To perform a search, click on ==> Search  

The Limits of Human Life

by Nic Samojluk 

 

 

Human Life is Sacred.The Seventh-day Adventist Church has officially declared that human life is sacred and that it needs to be protected. Here are some statements taken from the SDA officially approved document entitled Guidelines on Abortion:

Quote:
1) Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God. God's ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God's image, and requires respect for prenatal life. [1]

Quote:
2) Human life has unique value because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God. [1]

Quote:
3) God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God's creation and the object of His redeeming love. [1]

Quote:
5) God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction. [1]

Quote:
6) God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed. [1]
The Importance of Knowing the Limits of Human Life. If human life is sacred and if we have the duty to protect it, then it follows that it is essential for us to know the precise limits of human life, otherwise we may be unable to do what the Lord expects from us. Let me illustrate this: suppose President Bush gives our U.S. patrol agents an order to protect our borders, but when asked where those borders lie, he responds: "The U.S. government has decided not to determine where those borders are." Would those agents be able to perform their duty?

Believe it or not, but this is exactly what a highly respected leader of the church has stated regarding the limits of human life. Here is a quotation extracted from an article published in the Adventist News network:

Quote:
The church has chosen not to define the precise moment human life begins--a moment science finds difficult to pinpoint. [2]
The Beginning of Human Life Dilemma. What can we do if we as a church have chosen to ignore when human life begins? How can we protect said life if we do not know when human life begins? One thing we can do is to ask some influential members of the SDA community. If we ask Jim Walters, he will probably say that the personhood of a human being starts with the emergence of the higher-brain cortex. This is why he recommends that science redefine the limits of human life in order to exclude the comatose and the anencephallic, which would allow for the removal of vital organs from such babies while they are still alive for organ transplantations:

Quote:
I view an anencephalic infant or a permanently comatose patient as lacking the special claim to existence that you or I possess. [3]

Quote:
Parents of higher-brain-absent newborns to consider their tragic infants to be legally dead. [3]
If we ask John V. Stevens, Sr., former Pacific Union Conference Public Affairs/Religious Liberty Director, he would respond that human life begins at birth:

Quote:
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. [4]
We can also ask a very bright young SDA physician named Sean Pitman who is a very vocal defender of the SDA 28 Fundamental Beliefs, especially our teaching about origins as depicted in Genesis. He has stated more than once that if science were to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the literal interpretation of Genesis were wrong, he would leave the SDA Church. Surprisingly, though, regarding the question of the origin of each individual human life, he seems to agree with Jim Walters, as evidenced by the following statement:

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. [5]

Quote:
The "potential" of being human is not the same thing as actually being human. [5]

Quote:
Anencephalic babies do have a brain stem, but not a brain cortex and so have no ability to consciously appreciate sensations of any kind. What happened was that their skull failed to form properly during development. [5]

Quote:
Sure, they do have some lower brain-stem function and reflex abilities which allow them to breathe 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. [5]

Quote:
I don't think there is any doubt. The embryo, within the first few weeks of life, does not have a brain - do [no] doubt. No brain = no human. No human = no murder. Simple. [5]

Quote:
Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks. [5]

Quote:
It seems then, to me at least, most reasonable and consistent to define what it takes to be human by what it is that makes human unique from other living things. That, for me, is the uniqueness of the human mind - the higher cortical brain function of the human mind. Therefore, until or unless such a brain has been formed, the definition of "being human" has not been met. [5]
What can we conclude from these statements regarding when human life begins? Evidently, for Dr. Pitman, what characterizes humanity is the presence of the human cortex, which means that until the presence of a cortex can be verified the embryo is actually non-human and terminating its life would not be murder. When can this be ascertained? Between the 20th and the 27th week of pregnancy.

For more details about Dr. Pitman's philosophy regarding the limits of human life, read the long debate between him and myself that started with the posting of my parable entitled: "Jumping Through the Loop in the Kingdom of the Blind " [5] on my www.sdaforum.com website.

