Home > News > 2013 > January >
La Sierra University Accused of Collaboration with an Abortion Promoter
.
Submitted: Jan 31, 2013
By AT News Team


A web operation that has dogged La Sierra University for allegedly teaching about evolution in ways that contradict Seventh-day Adventist Church doctrine is now accusing the university of collaborating with “a notorious abortionist.” The story has been picked up by a web site that promotes anti-abortion politics and is not affiliated with Adventists.
 
Dr. Edward C. Allred is a La Sierra alumnus, a physician who graduated from medical school at Loma Linda University and went on to four decades of practicing medicine and developing a successful business career in California. In 2010 he gave La Sierra University a grant to create a center in its business school that teaches entrepreneur skills to high school students in the Riverside, Calif., area. This donation is the key element of the accusation by ADvindicate.com that has been republished in Life Site News.
 
The original story was produced by David Read, a Los Angeles attorney who writes regularly for ADvindicate.com. It includes some statements that seem, on their face, to be unlikely. For example, that Dr. Allred “personally” aborted “hundreds of thousands of fetuses.” That would translate to at least 200,000 abortions and over 40 years that is 5,000 per year or 14 per day, assuming he operated 365 days a year.
 
What is on the record is that Dr. Allred has had a practice in obstetrics and gynecology for many years and he started Family Planning Associates Medical Group in 1969, which now has 20 clinics throughout the state. California has always had a liberal abortion law and the practice has included legal abortions. After the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court, the group practice expanded. Its web site acknowledges that it is often picketed by anti-abortion activists.
 
The Advindicate.com article also assails Dr. Allred for his involvement in horse racing, describing it as having “strong ties to the gambling industry.” The doctor started his involvement with horses at age 14 and over the years became the owner of the Los Alamitos racetrack. According to CorporationWiki.com he owns an interest in a number of businesses, including some that are related to horse breeding and racing.
 
If accepting money from Dr. Allred is a moral weakness on the part of the university, the same may be true of the anti-abortion cause. The public record of political donations linked to CorporationWiki.com lists numerous donations by Dr. Allred to candidates that are on record in opposition to abortion, including a $1,000 donation to Michele Bachmann in 2010, a presidential candidate in the Republican Party in last year’s primaries, and $4,800 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign in California. He gave much larger donations to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Republican National Committee in 2010, both on record as solidly anti-abortion. He supported the McCain-Palin campaign with two gifts totaling $53,500 in the 2008 presidential election cycle, and Senator John McCain is well known for his “at the moment of conception” statement in response to Pastor Rick Warren’s question about abortion. In fact, there are very few donations to candidates who are pro-abortion in the record that goes back to 1999.
 
The Life Site News story did include a statement from a university spokesman. “La Sierra University benefits from the generosity of a wide range of donors [and] students continue to learn important economic principles through the programs operated by the Center for Financial Literacy and developed by School of Business faculty members,” said Larry Becker, university relations director.
 
It is unclear if Advindicate.com will become an Adventist affiliate with the anti-abortion movement. “Is this a real concern, or just another stone to throw,” one La Sierra alum asked when contacted by Adventist Today for a comment.
 

________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:

Wayne Wilson
2013-02-01 3:29 AM

Given the official stand of the Seventh Day Adventist church against abortion, there should be no question that an Adventist institution is fully pro-life.  So why is it that the church has so many members who are weak on this issue?  Regarding this article on Dr. Allred, according to his website he still currently offers and performs abortions.  I don’t understand how can a Christian do this?

http://www.fpamg.net/about-us

Yvonne Stratton
2013-02-02 4:34 AM

Where does it say the SDA church is "against abortion?"  or that it is fully "pro-life?"  That is not the official position.

Wayne Wilson
2013-02-02 10:09 PM

Yvonne, I stand corrected. Here are the official guidelines of the church. (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main-guide1.html). And you are right; Adventists aren’t hard-lined about the practice. It is really sad that Adventism doesn’t take a harsher stand against abortion because it ultimately plays out in the church. Unfortunately I know of several Adventist classmates who have had more than one abortion, and none of them did it for the reasons that are considered acceptable by the SDA guidelines (they were all unmarried women at the time). I can only assume that there exists a much higher number of SDA women having abortions that I don’t know about. Let’s see, we don’t eat shellfish or pork because that would somehow make us unclean, but since abortion isn’t specifically addressed in the Bible we tolerate it. I suggest that if we can condemn the eating of a peperoni pizza we should condemn the practice of modern day infanticide much more so, after all, which is truly worse? The fact that there are Adventist doctors performing abortions is mind boggling to begin with! A medical doctor and practitioner of abortion would not be permitted through the door in most other Bible believing churches in this country, yet here in the heartland of Adventism he gets a place in the pew and a plaque of gratitude for his donations. It is unbelievable for this institution to call itself the “true” church with such blood on its hands. What kind of health message is this?

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-03 12:01 AM

"none of them did it for the reasons that are considered acceptable by the SDA guidelines (they were all unmarried women at the time). I can only assume that there exists a much higher number of SDA women having abortions...."

At least you you admit that it's an assumption.  And what are the "acceptable" reasons for abortion?  Do you wish to have other people:  a church or physician making very personal decisions that must be approved when you have surgical procedures or prescriptions?

There have been a number of Repulican senators of ill repute who have adopted to make all decisions for women's reproductive health without their consent or knowledge.  I don't recall God every telling us humans that we should defer our private judgment and conscience over to others.  We, and we alone are responsible, and take fully responsibility for our own very personal decisions.

The SDA church has wisely not adopted an official position on a number of iissues encroaching upon personal liberty in which they showed great wisdom.  How else could God hold us to answer for our actions if they were approved or rejected by other humans, just like us?


Where is you substantiation for this statement:

"A medical doctor and practitioner of abortion would not be permitted through the door in most other Bible believing churches in this country."

There is no command from God about abortion; there is a command against bearing false witness.

 



 


Nic Samojluk
2013-02-01 10:19 AM

There is a good reason for our Adventist members to be rather ambivalent regarding the abortion issue: The Adventist Church is ambivalent on its position. We officially teach that the church does not condone abortions on demand, but we allowed our own hospitals to offer elective abortions starting back in 1970 when the State of Hawaii legalized the practice. Eventually, at least five of our medical institutions did participate in this. What we do as a church speaks louder than what we say! Isn't this what Pilate did? He publicly declared that Jesus was innocent, yet he condemned him to death.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-01 10:29 AM

Given the fact that our Adventist leadership did permit our hospitals to profit from abortion, I conclude that what Dr. Allred did was simply imitate the behavior of our church, and it follows that La Sierra University did nothing wrong by accepting financial donation derived from the killing of unborn children. If we condemn the actions of Allred and LSU, then we must also condemns the example set by the Adventist church in this respect. The moral problem is not centered in what Allred and LSU have done, but rather is the terrible example set by the church!

