential of an unfertilized egg and spermatozoan that have not yet met. |
| Quote: |
| Why not argue that we should make every effort to fertilize all eggs in every ovary? - so as not to loose the potential of producing another human that is just waiting to form? After all, the egg and spermatozoan are each already "possessed of its own individuality, with its own future, its possibilities of joy, grief, success, failure, fame, and ignominy." Note, however, that a future possibility is not the same thing as a present reality. They do not have the same relative value. The "potential" of being human is not the same thing as actually being human - of actually having an established memory or the ability to think and feel; and suffer. Sean |
Nic
Pre-Darwinian Views of Abortion
by Sean Pitman
With regard to pre-Darwinian views of abortion: Christian, Jewish, Greek and Babylonian:
The Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380 CE) allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul: "Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and his received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed. " (7:3) For a while, the early Christian Church held that this ensoulment did not happen for about 40 days or sometimes as long as 80 days.
Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869 (soon after Darwin published his ideas on origins). Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to " the fetus." The Catholic Church's penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.
The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day."
St. Augustine (354-430 CE) returned to the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). - St. Augustine, "On Exodus", (21, 80)
"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." - R.A. Zwerom & R.J. Shapiro, "Religion and choice: Judaism and abortion," at: http://www.rcrc.org/
Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life .' " - "Ask the Rabbi: Abortion - Yes or No," at: http://www.aish.com/
[Sean]
Christian Views of Abortion
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,Thanks for this additional information you have provided, and thanks for the interest you have taken in the defense of the SDA church's position on abortion. I must admit that you have provided so far the strongest defense for the practice of abortion in the earliest stages of pregnancy. If I were a pro-abortion individual, I would nominate you for the highest post in the church dealing with this issue. You are quite effective as a debater. Of course, I am still Pro-life, and that is the reason I do not consider this additional information you provided of great import in my decision to continue in my mission to defend the unborn's right to life. I would like to start by making a few comments about some of the historical material you submitted.
| Quote: |
| Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869 (soon after Darwin published his ideas on origins). Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to " the fetus." The Catholic Church's penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication. |
| Quote: |
| St. Augustine (354-430 CE) returned to the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). - St. Augustine, "On Exodus", (21, 80) |
| Quote: |
| "Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." - R.A. Zwerom & R.J. Shapiro, "Religion and choice: Judaism and abortion," at: http://www.rcrc.org/ |
| Quote: |
| Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life .' " - "Ask the Rabbi: Abortion - Yes or No," at: http://www.aish.com/ |
In addition to the above, let me ask you to live by the rule you set for me: A clear, unambiguous statement regarding abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy supported by a visionary experience of either a biblical author or from the writings of Ellen White. Lacking such strong evidence, you told me that we are dealing with "personal opinions" worth no more consideration than either your opinion or mine. You did set this rule, so I am now asking you to live by said rule. Therefore I ask: Where is the beef?
Now let me cite a few church father's uninspired "personal opinions" regarding the practice of abortion among Christians:
| Quote: |
| "The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]). [http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp] |
| Quote: |
| "The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]). [Ibid.] |
| Quote: |
| "And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]). [Ibid.] |
| Quote: |
| "What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]). [Ibid.] |
| Quote: |
| "Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (Tertulian. The soul 27)[A.D. 210]. [Ibid.] |
| Quote: |
| "There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Minucius Felix. Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]). [Ibid.] |
| Quote: |
| "Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]). [Ibid.] |
| Quote: |
| "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (Council of Ancyra. Canon 21 [A.D. 314]). [Ibid.] |
| Quote: |
| "Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (Basil the Great. First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]). [Ibid.] |
| Quote: |
| "Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? where there are many efforts at abortion? where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (John Chrysostom. Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]). [Ibid.] |
| Quote: |
| "I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Jerome. Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]). [Ibid.] |
| Quote: |
| "The law [Jewish law] orders us to bring up all our children, and forbids women to cause abortion of that which is begotten; and if any woman seems to have done so, she will be a murderer of her own child, by destroying a living creature." (Flavius Josephus, "Against Apion" 2:202: [Probably late first century AD]). [http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/ABORTN.TXT] |
| Quote: |
| "At times their lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to obtain poisons to cause sterility; and if this does not work,to somehow extinguish and destroy the fetus conceived within the womb, wishing the offspring to be killed before living, or if it was living in the womb, to be killed before being born." (St.Augustine, "De nuptiis et concupiscentia" 1:15: PL44:423-24. [Written about 419 AD]). [Ibid.] |
There is much more, but if you are going to use the testimony of antiquity to justify the abortion "a few weeks after conception," I think that you are out of luck, because the weight of evidence points in the opposite direction. There is no denial that there have always been people, even among the Christian community, who justified abortion, but the majority of the church fathers did condemn such practice, including the abortions performed a "few weeks after conception."