Why do I put so much weight on Dr. Pitmans thinking about this issue? Because my investigation into the subject has led me to believe that his opinion is shared by many leading members of the SDA church. No wonder Neal Wilson, a former president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists did declare back in 1970, three years before the legalization of abortion in the U.S., the following:

Quote:
Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population. [6]

This is amazing; the president of the SDA church, the church claiming to be God’s “Remnant Church” keeping "God’s Commandments," declaring in the richest country of the world that killing the unborn is justified because there is hunger and overpopulation in the world! No wonder that two Adventist-owned hospitals have been providing elective abortions to the public. One of them was described by a high official of the General Conference as "an abortion mill."

Contrast Neal Wilson's statement about abortion with what another president of the General Conference said about the same issue. Here is what James White declared a century earlier:

Quote:
Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime. [7]
Evidently, there has been a major shift in the Adventist church position on the issue of abortion. I have documented this fact in my doctoral dissertation which I intend to publish in my www.sdaforum.com website. The title of my dissertation is: "From Pro-life to Pro-Choice: The Dramatic Shift in the Seventh-day Adventist Attitude Towards Abortion." [8]

Is this situation hopeless? Fortunately, Dr. Gerald Winslow, the highly respected SDA ethicist referred to above, clarified his statement with the following explanation regarding the church's position on abortion:

Quote:
"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." [2]
The above statements seems to imply that the SDA church recognizes that human life begins at conception. Evidently Dr. Winslow is saying that prior to implantation, the church prefers to leave the protection of the fertilized ovum in limbo, which would allow for the scientific experimentation with the embryonic stem cells and the in-vitro fertilization.

But, unfortunately, the official Guidelines on Abortion do enumerate a significant number of exceptions where terminating the life of the unborn would be morally justified:

Quote:
The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. [1]

Quote:
God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. [1]

Notice the emphasis on "Freedom of Choice," the mantra of abortionists. My question is: If Jesus died to give us freedom of choice, perhaps he also gave us the freedom to steal, rape, and murder!

Which means that we are back to square one. What our church is saying is that if the unborn has congenital malformations, is the result of rape or incest, or if the unborn's existence and development affects the pregnant woman's health, then taking the life of the unborn is morally justified.

Think of this: Can you imagine a woman who is not psychologically ready to raise a baby being excited about the discovery that she is pregnant? No doubt, her first reaction will be to feel depressed. Her mental health will be affected negatively, and bingo, an abortionist will be more than ready to certify that the pregnancy is in fact affecting her health, and another innocent baby will be doomed to extinction.

All this means that, in spite of the lofty statements contained in our official Guidelines on Abortion listed at the beginning of this posting regarding the sanctity of human life, and in spite of the recognition that human life begins "once an 'established pregnancy' can be ascertained," as Adventists we are in fact Pro-choice, which is in actual practice equivalent to being Pro-abortion, because there is no way to guarantee our protection of the unborn whenever the pregnancy has a negative effect on the woman's health.

A More Excellent Way. Is this the best we can do as a church which has the "last message to a perishing world"? A religious movement claiming to be the "Remnant Church" of God on earth that keeps "God's commandments." I think not! There is a "more excellent way," and it is the way of love described in 1 Corinthians 13. Instead of abortion, there is the adoption alternative. Whenever a pregnant woman is not ready to raise her child, she can give her baby for adoption. She will thus avoid a lifelong guilt of having taken the life of her own flesh and blood, and she will have the satisfaction of having blessed a couple who can't have the privilege of having a child of their own.

References:

1."Guidelines on Abortion"

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html

2. "Broader Religious Input Needed in Stem Cell Debate, Says Adventist Ethicist"

http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/07/0997187695/index.html.en

3. What Is a Person? An Ethical Exploration

James W. Walters. What Is a Person? An Ethical Exploration (Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 4, 151. At the time of the publication of this book, Walters held the position of professor of ethical studies at Loma Linda University.

4."Abortion Answers and Attitudes"

John V. Stevens, Sr. “Abortion Answers and Attitudes,” Pacific Union Recorder (20 Aug. 1990).