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-01 10:34 AM

Here is how Neal Wilson, the president of the North American Division of the church, attempted to morally justify the profit from elective abortions in our Adventist hospitals back in 1970: “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.” George Gainer, ““The Wisdom of Solomon”?” Spectrum 19/4 (May 1989): 38-46

SecondOpinion
2013-02-01 12:21 PM

Advindicate's (and EducateTruth's) attempts to discredit La Sierra University by any means possible really are tiring.  I suggest a moratorium from Spectrum and Adventist Today on giving any attention whatsoever to his website or its charges.  Mr. Read conveniently overlooks, as previous posts already point out, the checkered history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on elective abortions.  Have we so soon forgotten articles like this one? http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2011/01/adventists_and_abortion.html  You want to throw stones?  Throw them at our health care institutions and the GC building itself.

Bob Pickle
2013-02-01 12:29 PM

I first became aware of this story by a Catholic missionary I know sending me the following email message: "Spirit of the anti-Christ Bob? Read the following article:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/seventh-day-adventist-university-names-new-economics-centre-after-abortioni."

So are the allegations true? The Dec. 24, 2001 Forbes' article on Dr. Allred says that he "runs the nation's largest privately held chain of abortion clinics" and "owns the Los Alamitos Race Course": http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1224/040.html. It says, "But Allred, 65, knows how to make lemonade out of lemons. 'I've been known as a scrapper,' Allred smiles from his favorite Friday-night perch at his trackside club, where guests dine on blackened halibut and place bets from tabletop wagering terminals. Unlike many other suffering horse tracks, Los Alamitos has seen its daily handle, or total betting, increase 3% to 5% a year to $1.3 million .... Allred credits that to his decision to simulcast races to other tracks."

Friday night?

The article also says he was preparing for a stiff fight to bring in slot machines. But that was way back in 2001, and people change. Has Allred since 2001 left behind the vice of gambling, and ceased running "the nation's largest privately held chain of abortion clinics"? (We're certainly not talking about small time when Forbes makes those kind of claims about a guy.)

Wayne Wilson
2013-02-01 1:29 PM

There is a major problem with this statement in the above article.  “If accepting money from Dr. Allred is a moral weakness on the part of the university, the same may be true of the anti-abortion cause.”  Given that the real “moral weakness” here is abortion itself, it doesn’t follow that pro-life organizations should not be funded.  It is a good thing to financially support the anti-abortion cause and it is a terrible thing to use money obtained from the killing of innocent human beings to fund the operations of supposedly morally upright Christian institutions.   Dr. Allred allegedly gave to members of the Republican Party, not to pro-life groups specifically.  The fact that political conservatives are often against abortion makes Dr. Allred’s donations simply curious.  He probably supports them for other reasons.  On the same theme that this article seems to make, I might assert that if people vote for members of the Democratic Party, they are actually engaging in support of abortion.
 

Another disturbing statement in this article is the apparent accolade of Dr. Edward C. Allred’s “successful business career.”  Dr. Allred “is a La Sierra alumnus, a physician who graduated from medical school at Loma Linda University and went on to four decades of practicing medicine and developing a successful business career in California.”  I hope Dr. Allred’s successful business career isn’t his practice of performing abortions.   It is hard to see how abortion is viewed as medicine at all, especially from the perspective of the unborn who are losing their lives to this form of “medicine.”  There is no healing being done in this practice at all.  And for the mother involved, being pregnant is not a disease, so what is the doctor “treating” her for?  This is not medicine.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-01 2:09 PM

Dr. Allred's fault lies in the fact that he devised a more efficient method of killing unborn babies than the Adventist hospitals which participated in the abortions on demand business. Paraphrasing what was said about David of old we can say: The church killed its thousands and Allred its ten thousands.

Truth Seeker
2013-02-01 2:10 PM

This is red meat for Nic and his supporters. The SDA church nowhere condemns abortion in *all* circumstances. For those interested you can look up the church's position on abortion.
What is much more important than Read's article is the policy of the SDA Education Department with respect to accepting grants. Does the Department examine the beliefs and lifestyles of donors? What exactly is the criteria of the Education Department and its educational institutions with respect to accepting grants?  Anyone know? 

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-01 3:39 PM

Where has "collaboration" been stated?

Receiving funding does not in any way condone approval of how the money was made.  The G.C. has hundreds, probably thousands of investments in the stock market.  Does anyone believe that none of them have ties that individuals might find repulsive?  It is almost impossible to find stocks that are based on only one company.  One of the most profitable (as Warren Buffet as a long-time investor) is P&G.  Can anyone identify each company that includes?

Or, about the McKee Bakery that has contributed hugely to SAU.  These are foods no SDA would recommend, loaded with sugar and empty calories.  Has SAU ever turned those financial gifts away?

Jim Miller
2013-02-01 3:41 PM

    Perhaps we are not considering the reasons why the official church position is not extreme against abortion.  So far, almost all posts are just assuming only the most extreme position could possibly be the appropriate one.
    For instance, Exodus 21:22-25 clearly treats the fetus as property, not a person, but its mother as a person, not property.  This text is the reason why the Rabbis (who read Hebrew, btw) allow for abortion in their understanding of the Law.  Evangelical attempts to defang this text tend to be elaborate and of questionable merit -- unless, of course, you approach the text with your mind already made up.
    Or consider Leviticus 20, which is often cited as grounds for executing homosexuals.  Lev 20:20-21 insists that the incestuous couples should die "childless".  Of course, this doesn't mean they will be unable to conceive, but rather that it is the responsibility of the law enforcers to execute the couple before the woman could possibly give birth.
    This doesn't mean we can be careless about the unborn, but it does indicate that we should not attribute to them the same value as one who is born.  And that just might allow us to not go to extremes whenever we hear hints or rumors about possible abortions.
     I assume the replies to this will be extreme.
Jim Miller

Ed Fry
2013-02-01 9:10 PM

Just curious, Jim....if "we should not attribute to them the same value as one who is born," what about a fetus/child that is one day prior to birth.  Should that child/fetus be attributed the same value?  If so, when/where do we draw the line at which before it there is not the same value and after it, there is?

Bob Pickle
2013-02-01 4:22 PM

Elaine,

Naming a Seventh-day Adventist campus building after a man who "runs the nation's largest privately held chain of abortion clinics," owns a gambling establishment, and watches horse races at the track on Friday night amidst those addicted to the vice of gambling, that really should raise a lot of eybrows.

Moreover, I found it difficult to understand how Larry Becker could in good conscience spin the situation positively.

