Should Adventist Christians Have More to Say About Abortion?

[Lea.TT]

Interesting conversation and the answer to the original question is "Yes."

I have very strong feelings about abortion and it is surprising that I receive a lot of flack when they are expressed - flack especially from "the brethren." Either we believe in the power of God or we don't.

As Christians, but moreover, as Seventh-day Adventist Christians, we should have all of our trust in God when it comes to an unplanned pregnancy. Who of us is to say if that child should live or die? Is that really our call?

Circumstances, whatever they are - rape, incest, accidental or on purpose - life has begun in the womb. It is not ours to take away because of circumstances under which the child was conceived. Would I "circumstantially" keep the Sabbath holy? What is the difference when honoring the sixth commandment? None. There is no argument against it.

Trust in God in all things - the opposite is unbelief and that is sin. God will take care of these things if we would only trust Him. He knows the beginning and the end of that fetus. God has ways to work these things out that we know not of, yet in the midst of the storm, when we are faced with it - or when someone we know is faced with it, we fail to consider the plans God may have for this yet-to-be-born life. He has used horrendous circumstances for the good of those who experience them if only ... they trusted in Him. Every single experience we have on earth is either faith-breaking or faith-building depending upon our relationship with Jesus. Do we trust Him with our lives? Should we trust Him with the mother should her life be in danger because of the pregnancy? Is He powerful enough to trust or do we take it into our own hands?

We are not God - we cannot and should never make a decision for the unborn as to whether or not they live.

I totally agree.  It is a horrible thing to go through incest or rape, but as this writer said a life has already been formed. Two wrongs don't make a right.  They just take things from bad to worse.

[Raven]

Interesting conversation and the answer to the original question is "Yes."

I have very strong feelings about abortion and it is surprising that I receive a lot of flack when they are expressed - flack especially from "the brethren." Either we believe in the power of God or we don't.

As Christians, but moreover, as Seventh-day Adventist Christians, we should have all of our trust in God when it comes to an unplanned pregnancy. Who of us is to say if that child should live or die? Is that really our call?

Circumstances, whatever they are - rape, incest, accidental or on purpose - life has begun in the womb. It is not ours to take away because of circumstances under which the child was conceived. Would I "circumstantially" keep the Sabbath holy? What is the difference when honoring the sixth commandment? None. There is no argument against it.

Trust in God in all things - the opposite is unbelief and that is sin. God will take care of these things if we would only trust Him. He knows the beginning and the end of that fetus. God has ways to work these things out that we know not of, yet in the midst of the storm, when we are faced with it - or when someone we know is faced with it, we fail to consider the plans God may have for this yet-to-be-born life. He has used horrendous circumstances for the good of those who experience them if only ... they trusted in Him. Every single experience we have on earth is either faith-breaking or faith-building depending upon our relationship with Jesus. Do we trust Him with our lives? Should we trust Him with the mother should her life be in danger because of the pregnancy? Is He powerful enough to trust or do we take it into our own hands?

We are not God - we cannot and should never make a decision for the unborn as to whether or not they live.

Somehow I missed this post earlier, but you've expressed how I feel about this issue almost exactly.  I rarely express my thoughts as you did because, being a male, I don't have quite as much credibility on the subject as you do.     As for the life of the mother being in danger due to a pregnancy, I believe that this is usually an "argument to fall back on" to justify keeping it legal.  I believe that every effort should be made to save both the life of the mother, and the child.

I heard a story once, a true one, as far as I know.  It was about a man who was in charge of opening and closing a draw bridge.  I don't remember the details as to whether he was opening or closing it.  All I remember was that his small child had been playing nearby and got himself into a position where if the bridge was moved it would crush him, but if he didn't move the bridge many people would die.  Again, I apologize for the scarcity of details (it might have been a train, not a bridge).  The point of the story is that he had to make a decision:  save his child and let others die; or let his child die, and save the others.  He chose to save as many as possible.  I think this has some bearing on the issue of saving the life of the mother and baby in these situations.  I don't believe in situation ethics, but I don't profess to have all the answers.  Neither do I sit in judgment on those who have done what they felt was right under such stressful conditions.  Bottom line:  we need to trust in God more, and realize that death, whether of mother or child, is not the worst thing that can happen.  "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:  but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."  Matt. 10:28.

[Agatha]

Men do not have the inexpressible honor of carrying a baby in the womb, but they should, as fathers, "have their own voice" in the matter since they were involved from conception. A woman certainly could not accomplish the task without the vital assistance of the male-contributing sperm.

Which brings me to something else I learned from the genome project of a few years ago (Genome, Matt Ridley). It has been discovered that from the male gene comes the placenta.

Paternal genes, inherited from the father, are responsible for making the placenta; maternal genes, inherited from the mother, are responsible for making the greater part of the embryo, especially its head and brain.

Don't you love it? It goes with the biblical plan of the father's responsibility for housing! 

Anyway ... back to the topic: it seems the feminist movement has all but squelched male opinions regarding anything to do with pregnancy and it is a crying shame. Women are not to have such an independent spirit away from their husbands. It takes two (along with God) to create a baby but the PC thing these days is to leave all of the decision-making up to the woman. They say it is her body, after all - yet they conveniently forget Scripture tells us male and female are "one flesh" when joined in marriage.

Just another two cents ...

[Raven]

Men do not have the inexpressible honor of carrying a baby in the womb, but they should, as fathers, "have their own voice" in the matter since they were involved from conception. A woman certainly could not accomplish the task without the vital assistance of the male-contributing sperm.