5. "Jumping Through the Loop in the Kingdom of the Blind " 

http://sdaforum.com/page94.html

6. “Abortion: History of Adventist guidelines”

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.

7.Solemn Appeal

James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.

8. PH. D. Dissertation Forum

http://sdaforum.com/page100.html

 

I Have Not Made Such Argument

for the Comatose!

by Jim Walters

Nic,

Thanks for copying me on your recent composition on moral status.

If you are concerned for accuracy, I suggest you give attention to a couple of matters:

1. You quote me early on, by citing a phrase. I urge you to cite the full sentence accurately, and you might consider whether another sentence or two from the passage are needed to provide context (I don't know, as I don't recall the origin of your cited phrase).

2. You refer to my position as viewing comatose patients and anencephalic newborns as those whose lives could be morally sacrificed to provide life for another human. I have previously argued that anencephalic newborns could be temporarily sustained until brain-dead, so their organs might be used for another; but I have not made such an argument for the comatose--and I would not. Often comatose patients return to conscious life.

Thanks for your consideration.

Jim

 

What Defines an Entity as

a Human Being?

by Nic Samojluk

Hi Jim!

Thanks for your comments. I will first clarify my original statement, and then comply with your request to provide a proper context for your statements dealing with the anencephalic and the comatose. I took said comments from your book What is a Person?

First I want you to carefully re-read my original comments. If you do, you will notice that my comments are focussed on the anencephalic and not the comatose:

Quote:
The Beginning of Human Life Dilemma. What can we do if we as a church have chosen to ignore when human life begins? How can we protect said life if we do not know when human life begins? One thing we can do is to ask some influential members of the SDA community. If we ask Jim Walters, he will probably say that the personhood of a human being starts with the emergence of the higher-brain cortex. This is why he recommends that science redefine the limits of human life in order to exclude the comatose and the anencephallic, which would allow for the removal of vital organs from such babies while they are still alive for organ transplantations:
You might wonder why I mentioned the comatose in citing your position. The reason is because you did ask in your book for the redefiniton of human life to exclude both the anencephalic and the comatose from their right to life. Here are two statements taken from your book which deal with these two ends of human life:

Quote:
Here I argue that an entity's unique claim to life is primarily dependent on that individuality's higher mental capacities. The individual being that will never possess--or is forever beyond possession of--neocortical functioning does not have a special moral claim to life. Thus, for example, I view an anencephalic infant or permanently comatose patient as lacking the special claim to existence that you or I possess. [What is a Person, p. 4]

 

Quote:
Parents already make vital decisions about their offpring when they consider abortion--within legal limits. If making such a decision in regard to healthy fetuses is permissible, it should be permissible for parents of higher-brain-absent newborns to consider their tragic infants to be legally dead. [Ibid., p. 151]
I agree with your conclusion in this last statement of yours! What I do not agree is with the premise, which if wrong, would invalidate your conclusion. I do believe that abortion is wrong, except when medical experts are certain that both the pregnant woman and her unborn baby are going to die. Under such a scenario, I believe that saving one life is still consistent with my Pro-life position.

If abortion is wrong, then the argument in defense of sacrificing the anencephalic baby for the benefit of another human being who does possess higher brain function becomes groundless. In such a case, you will need to look for a more solid foundation to justify the removal of the vital organs of a live and kicking baby. It seems to me that you place too much value on the possession of the brain cortex, and thus dehumanize those with limited brain functions. This represents a slippery slope as documented by the fifty million unborn babies that have been lost to abortion since 1973.

The Adventist church should have never sacrificed principle for the sake of expediency! Our hospitals should get out of the abortion business! In this respect, the Catholic church is setting an example for us, who delight in generously labelling ourselves as The Remnant.

Viewed from the aspect of our attitude towards abortion, the Pope of Rome is more remnant than SDA's. Of course, they worship the Lord on the wrong day of the week, and they have the wrong idea about the state of the dead. Nevertheless, I do not see babies dying like flies as a result of keeping the wrong day of the week as sacred! God's Holy Time is sacred, but human life is more so! Wouldn't you agree?