Bob Pickle
2013-02-01 4:40 PM

Made an interesting discovery about a possible link between evolution and abortion. Rebecca Stefoff's 2004 book Chimpanzees notes on pp. 58-59 that observers who first witnessed chimps engaging in infanticide were shocked and distressed. Chimps, male and female, will sometimes deliberately attack and kill infants, sometimes devouring them. Most of the time this is when infants are born to mothers who have newly joined a group.

"However, the evolutionary purpose is clear," Stefoff writes. "Infanticide" keeps the group from spending "energy and resources" to raise a chimp that wasn't fathered by a male of that group. And also the female whose baby was killed can then mate sooner within the group so that the next infant will be one of that group's males' own.

"However, the evolutionary purpose is clear." So, from within an evolutionary paradigm, which allegedly is the paradigm that certain LSU teachers have operated within, there must be an evolutionary purpose for Dr. Allred's "largest privately held chain of abortion clinics" to engage in so much pre-birth infanticide, or fetuscide, or whatever the right term is. Are these and other clinics helping craft a master race by eliminating those descendants least likely to thrive economically, physically, and socially?

Bob Pickle
2013-02-01 4:46 PM

I have previously heard about a connection between Darwinian thought, and racism, eugenics, and the holocaust, but this was from history. So it was surprising to find those recent comments in that 2004 book on chimps.

I don't believe in evolution, and so I don't believe that either abortion or Dr. Allred's clinics serve an evolutionary purpose. Rather, I think we merely have illustrated for us the depths of degradation sin has brought us to, whether in nature where chimps commit infanticide, or in (in)human society where men and women slay their own unborn children.

The only connection I see between evolution, and abortion and gambling is one of spirituality. Embracing one of these might lead to tolerance of the others.

Steve Tanner
2013-02-01 5:26 PM

Should we consider why abortion is sought after in the first place? This is just a thought but if we were doing a good job of helping those in need maybe this problem would not be as big as it is.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-01 8:32 PM

Truth Seeker, you are right! The Adventist Church does not condemn abortion "in all circumstances," but it definitely does not approve elective abortions. This means that when our leaders allowed our own hospitals to provide abortions on demand, this represented a violation of the church's position on abortion and a violation of the Sixth Commandment.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-01 8:39 PM

Gailon, I agree with your comments. This is why we need to bear in mind that Ellen White did warn the church on one occasion that we were in danger of becoming "a sister to Babylon," and she said this a century before the Adventist Church redefined the Sixth Commandment and decided to profit from abortions on demand.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-01 8:49 PM

Jim, would you label Jesus as an extremists? Did you read what he said about looking at a woman or nourishing hate against a brother? Did you read the way several versions translated the passage found in Exodus 21? Besides, can we use the Old Testament as a norm for our behavior today. Can I marry more than one wife with impunity? Am I allowed to have a few slaves? What is the point of using a particular version of Exodus 21 in an attempt to justify abortion?

Don Bowen
2013-02-01 8:51 PM

This is not news. Edward Allred has been very generous with Monterey Bay Academy donating at least $2,000,000. One million an outright gift and the second million a matching gift. I was on the Central California Conference Executive Committee at the time. (FYI the CCC is the most conservative conference in the Pacific Union) I brought the issue up and it was placed on the conference committee agenda. The bottom line was if it is offered to us we will take it; no questions asked. Some of the discussion involved that this money came from investments not abortions. My question was where did the money come from to invest? A second discussion thread was do we take ingathering donations from unsavory people? I don’t think LSU needs to be a whipping boy any more than MBA or the CCC.

Truth Seeker
2013-02-01 9:36 PM

   "This doesn't mean we can be careless about the unborn, but it does indicate that we should not attribute to them the same value as one who is born."

Good thinking, Jim. I have often thought about that text and agree with you. Extremists on the subject will likely pillory you but twas ever thus. My way or the highway even though there is no clear Biblical injunction on the matter.
Maranatha

Jim Miller
2013-02-01 10:16 PM

     Actually, I read Hebrew, and am not limited by translations,  which I have also read.  Also, understand that there is a long Rabbinic tradition of allowing for abortion (which goes back before the Roman Empire, but never gets mentioned in the New Testament).  And it is the Rabbinic tradition which uses Exodus 21 for its basis of fetus status.
     Ancient Church Fathers -- who all opposed abortion, but not because of fetal value, but rather they oppose all contraception -- disagreed about the status of the fetus.  For instance, Gregory of Naziansus, discussing the "spirit" part of "Holy Spirit" commented that the fetus (embryon) does not become a person (anthropos) until it takes its first breath.
     These, of course are views expressed long before I existed.  The point I was trying to make,  is not what I believe (I'll get to that in a moment), but rather to get it through some very thick skulls that this issue is far from settled either in the Chtristian context, or the context of Biblical studies.
      But, you'll always find a translation that will tell you what you want to hear, if you search hard enough.
     I believe that the embryo and fetus gains value as it develops.  I assign no value to undifferentiated stem cells, or to "unique" genetics (What, are identical twins really only one soul, not two?).  My ethical response begins with the develoment of a central nervous system, and grows with the complexity of that central nervous system.  A viable fetus does have the value of an infant, and late-term abortions should be limited to extreme medical situations.
     So, I have no problems with the pill, Plan B, or various early abortifacients.  Surgical abortions should be legal and safe (or they WILL happen in back alleys), and rare (which happens when birth control is well presented and available).  In fact, abortions are on the decrease, but not because crusaders are closing abortion clinics.  They are decreasing as birth control becomes better known, especially among teens (remember, not all teens grow up in churches), and more widely available.

Wayne Wilson
2013-02-02 3:32 AM

There is a major incoherence of thought when we try to make distinctions as to when a baby becomes worthy of not being killed in the womb.  If we say it is at birth only because it has to breath somehow first, then what do we make of premature babies who can survive even at 22 weeks.  Granted, they may have to be on ventilator at first, but if someone came into the hospital and removed the child from life support wouldn’t we consider that murder?  So what is it about the baby’s location whether inside of the womb or outside of the womb that makes it a precious human?  How is location in any sense a somehow magical stamp of approval for a child being worthy of living?   Additionally, how can we make sense of saying a baby is worthy of life once it has a nervous system but it isn’t a day or two before?  If we reduce what humans really are we can see that this type of argument is simply incorrect.  A human looks quite different in adulthood compared to when he was a toddler, yet he is the same person.  The same holds true of his appearance the day before his birth compared to when he was at 6 weeks gestation, but he is still the same human person as he was from the moment of conception, and he has separate DNA to prove it.  We were at one time all just a few cells resulting from the union of our parents gametes.  If someone would have aborted us back then, we would have ceased to exist.  We all know that when we cease to exist we have died, but dying at the hands of another with the intention of not letting us live another day because we are somehow inconvenient, is called murder. 