Murder did exist since Abel killed his brother, and the killing of innocents abounds throughout history. The SDA church, which has the last message for a perishing world, needs to condemn what the Lord abhors, and encourage the protection of human life.
Nic
I Have no Problem Sacrificing an
Anencephalic Baby
by Nic Samojluk
Hey Nic,
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| Wrong again! Neither the sperm nor the ovum possesses "its own individuality, ... its own future, its possibilities of joy, grief, success, failure, fame, and ignominy." Said individuality has not been determined yet! This happens after an ovum is fertilized by a specific sperm. There are billions of individuals whose sperm could fertilize an ovum, and until that happens, the individuality of said ovum is totally undetermined. I am not a physician, but I do remember that much from the biology class I took in college over half a century ago! |
Yet, for some reason, you think it is important to note that the embryo's genetics is not the same as the mothers. That its unique genetic makeup makes the embryo its own "individual". That's simply not true. Even if the genetics were exactly the same between embryo and mother (which is in fact theoretically possible today; a mother giving birth to her own genetically identical "twin" via the process of cloning) the resulting baby would not really be exactly identical morphologically, functionally, or experiencially to the mother. It would be its own "individual" person given its own lifetime.
You ask:
| Quote: |
| Evidently, you place a lot of weight on the developing baby's mind. If I understand you correctly, until the mind of the baby has reached a certain optimum point of development, you seem to negate humanity to the growing baby; and consequently, an abortion at that stage--prior to the development of the baby's mind--would be morally acceptable; there would be no crime in the event an abortion is performed. Correct me if I am misinterpreting your position! You are a physician. Can you tell me more precisely at what point of development the mind of the unborn has reached said stage? |
| Quote: |
| And here is another question for you: You seem to focus on the "injury of the human mind." How about injury to the baby's body? Can you really hurt the baby's body without affecting its mind? Is the baby's body of less value than its mind? Can a body exist in fact without a mind? |
| Quote: |
| You would probably agree with me that a human being is God's greatest masterpiece. This means that in the case of en embryo God is at work to produce another unique living work of art. He is at work, and by the time a woman realizes that she is pregnant, God has been at work for several weeks at least. Is it right for us to destroy what the Lord is busy building? Would it be right for me to destroy an artist work of art with the excuse that the artist has not completed his masterpiece yet? Has the Lord given human beings the right to destroy what he is building? Isn't this the essence of our respect for human life? Has the Lord ever stated: "Do not fornicate, and do not commit adultery; but if you do, you have my permission to destroy the evidence of your disobedience?" |
| Quote: |
| Is there such a case as a totally mindless unborn baby? Are anencephallic babies totally mindless? Aren't certain brain function present even in the case of such babies? If yes, then how can we say that such babies are not human beings? Don't they react to their environment? Don't they feel pain and discomfort? Would Mother Theresa have cared for them and provide them with nourishment and as much comfort as possible, or would she suggest that their organs be removed while they are still alive and kicking in order to benefit another human being? Is it morally justified to remove a human organ from a live human being without their consent? |
Sure, they do have some lower brain-stem function and reflex abilities which allow them to breath and blink and suck, etc. but not think or appreciate anything around them and do not live beyond a few weeks after birth. That is not what makes humans human as far as I understand what it means to be human. Therefore, I have no problem sacrificing an anencephalic baby to use its organs to save another baby that actually has a functioning brain with a functioning cortex. I'd perform the operations myself, without any moral qualms whatsoever. In fact, I personally would think it murder on my part not to sacrifice my own anencephalic baby in favor of the baby of someone else.