Both you and Sean Pitman seem to limit humanity to those possessing higher brain functions! In your book, you define humanity in terms of the "image of God," which you equate with human's ability to "think and to do." It is true that Ellen White does affirm that human beings do possess said characteristic. Nevertheless, this definition is incomplete. Mrs. White also describes the image of God as our ability to love and to distinguish right from wrong.

Anencephalic babies do possess certain brain functions and they are able to react to stimuli in a limited fashion. For this reason, they should not be excluded from the human race. They are not dead! The proof is that physicians who are planning to use the vital organs of said babies do instruct nurses to keep those babies alive until the moment of the procurement of their organs. How can you say that they are dead, and then ask caregivers to keep them alive? The lack of higher brain functions may eventually lead to their death, but what actually kills them is the removal of the organs while they are alive and kicking!

If you consider the ability to love, I believe that anencephalic babies do possess a small degree of the ability to express afection. They do react to proper care and love! Don't they? On the other hand, if you use the criteria of the human ability to distinguish between right and wrong, then even normal newborn babies don't qualify. This ability is developed much later in life. Does this mean that normal newbors are not human?

We do value newborn babies not on the basis of their ability to use their higher cortex to its full extent--the ability to distinguish between right and wrong--but rather because of the potential for developing such abilities with time. Which means that the potential for becoming fully human being should not be discounted. Neither the limited ability to respond to stimuli should be an absolute criteria for dehumanaizing any live human being. This is my humble opinion!

Do not forget that our SDA Guidelines on Abortion state the following regarding how God values human life:

Quote:
3) God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God's creation and the object of His redeeming love.

Nic

Back to the Editorial Index? Click Here ==>

 

The Church Has Gone Astray

on This Issue!

by Teresa Beem

Nic,

BRAVO!! You are are a great orator for the pro-life side!

It breaks my heart to even witness such debates. The problem is not the microscopic number of "gray" areas where rape, incest, anencephalic, comatose etc. patients are involved. The question really isn't about when does life begins. Those we will be debating till the end of time.

They usually are brought up as a red herring to keep from the true debate of WHY ARE SOME SDA HOSPITALS performing abortion on demand and even PARTIAL BIRTH abortions!!

You are never going to get me to believe a true, (learned) Christian, who reads the Bible and knows that children are a gift from God, could ever excuse most abortions for reasons of convenience. They are simply trying to figure a way for Adventists to be in the right. They just simply cannot admit that their church has gone astray on this one.

Keep up the fight!! God BLESS you Nic!!  I would LOVE for people to know how I admire your efforts!

Teresa Beem

 

How to Deal With the Gray Areas?

by Nic Samojluk

Hi!

Thanks for the kind words. It is encouraging to receive positive comments about what I am trying to acomplish and to learn that someone else is concerned about the current SDA attitude towards the sanctity of human life.

You seem to prefer to deal with what is black and white. I agree. Our hospitals should have never accepted to deal with abortion on demand. Unfortunately our president at the time caved in to the financial and social pressure back in 1970 and justified the horrendous idea that abortion was a morally acceptable response to hunger and overpopulation in the world. This opened the door for our Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii to offer elective abortions to pregnant women.

Nevertheless, I believe that we should not ignore those areas that you label as grey. Anybody who thinks that abortion is morally justified in cases of rape, incest, congenital malformation, or where the unwanted pregnancy may affect the health of the pregnant woman, should consider that in cases of doubt, we are required to err on the side of caution. If you are driving on a foggy day and see on the road what might be a child, your duty is to stop and investigate.

This is why we need a clear idea of when human life begins. Southern Baptists and Catholics do have a clear idea about this. Human life begins at the moment of conception for them. This is why Catholic hospitals do not offer abortion services. Our first mistake was to offer therapeutic abortions. Tese exceptions grew to include the health of the pregnant woman. This was the slippery slope which led us to the bottom of the moral hill! Consider this: Can you think of any woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy whose mental health will be unaffected by her predicament? The temptation to consult an abortionists will be too great, and Bingo! Another baby will be sacrificed on the altar of convenience!