TXalchemist II
2013-02-01 11:11 PM

If I'm not mistaken, the Hebrews built the tabernacle with JEWELRY donated by HEATHEN Egyptians. People who, incidentally, had recently aborted their firstborn children---uh, correction... actually, I guess the kids were already birthed, so it was MURDER. By God, no less! So, I guess the "church in the wilderness" was built by blood money, a sort of extortion. (Remember, the average Egyptian "donor" had less say in the Pharaoh's decisions than the average cat in Pharaoh's palace did).

Bob Pickle
2013-02-01 11:19 PM

Don Bowen,

Did MBA or the CCC pay tribute to the benefactor by naming a building after him? If not, then LSU is handling the situation differently than they did, whether differently enough or not. ADRA doesn't name projects or wells after bartenders who happen to give an Ingathering donation.

Did it come up as well about his deep involvement in the vice of gambling?

Incidentally, I find it interesting that in http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130102083615.htm it describes a study which showed that by 10 weeks before birth a baby is learning from its mother the peculiar speech sounds of its native language (such as vowel sounds). This was shown by babies as soon as 7 hours after birth showing more interest in speech sounds from other languages than from their own.

Bob Pickle
2013-02-01 11:22 PM

"But above the tribunal of the church is the tribunal of God. He who declared to the first murderer, 'The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto Me from the ground' (Genesis 4:10), will not accept for His altar the gifts of the liquor dealer. His anger is kindled against those who attempt to cover their guilt with a cloak of liberality. Their money is stained with blood. A curse is upon it" (MH 340).

If God refuses to accept it, should we?

TXalchemist, if you check out the story abit more, you'll find that when the Israelites went asking for gold and silver before leaving Egypt, they were collecting their back wages lost after being illegally enslaved by the Egyptians. They weren't taking up an offering for a church building fund.

TXalchemist II
2013-02-01 11:35 PM

And Bob, I suppose if God hadn't murdered the firstborn, the Egyptians would have gladly handed over the "wages" when the Hebrews waltzed up and asked for them on the way out the door?  Be serious!

In any case, it is a true statement that God's tabernacle was built with jewelry taken from heathen Egyptians.  Or as Ex. 12:36 says, "And so they plundered the Egyptians."  I think the back wages argument is something you are dredging from EGW; I don't see it in the context of Ex. 12:36 itself.  To the contrary; the account of the "donation" of jewelry to the Israelites immediately follows the death of the firstborn in every house in the land and the Egyptians urging the Israelites to leave before ALL the Egyptians should die.

TXalchemist II
2013-02-01 11:38 PM

P.S. -- Bob, if it was "wages", and this operation was to free slaves, would it be fair to conclude that murder of children is justified if it frees economically oppressed people from a life of servitude?

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-02 12:05 AM

Did Christ accept the offering of very expensive perfume in an alabaster box by a prostitute? 

 

Where does all the G.C. money go that is put in investments?  Why not check on that and there may be surprises.

If anyone wishes to give money to fund and help pay for Christian education, where in the Bible are we instructed to refuse? 

 

As for abortion:  the Bible says that God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he became a living soul.  It is not called the "breath of life" without meaning.  In addition, if a fight causes a woman to miscarry, her husband should be paid, but nothing is said about a "person."   

Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion rendered in Roe v. Wade had this statement:

"the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

 

 


akamai
2013-02-02 1:30 AM

Isn't Lifesite the same group that claimed the Montana plane crash that took the lives of 14 people including an Adventist physician and his family was God's retribution against the owner of the plane, whose daughter and grandchildren were aboard? That sort of theology really wins people to their side... not.

akamai
2013-02-02 1:32 AM

The owner of the plane being a prominent Adventist businessman who owned several clinics providing GYN care.

Bob Pickle
2013-02-02 8:48 AM

Elaine,

There is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute when she anointed Jesus' feet. The MH quote isn't talking about former liquor dealers who repented and got out of the business.

Looks like Justice Blackmun was wrong after all, based on that recent study about babies learning the sounds of their native language before birth. It takes more than a mere blob of tissue to learn like that.

Would it not be true that unborn babies still have the breath of life, only getting it through the umbilical cord rather than their nostrils? Or would you say that people having surgery that are on heart-lung machines are no longer living souls since they aren't breahing in through their nostrils and lungs anymore?

Bob Pickle
2013-02-02 8:56 AM

TXalchemist II,

I find your commensts a little puzzling. First off, you seem to think that the firstborn slain on Passover night were only children. Why are you excluding the adults and the elderly?

Second, I don't find anywhere in Exodus where Moses said he exceedingly feared and quaked. If I have to "dredge" that idea from Paul in Hebrews, what difference would that make?

Third, why are you saying that God "murdered"? Execution of judicial sentences by God certainly isn't a violation of the 6th commandment. And in this case the Egyptians should have had an opportunity to apply the blood to the doorposts just like the Jews did. We know the mixed multitude had that opportunity. If the vast majority of Egyptians apparently chose not to, how then can we blame God for their negligence?

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-02 9:25 AM

Jim, you said: " I believe that the embryo and fetus gains value as it develops." I ask: Does the embryo and the fetus gain value as it develops in the sight of God, or only human beings? Did the moral value of Jesus grow as it developed in God's sight? I once asked a very well known Adventist physician whether he would have provided an abortion to Mary, the mother of Jesus. I was surprised by his answer: "I would not have hesitated." Do you agree with this doctor's view of the moral value of an unborn child? By the way, "fetus" is the Latin word for an unborn child!

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-02 9:31 AM

TXalchemist II, I disagree. The "gifts" received by the Israelites from the Egyptian were not really gifts. They represented wages for which they had not been duly compensated for. Read what Ellen White said about this!

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-02 9:54 AM

Elaine, thee alabaster was not from a prostitute! She was a new creation and no longer a prostitute. Your argument about Adam is faulty! He was instantly created--we are not! He became a living human being the moment he received oxygen, and the embryo becomes a living and growing human being at the moment of conception. The means this oxygen is provided does not negate the humanity of the unborn. If the embryo were not a human being, there would be no need to kill it! The opinion of Blackmun is negated by another opinion which states that if Congress were to grant personhood to the unborn, the unborn would be protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Before the emancipation of the slaves, members of the black race lacked personhood rights. They were purchased and sold as merchandize. It is high time to recognize the unborn as members of the human race!

Wayne Wilson
2013-02-02 1:51 PM

Nic, I see that you are as enthusiastic as I am about defining just what we are doing here regarding abortion.  In fact I would add that the term abortion actually minimizes the concept of what is really going on, which is killing a completely innocent life.  55 million lives have been taken since abortion became legalized in 1973, and 98% of those abortions were performed as birth control because these children were unwanted and inconvenient. 

What is really sick is to note the celebration that is going on for those who are thrilled with the continued killing of these innocent lives at the 40 year mark.  Check out this 40th aniversary video produced by pro-choice advocates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2QXzzBFlCc


Elaine Nelson
2013-02-02 4:01 PM

Until the SCOTUS changes Roe v. Wade, it is irrelevant what we might propose.