You want to talk about benefit of the doubt? - think about things from the perspective of the parents who might have a chance at a healthy baby if they could only find someone willing to donate the organs of a mindless baby like an anencephalic.
| Quote: |
| This example is faulty, I believe. An appendix does not have the ability and potential of developing into a separate human being. Besides, the woman's appendix DNA matches that of the pregnant woman, while the embryo's DNA doesn't. |
| Quote: |
| This represents a totally different situation, I believe. When science determines with a certain degree of certainty that both the developing baby and the pregnant woman lives are at risk, then common sense dictates that it is better to save one life than losing two. |
| Quote: |
| Ellen White would strongly disagree with you on this! On one occasion, she argued that she had been a good learner, which meant that her opinions reflected her maturity as a messenger of the Lord. As she grew older, the visionary experiences decreased for the simple reason that she had learned quite bit as a faithful servant of the Lord. The same could be said about the Apostle Paul. You cannot compare the opinion of an inexperienced individual with the wisdom of an accomplished prophet. |
The fact of the matter is that prophets can and did have significant personal problems and failures with regard to their own lives and their own personal opinions on a large number of topics. When it comes to those personal interpretations regarding controversial topics for which there simply is no clear divinely inspired guidance, one simply cannot take any human's opinion as the basis for Church doctrine. Sorry . . .
| Quote: |
| Abortion is either directly related to morality or it is not. If it is related to morality, then the church mission is to address this issue. My conviction is that abortion is the child of the sexual revolution, which represents a rebellion against the commandment that prohibits fornication and adultery. If the church fails to address this, the Lord will hold the church responsible for the blood of the innocents that are being aborted. I did cite the opinion of Uriah Smith regarding the church's duty to address moral issues in a previous posting on this thread. |
I firmly believe that God will not hold those accountable who abort a pregnancy within the first few weeks of pregnancy for anything much less murder if they didn't think the aborted embryo was actually human. On the other hand, those who are personally convinced that an embryo is a human will be held accountable for abortion - for murder. I myself do not believe it is murder since I do not believe that the early embryo has a mind.
| Quote: |
| . . . If this is not enough, we could add the fact that in the event there is any doubt regarding the humanity of an embryo, then it would be wiser to err on the side of caution. |
| Quote: |
| I will reverse this and ask you to show me evidence that heaven does authorize the killing of an embryo. Can you produce such a statement? If you can't, I suggest that you use common sense and rather err on the side of caution. Am I wrong on this? Isn't common sense on my side here? |
| Quote: |
| Please, tell me exactly at what stage of development does an unborn baby acquires the ability to "store the memory of sensations and feelings." How about the comatose patient who has lost the ability to "store the memory of sensations and feelings." I have a friend who was comatose for three weeks. He is alive and well and taking care of his wife and family today. Would it have been morally acceptable to have his life terminated? If not, why not? Notice that in the case of the embryo we have a 99 percent probability that it will eventually be able to "store the memory of sensations and feelings," while this is not true of the comatose patients. |
A comatose patient already has stored memories that would be right were they were if the patient revives. Therefore, every effort should be made to save the preformed mind with already existing memories. Destruction of such a mind with its store of memories is murder if there is any option to save or revive it. The embryo, on the other hand, has no pre-formed memories or mind at all. It only has the potential of developing a mind with human-type mental capabilities. There simply is no parallel here as far as I can tell.
Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts. I really do admire your efforts to do and promote what you think is right.
Sean
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.