As I stated above, our official Guidelines on Abortion call for the protection of human life:

Quote:
5) God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction.
This means that we need to know when human life begins. If we don't, there is no way we can protect it. It would be foolish for our U.S. president to ask the patrol agents to protect our borders if they do not have any idea where those borders lie! Fortunately, as I cited above, Dr. Gerald Winslow, the alleged architect of our Guidelines on Abortion did state what said limit of human life are:

Quote:
"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."

This in turn means that we do know when human life begins. Our problem is that we allow for all the above exceptions, including the health of the pregnant woman, which renders the call for the protection of human life meaningless! This is the reason for which two of our Adventist hospitals have been offering abortion on demand and one of them was described by a leading General Conference official as an "abortion mill" to you in a telephone conversation.

Personally, I do not believe that the alleged "grey" areas are that grey. A rapist breaks the law, takes his victim to an abortion clinic, the crime is not reported, an abortion is performed, and the rapist is free to rape again. Can you call this justice? Executing the innocent baby in order to protect the criminal is a miscarriage of justice in my book. The pregnant woman is victimized two times, first by the rape, and then by the execution of her own flesh and blood!

Is there a better alternative? Of course there is: It is called adoption. A few months of inconvenience, and the woman will not have to strugle with guilt for the rest of her life. Such a policy will increase the likelihood that the rapist will be placed where he belongs: in jail. The root of this problem is adultery and fornication. Unless we deal with the cause of this sorry state of affairs, we will never even begin to solve the problem!

Have you heard any sermons lately about adultery, fornication, and abortion by our SDA pastors? A friend of mine asked our pastor a few years ago why he never preached against abortion. His answer was: If I do that, some of my members might be offended! If we as a church are silent about sin, is there any hope that our members will feel a need to repent of their mistakes? By our silence on these issues, we are depriving our members of repentance, forgiveness, and healing!

Regarding the congenital malformations I have said enough already. I will limit myself to repeating that I don't think that removing the vital organs of an anencephalic baby while he/she is still alive is justified no matter how many human lives the transplantation of those organs can save. Removing the beating heart or liver of an alive and kicking baby is abhorrent to me. The excuse that the baby will soon die is unacceptable, I believe. We have no right to kill one human being in order to save another. This is my humble opinion!

Nic

 

The Gray Areas of Abortion

by Teresa Beem

Absolutely Nic,

What I meant by using "gray" areas as a red herring is not that the topics don't need to be discussed. What people do, as I have witnessed hundreds of times, is use these few cases of abortions for rape and incest to take the focus off the other 99% of cases that are for convenience sake. It is a purposeful rabbit trail to keep the more controversial aspect of abortion always stirring up debate rather than use what every Christian should be united on to stop the vast majority of abortions from happening.

Nic, on many occasions, BECAUSE of my vehement stance against abortions, even in the case of rape and incest, I have been labeled a "radical" and they use that to brush me off.

So, now--I try to watch out for that trap. Though the "gray" areas DO, absolutely, deserve an intelligent debate--just don't let them use it against you in your fight.

What I have found is that we fight NOT against man--but demonic spiritual agencies determined to use naive men to destroy God's most innocent and helpless humans.

I am certainly NOT arguing with you Nic, just wanted my comments to be understood! I am SO SO proud of you. YOU GO GUY!!

In Christ,
Teresa

 

I Appreciate You Input

by Nic Samojluk

Hi!

Thanks for your comments. I hold your opinion in great esteem, and I appreciate your input regarding the role you played in the development of the church's Guidelines on Abortion a couple of decades ago, and the valuable information you provided me for my doctoral dissertation; which, as you know, has been approved by the dissertation committee. I do admire your stand against those guidelines which brought us to where we are now. I do commend you for your unwillingness to have your hands stained with the blood of the unborn.