And as long as freedom of conscience is embraced, rather than force, abotions will continue.  Thankfully, there are fewer every year, thanks to contraception, but the same Christian fundamentalist who fight abortion also fight contraception.  We have not been given judicial powers and the term "religious liberty" should be honored for without it people would be forced to obey whatever religious group chose to enforce.  If that is nation some want to live under, there are countries right now that practice religious authority.


Wayne Wilson
2013-02-02 5:31 PM

I am not sure that the opposition is strictly religious, and we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking non-religious people are not opposed to it either. Religious or not, it is ethically apparent that abortion is a terrible thing. The 18th century Irish statesmen Edmund Burke said that “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny” and “Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.” It was estimated at the time of Roe vs. Wade that some 1500 “back alley” abortions were being performed every year. Since the flood gates of abortion were opened, it has averaged 1.375 million every year, or about 3800 every single day. It has been said that “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” If abortion isn’t evil I don’t know what is. This is America’s holocaust. This Christian video is a powerful reminder of how our society has forgotten evil and now automatically defends the evil of abortion because the State says it is okay. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-02 10:01 AM

Bob, I agree with you! The same reasoning applies to the pre-flood generation. They were given the opportunity to repent and seek refuge inside the Arch Noah had built.

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-02 3:56 PM

"The pre-flood generation were given the opportunity to repent"

In which Bible translation are you find that statement?

Jim Miller
2013-02-02 2:44 PM

Someone wrote,
<<A "rabbinic tradition" is NOT a standard to which we are called to serve the creator.>>
Not exactly my point.  My point was that this tradition was based on very close readings of this text -- a text desperately contested by Evangelicals -- and this close reading was done in Hebrew, not in translation, by experts in Hebrew.  That does not make it infallible, but it does make it consequential.
     Incidentally, what about the New Testament silence on abortion?  Abortion was widely practiced in the ancient Roman Empire, both through drugs and surgical means.  Church Fathers railed against abortion (and contraception) from very early.  How significant is the New Testament silence?

Bob Pickle
2013-02-02 7:29 PM

I may have misspoke when I said the Egyptians should have been able to apply the blood to the doorposts just like the Jews. PP 279 instead of this says that the believing Egyptians begged to be allowed to stay with the Israelites that night. "These were gladly welcomed ...." The result was the same, of course.

Wayne Wilson's statistics are interesting. From 1500 back alley abortions per year to 1.375 million abortions per year. How many deaths and physical or mental disabilities resulted from the 1500 in comparison to those resulting from the 1.375 million, as far as the mother goes? It wouldn't surprise me a bit if abortion-caused deaths and disabilities are higher now than they were when abortion was illegal.

If out of the 1500 impairment or death occurred in 1375 cases, then to match that number today one would only need something to go awry in 0.1% of the time. But I don't know what the relative risk really is, or what the death and impairment rates were or are. Can anyone enlighten me?

TXalchemist II
2013-02-02 7:29 PM

Bob Pickle, "I find your commensts a little puzzling. First off, you seem to think that the firstborn slain on Passover night were only children. Why are you excluding the adults and the elderly?" I'm not trying to exclude those, but they weren't relevant to the point I was making about God slaying infants and young children who were below the age of accountability. Better that they be dead than God's people remain in bondage and economically deprived? How different is that than the logic of abortion? "Second, I don't find anywhere in Exodus where Moses said he exceedingly feared and quaked. If I have to "dredge" that idea from Paul in Hebrews, what difference would that make?" I don't see where I wrote anything about fear and quaking! My comment was in response to your statement that the gold and silver they took was past wages. That isn't biblical; that is an EGW statement. "Third, why are you saying that God "murdered"? Execution of judicial sentences by God certainly isn't a violation of the 6th commandment. And in this case the Egyptians should have had an opportunity to apply the blood to the doorposts just like the Jews did. We know the mixed multitude had that opportunity. If the vast majority of Egyptians apparently chose not to, how then can we blame God for their negligence?" You are trying to put the best spin on something really ugly. Many of the firstborn were infants and young children below the age of accountability. Why should they be killed? What is the definition of murder? How do you rationalize that as a judicial execution? Are you saying that God is worse than we humans? That we put adults to death is rare; we don't sentence young children and infants to death for their own crimes or their parents. We have a concept of culpability and accountability in our law, and don't believe it to be just to punish them (or the mentally ill) for things they are not capable of understanding. Back to the point of discussion. Is it OK to take money from an abortionist to fund LLU buildings etc.? My point is simply that the Israelites used money from heathen Egyptians to build their wilderness church. And, I also am arguing that God is reported as having killed a lot of what we would call innocent children, for the express purpose of freeing the Israelites from servitude. It seems to me that some of you are arguing that saving an undeveloped fetus (even at the expense of a mother's life, in some cases) is imperative, but slaying of infants, children and adults is OK. Even if some of these could be justified as "judicial executions" I fail to see the moral argument. The Israelites were not morally better than the Egyptians that were slain. (Read about their behavior at Kadesh-Barnea, just for one example).

Bob Pickle
2013-02-02 8:07 PM

Elaine, regarding the pre-flood folks being given a chance to repent, try the KJV of 1 Pet. 3:19-20. Does that do it?

Wayne Wilson
2013-02-02 9:01 PM

Bob, that is a very interesting passage. It seems to indicate consciousness after death and a place of containment.

Bob Pickle
2013-02-03 8:40 AM

"Seems to" is the key. This is the passage some use to say that Christ descended into hell to preach to the dead. What it says instead is that Christ preached, past tense, by His Spirit, which He did when His Spirit preached through Noah before the Flood.

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-03 12:07 AM

Bob,

The verses say nothing about preaching or forewarning those who were destroyed in the flood unless you can explain who Peter was referring to "He (Christ) made proclamation to the spirits now in  prison."

Bob Pickle
2013-02-03 8:52 AM

Elaine,

Christ preached to them by the Holy Spirit through Noah. Vs. 20 refers to the "longsuffering of God." So you have Noah preaching while God is being longsuffering. The only way I see to understand that is to say that God was giving them an opportunity to repent. 2 Pet. 2:5 calls Noah "a preacher of righteousness," so he definitely was preaching. And:

Hebrews 11:7  By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

The way that building the ark would "condemn" the world is that Noah by thus building showed that he believed God when He said that He would bring a flood, in contrast with the world that refused to believe the warning. Thus, the world must have first been warned, and that too indicates that there was an opportunity to repent, just like Ninevah had.