Which brings me to something else I learned from the genome project of a few years ago (Genome, Matt Ridley). It has been discovered that from the male gene comes the placenta.

Don't you love it? It goes with the biblical plan of the father's responsibility for housing! 

Anyway ... back to the topic: it seems the feminist movement has all but squelched male opinions regarding anything to do with pregnancy and it is a crying shame. Women are not to have such an independent spirit away from their husbands. It takes two (along with God) to create a baby but the PC thing these days is to leave all of the decision-making up to the woman. They say it is her body, after all - yet they conveniently forget Scripture tells us male and female are "one flesh" when joined in marriage.
Just another two cents ...

Interesting about the which genes contribute to the various parts involved in creating a baby.

And even without the idea of the two becoming one flesh, the following text contradicts the mantra "It's my body!":  What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?  I Cor. 619.

[Richard Holbrook]

Yes our SDA hospitals do perform abortions, and on a very large scale. Some years ago a friend of mine was attending a question and answer session where Neal Wilson (the General Conference President) was answering some questions. He was asked: Why do our hospitals perform abortions? My friend heard him say that all our hospitals did abortions....and if we didn't perform them for the women, we would lose their business....so we may as well make the money off them...

Back in the days of our pioneers we were definitely pro-life, but about 10 years before Roe v Wade it started to change. And this is where we are now.

[Richard Holbrook]

A good friend of mine, Nic Samojluk wrote his Doctoral Dissertation on this very subject.

   "From Pro-life to Pro-choice:
      The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day
 Adventists' Attitudes
 Towards Abortion"
        A Doctoral Dissertation

        by Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. 

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

Not only is it good reading, it's very enlightening. .......In answer to the original question, I would say yes.

[Nic Samojluk]

 I don't mean to be cynical, but could it be that some of our hospitals are preforming abortions, and that there is money in it?

Raven,

The answer is “Yes,” some of our Adventist hospitals have been performing elective abortions upon demand. Some years ago it was reported in our “Minitry” magazine that a survey revealed that five of our medical institutions were offering abortion services to their patients. I made this discovery when I was working on my doctoral dissertation entitled “From Pro-life to Pro-choice:       The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventists' Attitudes Towards Abortion.”

This major shift in our policies took place in 1970 when our hospital in Hawaii was faced with the dilemma of either offering abortion services or else loose patients. Unfortunately, the fear of loosing business led our leaders to compromise on this moral issue. But this should not surprise us, since a similar moral failure took in Germany during the Nazi regime. Nor long ago, our German and Austrian SDA leaders issued a public apology for our cooperation with Hitler while the genocide of the Jews was taking place.

We need to encourage our leaders to return to the example of our SDA pioneers who manifested a strong pro-life stand and labeled abortion as a direct violation of the sixth Commandment. Lately, our SDA silence regarding abortion has been rather deafening.

[Richard Holbrook]

Hi Nic, Glad you could join us.

[Nic Samojluk]

If the life of the mother is truly at risk, then it is appropriate to save the mother over the baby, but as you say this is rare. The liberals have redefined life of the mother to mean health of the mother, and even the mental health of the mother as being a good reason to abort, but this is nothing more than abortion on demand. I think rape and incest are also legitimate reasons for abortion.

Stan.

Yes, saving one life instead of loosing two is still within the pro-life ethic. The problem, as you stated, is that pro-abortionists have “redefined life of the mother to mean health of the mother.” The health of the mother exception has been abused by many abortionists. The woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy says: “This pregnancy is affecting my mental health. I am depressed," and bingo, another innocent unborn baby is executed for the sake of convenience. In the case of incest and rape, I see no moral justification for punishing the innocent for the crime of the guilty because there is a better option: adoption.

[Soli Deo Gloria]

Stan.

Yes, saving one life instead of loosing two is still within the pro-life ethic. The problem, as you stated, is that pro-abortionists have “redefined life of the mother to mean health of the mother.” The health of the mother exception has been abused by many abortionists. The woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy says: “This pregnancy is affecting my mental health. I am depressed," and bingo, another innocent unborn baby is executed for the sake of convenience. In the case of incest and rape, I see no moral justification for punishing the innocent for the crime of the guilty because there is a better option: adoption.

Welcome Nic to the forum and thanks for your comments. I look forward to reading your doctoral dissertation on this topic which was posted above.

Yes our SDA hospitals do perform abortions, and on a very large scale. Some years ago a friend of mine was attending a question and answer session where Neal Wilson (the General Conference President) was answering some questions. He was asked: Why do our hospitals perform abortions? My friend heard him say that all our hospitals did abortions....and if we didn't perform them for the women, we would lose their business....so we may as well make the money off them...

Back in the days of our pioneers we were definitely pro-life, but about 10 years before Roe v Wade it started to change. And this is where we are now.

If the above incident where Neal C. Wilson admitted that SDA hospitals do abortions for profit is true, (and I would like to see documentation for that--although it wouldn't surprise me knowing how Wilson answered in other situations) then the church is really in deep trouble.

Why do Roman Catholic hospitals never compromise on this issue? They won't even do tubal ligations due to their principles.

What does this say about the church claiming to keep the commandments of God? Is not the 6th commandment at least as important as the 4th? Doing abortions for profit? God will judge these sins, and it is difficult to see how He can bless a church who compromises itself so seriously on an issue as important as this.

Stan