I felt the same way when I realized the great significance of said document and the impact it had on the church. This led me at the time to write an allegory that revealed my own pilgrimage and my decision to do something for the protection of the unborn. Said allegory was meant to be published by a leading SDA independent magazine. It never happened. This is the reason I started my own independent ministry website: the www.sdaforum.com and published it there. The Internet link to it is:

http://sdaforum.com/page94.html

May the good Lord continue to bless you in your present ministry to the body of Christ.

Nic

 

The Role of the SDA Forum

by Teresa Beem

Nic,

Oh, I was under the impression that the sda forum was for adventists. I didn't think they would appreciate my comments!!

But thanks--I might comment once in a while if they will let me and are not going to be disturbed....

In christ,
Teresa

 

Who is a True Adventist?

by Nic Samojluk

hi!

It all depends on how you define a true adventist. If we label as adventists those who believe that killing the unborn is acceptable to the Lord, then james white and the early pioneers were not adventists but rather good catholics. Most SDA's I know do not have in high esteem the work I do, but my main mission is not to please them, but rather to please the Lord the best way I know. I have in my e-mail system more than 1,000 names, but most of them do not care to open or read what I send to them. I believe that my sacred duty is in fact to disturb those who have developed a blind spot regarding the sanctity of human life.

Nic

 

Privileged and Difficult Mission

by Teresa Beem

Hi!

God has given you a very privileged and difficult mission--a sort of modern prophet. I will keep your mission and you covered in intense prayer. I would be the happiest and most thrilled person on earth if you were successful in stopping the abortions in sda hospitals.

You are awesome!!

Did you say you were in seminary at andrews? (If you are, how are they taking to your outspokenness?)

In Christ,

Teresa

 

Neither a Prophet nor the

Son of a Prophet!

by Nic Samojluk

Hi!

I agree! The mission is difficult, but not for the Lord. Nevertheless, I must clarify that my mission is not to alter the course my church has chosen to follow regarding abortion. It is rather to save, if possible at least one unborn baby from the slaughterhouse. Stopping abortions in our SDA hospitals is a tall order, and it may never happen, but the Lord has not given me the task to be successful, but rather to be faithful.

Thanks for your prayers. I certainly need those. Who doesn't? You compare my mission to a "sort of a modern prophet." I accept this only in a very general sense. Did not prophet Joel say that God would grant his spirit to all flesh? All means you and me and all those seeking to do the Lord's bidding. Is my mission the result of a visionary experience? Yes and No. No in the sense that I have never had anything similar to what Ellen White experienced at the beginning of her career, when whe was transported to heaven in spirit, and remained in an exctatic position without breathing.

Yes, in the sense that later in life her revelations were the result of her extensive reading what other men of God had written, which she took the liberty of quoting extensively. I was inspired after reading what you and other servants of the Lord had written about our church's decision to justify the killing of the unborn in our own hospitals. In that sense, you could say that I did have a vision of what could be done to alleviate the plight of the unborn.

Regarding Andrews University, the answer is No. My doctoral program is through a distant learning plan provided by Andrew Jackson University in Alabama for people like me who are unable to take time from work to do this, and who use their spare time to accomplish said objective. It took me ten years to complete the course work and to write the dissertation in my spare time.

It was hard work, but hopefully I will soon graduate. The only thing missing is my grade for the dissertation, which has been approved already. The title of my dissertation is: "From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The dramatic Shift in the Seventh-day Adventists' Attitude Towards Abortion." I will be posting the dissertation on my www.sdaforum.com website soon.

God bless!

Nic

 

"That was the impetus for me

to leave Adventism"

 

Nic,


Please don't be upset by my comments, because I love you and wish the very best for you..... we are ALL called to different missions....and I think God may very well be calling you to reform the SDA church.... so do NOT think that I am trying to convince you of anything... just simply letting you know how much I feel your pain on this one and what that pain led me to...

So, without further ado, what you just stated represents my experience from 1984 through 2001. I truly believed that if we (as Adventists For Life) could just open the eyes of the Adventists then they would rise up and take a stand for Christ and against the slaughter of the unborn. And AFL was not political--we just wanted the slaughter to stop in the Adventist hospitals and not promoted in our schools.