Bob Pickle
2013-02-02 8:16 PM

TXalchemist II,

(a) What God did was ask Pharaoh to let His people go. If Pharaoh had said, "Sure!" no one would have died. (b) I know you didn't write anything about Moses fearing and quaking. You apparently missed my point, which was that according to the Bible a divinely inspired prophet can add non-contradictory details that weren't in the original account. So if you want to object to a detail found in the Testimony of Jesus, you really first need to explain why Paul couldn't add that detail in Hebrews. (c) I am uncomfortable with your calling what God did "ugly," but maybe I'm missing your point.

Back to your original point: If you have a restaurant and Osama bin Laden stopped by and bought a meal, and you then tithed on the profits and paid taxes, does that mean that bin Laden's money is paying for the salaries of both your preacher and President Obama? I don't think most people would use such logic, and thus I don't think your original point will resonate with most people.

The Israelites used their own assets to build the sanctuary. They obtained those assets from the Egyptians after working without adequate pay for perhaps centuries. And God is sovereign. As Gen. 15:14 points out, God "judge[d]" Egypt and the Israelites then "[came] out with great substance." I don't think anyone is going to claim today that God has determined that 1.375 million unborn babies must die each year. What is going on today is because man has forgotten God's sovereignty, not because of it.

Jim Miller
2013-02-03 9:06 AM

<<.” It was estimated at the time of Roe vs. Wade that some 1500 “back alley” abortions were being performed every year. Since the flood gates of abortion were opened, it has averaged 1.375 million every year, or about 3800 every single day.>>
     Those are amazing stats.  I assume they are within the USA, where Roe v. Wade is the law.  If so, that means one in a hundred women in the USA have an abortion every year!!!  Really?  Does anyone believe that?  Should anyone believe that?  And how does anyone even come close to guessing the number of back alley abortions that were performed before Roe?  That number sound more like the number of known complications from back alley abortions as registered by medical practitioners.

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-03 12:31 PM

Outlawing legal abortion will not stop abortions.  A woman's privacy and freedom to make choices is not limited by her sex.  Men have never been given restrictions on decisions about his person.  It is futile to argue against abortion when it has been legalized since '73.  Persuasion is the only
possibility, but it should never be coerced.  Who would try to preempt another person's individual conscience?  Where is God-give freedom of choice?  If and when the "morning after pill" is widely available, and birth control pills are provided for the poor, there will be fewer abortions as they are decreasing yearly.

Bob Pickle
2013-02-03 3:02 PM

Seems to me, Elaine, that men have always been forbidden to murder their children, so I don't think you can say that there is a difference between men and women in that regard. And that's despite the fact that men still have the freedom to choose to murder their children. They still have a God-given freedom of choice to murder.

Bob Pickle
2013-02-03 3:06 PM

Timo, I am still curious as to the number of deaths and physical or mental impairment that occurs because of legal abortion today. Any stats on that? And since your post raises the question of complications that might not result in disability, I'd be interested in hearing about the frequency of non-impairing complications as well.

I saw a video of former abortion providers, at least one of whom claimed that at her clinic a botched abortion which resulted in perforating the uterus was written up as an actopic pregnancy, as I recall. So somehow we need to figure out what today's figures really are, which might be as challenging as figuring out what yesteryear's figures were.

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-03 3:33 PM

Those stats on "botched abortions" should be compared against "botched deliveries."  There are no error-free surgeries, but experienced physicians have a high rate of success from errors. 

As for mental impairment:  Consider the devastating affects of postpartum depression which is now recognized as a clinical condition.  Women are so fortunate to live where abortion is safe and legal.  In many parts of the world, abortions AND childbirth have very poor prognosis and high infant mortality.

 


Bob Pickle
2013-02-03 4:59 PM

"Women are so fortunate to live where abortion is safe and legal."

That really sounds odd, Elaine, to in effect say that women are so fortunate to live where murder is safe and legal. Are you sure you want to say something like that?

akamai
2013-02-03 5:29 PM

Doesn't it boil down to your religious beliefs as to when human life begins. It seems like that is the bottom line. Some of us "believe" that life begins the instant the sperm entered the egg, others on implantation, others on neural activity, and still others on higher brain function. Can any one of the folk using the question, "would you have aborted Jesus?" explain exactly how the immaculate conception came about? Was it Mary's egg and half of her genetic material? Or did Christ's "soul" enter the body at some later point in the development?

Whether a first, 2nd, or 3rd trimester abortion is the same as murder is hard to prove biblically. As Elaine mentioned, Exodus 22 would argue that it is not.

Abortion should be a personal choice between the woman, her doctor, and her God. Belief that a 2-celled fertilized egg has the same rights as a newborn baby is just that - a belief, not a proven fact.

Bob Pickle
2013-02-03 6:20 PM

akamai,

I don't see why it has to boil down to one's religious beliefs regarding when life begins, since no one out there is going to argue that a zygote is dead rather than alive. Some religions believe in child sacrifice, and yet we do not as a society permit them to carry out their religious beliefs without penalty.

Certainly abortion is a personal choice between the woman, her doctor, and her God, but that doesn't mean that there should be no consequences for infanticide motivated by economics or sex selection or convenience.

Jim Miller
2013-02-03 7:29 PM

<<I don't see why it has to boil down to one's religious beliefs regarding when life begins, since no one out there is going to argue that a zygote is dead rather than alive. >>
     How about gametes?  Are they living or dead?  Are they human?  Every month a woman doesn't get pregnant, her body kills off a living human gamete.  Every time a man ejaculates, even if it results in a pregnancy, he kills off millions of living human gametes.
     Living human zygotes come from living human gametes.  Living human embryos come from living human zygotes.  Living human fetuses come from living human embryos.  Living human babies come from living human fetuses.  The question still remains, at what point does this living human material become a person?

Bob Pickle
2013-02-03 10:18 PM

"The question still remains, at what point does this living human material become a person?"

Genetically speaking, at conception. That's when the new being first becomes genetically distinct from its parents, and first contains all the genetic components necessary for all the self-sustaining biological processes that make up life.

Gametes are living cells, as long as they are alive, but they are part of a person rather than a person in and of themselves.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 7:54 PM

Elaine, the fact that the people who perished during Noah's flood had the chance to repent and be saved can be deduced from the fact that it took 120 years for Noah to build the ark and the testimony we have in Hebrews where it is stated that by faith Noah condemned that generation. Noah would not have condemned them in the event they had believed in what he was doing.

akamai
2013-02-03 7:58 PM

How do you prove motivation, Bob? You have the woman's testimony alone, no evidence. How do you propose to prosecute the woman if she tells you she was raped?

As for life, okay, a zygote has life in the same way that a germinating seed, an impregnated cat ovum, or a metamorphosing caterpillar. Is that level of life equal to and entitled to the same rights as the newborn and why is what you believe in the matter more infallible than what I believe? Again we go back to Exodus 22 for the closest biblical example.

Bob Pickle
2013-02-03 10:13 PM

To me it just sounds sick to reduce human life down to the level of a caterpillar.