I cannot tell you how many young SDA women I have spoken to over the years  became pregnant out of wedlock during academy or college years and were counseled by their SDA teachers (even BIBLE teachers) to have abortions.

I was told by one girl--and I have not spoken about this because I cannot verify it--but that the abortion provider PICKED UP the pregnant girls at La Sierra University in very nice cars to take them to have an abortion. She was one of the girls, so she told me first hand! (She also told me that the abortion was provided FREE of charge to Adventists because the clinic was run by and Adventist!)

The more I was involved, the more I saw complete corruption at the very top levels of leadership. And I don't mean slightly corrupt--downright depraved corruption! (But that happens in most churches, sadly). The Adventist leaders, unbelievable to me at the time, seemed to have no moral inclination against deception of the church. I witnessed outright lie and purposeful misinformation being disseminated as truth. It completely broke my heart. I loved the SDA church and had been a very active member all my life.

Witnessing year after year of cover ups and misrepresentations, I began to study the early SDA pioneers in order to try and figure out a way of bringing "reformation" to the church.

What I found was that much of what we were told as to the "pioneers" of Adventism was very skewed. They, although not corrupt, were extremely bizarre and were not quite how they had been represented by the church. I read some of their writings such as James White's "Life Incidents" and was disappointed at his writing skills and logic. I read some of Ellen's undoctored works to find out that even she was heavily edited and her original works were very poorly worded indeed. I studied Dr. Kellogg and many SDA leaders from non-SDA sources. I studied the Millerite movement at the Library of Congress Archives/Research Center and was absolutely floored and how the SDA history books present the facts in their best light. (The Millerite movement was deplorable!)

Anyway...long story---sorry, I finally realized that any church who would lie on the big stuff---abortion, might also lie on the little stuff--history. For me the abortion issue was just the tip of the iceberg. I honestly do not believe that Adventist know they are passing down misinformation. Decade after decade and generation after generation, people just simply accept stuff as fact without really doing the research.

That was the impetus for me to leave Adventism. But I still love the Adventist people--90% of all my friends and family are Adventist! I still pray for them all the time and stand with them in love as Christians!

Since leaving, I have been very shocked at how many other Christians believe Adventists are a cult and do not think they are saved. I have lately had to vigorously defend them! My Baptist pastor will not even let me join their church until I am rebaptized because he does not think my SDA baptism valid.

So, don't think I am going around bashing Adventists. (Not that you said anything like that--I just know what many SDAs think about those who leave.)

I dearly hope that you make more of an impression than Adventists For Life did. Perhaps the soil is more fertile now!! It would bring me the greatest pleasure to know that the church I grew up in and loved was blossoming in a new life of faith and grace--and truth. Perhaps your generation......

God bless,

Teresa

 

Do Not Pin Your Hopes Ioo High

Hi!

Thanks for your comments. Nevertheless, I would suggest that you do not pin your hopes too high. The LLUC did accept to publish a very short announcement about my Sabbath School slide presentation, but I had to search the church bulletin six times before I succeeded in locating it. My submission was shortened and a significant portion of the title of my dissertation was omitted: the "the Dramatic Shift of Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes Towards Abortion" was dropped, and what was left was only the first part of the title: "From Pro-life to Pro-choice," which is rather innocuous.

I prepared a flyer and asked the church for the privilege of having it posted on the church bulletin board. This was denied. I asked the Student Services manager for the privilege of having my flyer posted on the bulletin board by the university market. This was denied as well. I will try to appeal to Dr. Gerald Winslow regarding this, and I did prepare a news item release and will try to have it published in the Redlands "Daily Facts." Only God knows whether I have a chance to have it published. The indifference towards the plight of the unborn among SDA's in Loma Linda is appalling!

Last evening I watched the documentary about an American downed pilot who was rescued at great cost and incredible risk by the military in Bosnia during the Clinton presidency. The most expensive military assets were made available to the rescuers determined to save one human being. Here the lives of 3,000 innocent human beings are sacrificed every weekend in the U.S., but the leaders of the "Remnant" church who have the "last message for a perishing world" wont allow a flyer to be displayed for the sake of the unborn. The church that invested 11 million dollars to renovate its church building, refuses to make an 8.5x11 inch space available for the saving of the unborn.

Nic Samojluk

 

Why is Samuele Bacchiocchi

on Both Lists?

Nic,

I was looking over your pro-choice and pro-life lists. Why is Samuele Bacchiocchi on both? Also, from personal questions--- Doug Batchelor is pro-life but won't talk about it publicly. Cliff Goldstein is pro-choice. Just for your information.

Teresa

 

The Attitude of Many Adventists is

Rather Fluid

Teresa,

Thanks for asking! There is a partial answer to your questions in the introduction to those lists. Let me quote a couple of paragraphs:

"It should be understood that the attitude of many Adventists is rather fluid, and that what they have expressed in the past, does not necessarily reflect their current position on abortion today.

This is illustrated by the fact that some individuals who were labeled as pro-choice on the basis of some of their writings were re-labeled as pro-life later on based on additional writings they published on a different date or venue. If anyone's position on  the issue was misinterpreted, please write to the investigator of this study for a more correct placement in any follow-up studies."

In the case of Bacchiocchi, I was tempted to count him as neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I decided to count him on both lists in order to highlight the fact that either people do alter their position with time, or else are not careful to state their position with clarity. Originally my intention was to include a survey, but I gave up on the idea after reading the result of a survey reported by Gerald Winslow showing how low the response was and how inconclusive the results were. In a fews instances, I did succeed in contacting some of the individuals whose position on abortion seemed enigmatic, and their response was helpful. In the case of others, I failed to secure a response from them.

Regarding Goldstein, I had a hard time listing him as pro-choice, but decided to do it for the sake of consistency, given the definitions I had assigned for each category at the beginning of the study. I could state the same about other individuals as well, including Gerald Winslow, whom I highly respect and admire, yet based on his statements about this issue, I had to label him the way I did for the sake of consistency. I made an honest attempt to avoid playing favoritism with the individuals included in the study.

God bless!

Nic Samojluk

An Update on the Pro-life Events

This is to inform readers that the first Pro-life events are history now and other similar events are in the planning stages. The Redlands Daily Facts newspaper did publish my submission not only for the first slide presentation, but for the second one as well. I did request a face-to-face meeting with Elder Randy Roberts, the senior pastor of the Loma Linda University Church. The meeting was held in the private office of Elder Darold Retzer, the Executive Pastor of the church. I made my appeal for a special announcement for my second Pro-life event at Dr. Paul Giem's Sabbath School.

My request was denied with the explanation that if the church would grant a special treatment for one Sabbath School, many of the other Sabbath Schools would demand similar pririleges. Of course, I can understand the logic of such denial; nevertheless, when the life of our children are at risk, such refusals to depart from the established policy becomes an evidence that the Adventist church has departed from the strong Pro-life attitude of the early SDA pioneers. On an average weekend three thousand innocent babies are sacrificed to this modern Moloch called abortion, and we, the "Remnant Church" that "Keeps God's Commandments" considers that abortion is no more than the removal of an appendix.

I just received an E-mail from Dr. Ronald Noltze who assures me that our SDA hospitals that have been under his supervision in Europe, South America, and Africa have not been offering abortion services to their patiens. This represents a clear contrast with what is happening with our medical institutions in the U.S. Thanks to my investigation into this issue, I have discovered that two of our hospitals whose identity I can verify have been offering not only therapeutic abortion, but elective abortions as well. And let us not forget that abortion is no therapy for the unborn baby, nor to its mother. I also discovered that one survey revealed that five of our hospitals a few years ago were offering abortion services to their patients. For more information, go to the following pages:

http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html

http://www.sdaforum.com/page193.html

God bless!

Nic Samojluk, Ph.D.

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.

Sign Up Today!

* required

Email Address: *

Name:



Email Marketing by VerticalResponse

Back to the Top? Click Here ==>

Back to the Editorial Index? Click Here ==>

Back to the Pro-life News & Views Index? Click Here ==>