I'll deal with it if she tells me she was raped. But that's rather rare, isn't it, as far as abortions go? What percentage of women seeking abortions or women being urged to get an abortion by their parents or irresponsible boyfriends are doing so because they were raped?

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-03 11:09 PM

Who should decide if a conception incurred from rape?  Where would be the proof?  If a woman's statement is dismissed, it is rejecting the fact that she is an adult sufficiently recognized as able to give an account under oath.  Which of those here would refuse to accept another adult's testimony to the court?  No one here would have standing so those objections would be dismissed. 

Bob Pickle
2013-02-04 8:30 AM

How about comparing the dilemma with another topic? Suppose someone claimed that they were free to get a divorce or to remarry because their spouse had cheated on them. Would we simply take their word for it without any evidence whatsoever?.

Deut. 22:23-27 might be of help. There God did not accept and Israelite society was not supposed to accept a claim of rape if it was said to have occurred in the city, UNLESS the woman cried out for help. If it occurred in a field, then it was assumed that the woman had cried out, and no evidence was required. But if it happened in the city, then evidence was required, evidence that she cried out for help.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 7:59 PM

Jim, we should avoid the argument from silence. Scripture is also silent about other moral issues like genocide, polygamy, and slavery. Should we revive slavery simply because the Bible is silent on this issue?

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 8:08 PM

TXalchemist II, I don't know what others think, but my personal view is that saving a pregnant woman from a sure death is still pro-life. The duty of a physician is to save as many as he can, and if he can save only the mother, he is doing his moral duty in doing so.

Jim Miller
2013-02-03 8:08 PM

The Scripture is not silent about slavery.  It is there from Genesis to Revelation.  It is also not silent about polygamy.  We find it mentioned, described, and legislated repeatedly.  As for genocide -- what were the Israelites told to do with the Canaanites, Amorites, etc.?
There are a number of important issues where the Scripture gives us narratives and laws that trouble us.  I just don't like simplistic answers.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 8:24 PM

Jim, here are some abortions statistics: ABORTIONS BY YEAR Alan Guttmacher Institute Statistics Click here for details and documentation. Center for Disease Control Statistics Click here for details and documentation. (Click here for PDF version) AGI CDC 1973 744,600 615,831 1974 898,600 763,476 1975 1,034,200 854,853 1976 1,179,300 988,267 1977 1,316,700 1,079,430 1978 1,409,600 1,157,776 1979 1,497,700 1,251,921 1980 1,553,900 1,297,606 1981 1,577,300 1,300,760 1982 1,573,900 1,303,980 1983 1,575,000 1,268,987 1984 1,577,200 1,333,521 1985 1,588,600 1,328,570 1986 1,574,000 1,328,112 1987 1,559,100 1,353,671 1988 1,590,800 1,371,285 1989 1,566,900 1,396,658 1990 1,608,600 1,429,247 1991 1,556,500 1,388,937 1992 1,528,900 1,359,146 1993 1,495,000 1,330,414 1994 1,423,000 1,267,415 1995 1,359,400 1,210,883 1996 1,360,160 1,225,937 1997 1,335,000 1,186,039 1998 1,319,000 884,273* 1999 1,314,800 861,789* 2000 1,312,990 857,475 ** 2001 1,291,000 853,485 ** 2002 1,269,000 854,122 ** 2003 1,250,000 848,163*** 2004 1,222,100 839,226*** 2005 1,206,200 2006-07 1,206,200 § http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 8:30 PM

Elaine, our freedom of choice is limited. Men do not have the freedom of choice to rape a woman. Why should then women have the freedom of choice to have their own children dismembered or poisoned. A victim of abortion can, with God's help, recover from the terrible ordeal. This the victim of abortion cannot do! Abortion is an irreversible act!

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-03 11:14 PM

Men have freedom to rape women:  It happens every day.  There are also prosecutions daily when convicted.  People are free to murder; but again, not with punishment.  Just as Adam and Eve were free to choose--but there were consequences.  All of our actions have consequences.  Everything we do is irreversible, just as is time.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 8:36 PM

Elaine, you said: "Outlawing legal abortion will not stop abortions." This is true, does it follow then that our church should profit from the killing of the unborn? Our church did allow our own hospital to profit from the abortion on demand business starting back in 1970. Can we be proud of this?

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:03 PM

Timo, the statistics you quoted may not be reliable. Here is the testimony of a well known ex abortionist who wrote the following: "CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST By Dr. Bernard Nathanson I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968. ... We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. ..." More: http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:09 PM

Elaine, you wrote: " I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare." The problem is that hoping to diminish the number of abortion by making the practice legal is a utopic hope! Take a look at the statistics I quoted. In seven years following the legalization of abortion the number of victims doubled. You do not reduce the number of criminal acts by making it legal.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:09 PM

Elaine, you wrote: " I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare." The problem is that hoping to diminish the number of abortion by making the practice legal is a utopic hope! Take a look at the statistics I quoted. In seven years following the legalization of abortion the number of victims doubled. You do not reduce the number of criminal acts by making it legal.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:10 PM

Elaine, you wrote: " I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare." The problem is that hoping to diminish the number of abortion by making the practice legal is a utopic hope! Take a look at the statistics I quoted. In seven years following the legalization of abortion the number of victims doubled. You do not reduce the number of criminal acts by making it legal.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:10 PM

Elaine, you wrote: " I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare." The problem is that hoping to diminish the number of abortion by making the practice legal is a utopic hope! Take a look at the statistics I quoted. In seven years following the legalization of abortion the number of victims doubled. You do not reduce the number of criminal acts by making it legal.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:10 PM

Elaine, you wrote: " I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare." The problem is that hoping to diminish the number of abortion by making the practice legal is a utopic hope! Take a look at the statistics I quoted. In seven years following the legalization of abortion the number of victims doubled. You do not reduce the number of criminal acts by making it legal.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:10 PM

Elaine, you wrote: " I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare." The problem is that hoping to diminish the number of abortion by making the practice legal is a utopic hope! Take a look at the statistics I quoted. In seven years following the legalization of abortion the number of victims doubled. You do not reduce the number of criminal acts by making it legal.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:10 PM

Elaine, you wrote: " I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare." The problem is that hoping to diminish the number of abortion by making the practice legal is a utopic hope! Take a look at the statistics I quoted. In seven years following the legalization of abortion the number of victims doubled. You do not reduce the number of criminal acts by making it legal.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:10 PM

Elaine, you wrote: " I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare." The problem is that hoping to diminish the number of abortion by making the practice legal is a utopic hope! Take a look at the statistics I quoted. In seven years following the legalization of abortion the number of victims doubled. You do not reduce the number of criminal acts by making it legal.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:11 PM

Elaine, you wrote: " I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare." The problem is that hoping to diminish the number of abortion by making the practice legal is a utopic hope! Take a look at the statistics I quoted. In seven years following the legalization of abortion the number of victims doubled. You do not reduce the number of criminal acts by making it legal.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:11 PM

Elaine, you wrote: " I agree with Clinton: they should be legal and rare." The problem is that hoping to diminish the number of abortion by making the practice legal is a utopic hope! Take a look at the statistics I quoted. In seven years following the legalization of abortion the number of victims doubled. You do not reduce the number of criminal acts by making it legal.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-03 9:18 PM

Jim, do gametes and sperms have their own individual DNA separate from that of the woman or men they originated from?

Jim Miller
2013-02-04 1:30 AM

Gametes have DNA as derivative as the zygote they produce.  Not that it makes any difference.  After all, identical twins do not have "individual" DNA.  They have shared DNA, but somehow (I believe) they are individual souls, not two parts of one soul.  Of course, if you manipulate an egg properly, you can get it to develop as a zygote without the help of a sperm.  And if that is done with a human egg cell, I believe the resulting person would be an individual, even though her DNA would be derived from one parent, not two.  It is not the DNA that makes the person.  DNA is one component part.

Truth Seeker
2013-02-04 11:15 AM

One would hope that a moderator would *not* allow Nic to overwhelm this blog with his excessive postings. I consider his position as radically right and his persistence annoying.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-04 3:30 PM

Truth Seeker, are Nic's posting excessive as counted by the number of postings or as counted by the number of bytes? Most of my postings are rather short, while those of others tend to be longer. Compare, for example Bob's posting with mine. In number I have more, but if you take in consideration the size, you may discover that we probably have a tie!

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-04 3:30 PM

Truth Seeker, are Nic's posting excessive as counted by the number of postings or as counted by the number of bytes? Most of my postings are rather short, while those of others tend to be longer. Compare, for example Bob's posting with mine. In number I have more, but if you take in consideration the size, you may discover that we probably have a tie!

Ervin Taylor
2013-02-04 4:56 PM

I obviously disagree with Nic's perspective on alsmost every aspect of his favorate topic. However, we have the principle of "freedom of expression" at AT and Nic has every right to express his views, however, distasteful and illogical they may be to others, myself included.  That's what blogs are all about.  I am not sure what the equiivlant of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater mgiht be on an AT blog that would require shutting off a person other than the already existing well-known rules already posted.   

akamai
2013-02-04 5:00 PM

Perhaps they're referring to his tendency to double, triple, and quadruple post exactly the same thing? Maybe he needs a new keyboard?

Steve Tanner
2013-02-04 5:19 PM

My computer done that one time. When you click on add comment it takes a little time and you think it didn't work so you do it again and end up like what he done. 

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-05 9:59 AM

Akamai, my problem is that quite often my computer freezes before I have had a chance to post what I have typed, which forces me to start all over. This is why I try to post my comment before this happens. I have spent good money paying experts to discover what is wrong with my computer to no avail, and I have even purchased a second laptop without solving the problem.

Joe Erwin
2013-02-05 12:56 PM

Back to the topic, I notice the involvement of the Dr. with horse racing. The reason this is interesting to me is that my Dad and brother both owned and trained racehorses--mostly thoroughbreds, but some quarter horses. For many years Dad claimed that he had been "churched" (excommunicated) for being involved with horse racing. I always figured there was more to it than that, but he claimed the church elders had come to him and demanded that he choose between his horses and the church. This is the sort of thing I would not expect perfect consistency on across all SDA churches.... Or, maybe things have changed. Some things do.

akamai
2013-02-05 1:36 PM

Joe, I remember an Adventist principal in Michigan lost his job when it was published he'd won a certain amount, I believe in the lottery. It's been many, many years ago - close to 50. As for the church accepting donations, how far do we go with "background" checks as to where the money comes from?

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-05 6:23 PM

Is there anyone here who would turn down an large inheritance from an uncle who owned liquor stores?  Or had a meat market? 

akamai
2013-02-06 9:13 PM

To Wayne, I agree with Elaine on this one. I miscarried twice, and neither time did I say, "I lost the baby." I told those who had known I was pregnant that I lost the pregnancy. One pregnancy was planned, one was not, and I grieved for the loss of both, but my grieving was certainly far less than if one of my children should die before me. 

 

I really haven't met anyone without a "Christian conscience" (though I admit I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that) who considered abortion a horror, and I have met many pro-choice Christians with more love for their neighbors than many of their radical pro-life brethern.


Elaine Nelson
2013-02-05 6:20 PM

The title is a deliberate intent to foster arguments and animosity.  Where is there collaboration when a donor gives money to an institution?  Unless it was a gift with all sorts of strings attached, it should not have been called a "collaboration"?

Is it collaboration when a wealthy donor gives money to the church?  He is perfectly able to specify how and where it will be used and the instituion can also reject it.  This is intimidation by very biased individuals who jump on their hobby horse at every possible opportunity.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-06 9:42 AM

My view is that money obtained from horse racing cannot be compared with financial gain from abortion. Profit from killing is blood money. Evem Judas understood this when he returned the 30 piecees of silver to the Jewish leaders.

Ervin Taylor
2013-02-06 1:03 PM

I assume Nic is a vegan and would not consider eating anything which was once living.  Ah, wait a minute--fruits and vegatables were once living.  Hmm.  Let's see, what can Nic eat?

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-07 1:26 PM

Erv, according to the Genesis story, the first curse dealt with the diet of the serpent; the second one with Adam's diet; and the third one with Noah's diet. For the first 27 years of my life I lived under the second and third curse; nevertheless, upon our arrival to California, I discovered that I could free myself from the third curse. This proved to be a great blessing for me: My health at 80 is superior to when I was 27. When we cross the Jordan River, I expect to be free from the second curse and be able to survive on fruits and nuts.

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-06 1:24 PM

Ah, Ervin,

You expect humans to be consistent?  At my daughter's wedding dinner which had been prepared for vegetarians and non-vegetarians, the chef announced that the bride refuses to eat anything that had a face! 

One can always justify his actions by "this is much worse than that," when it is all personal opinion not found in Scripture

Truth Seeker
2013-02-06 5:03 PM

So, the double and triple postings, Nic, are the result of a glitch in your computer? Strange but not impossible I suppose.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-07 1:32 PM

Truth Seeker, the answer is no! That is the result of a habit I developed over the years to double click on everything; but I am working on this, but once in a while the old habit takes over inadvertently.

Truth Seeker
2013-02-06 5:07 PM

Oops, Nic, one posting was repeated 10 times if my count is correct. Was that the fault of your computer? If so, maybe you need a new one or a good technician to work on it.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-07 1:34 PM

Truth Seeker: Which one? Can you identify it. I'll be glad to check it out!

Wayne Wilson
2013-02-06 6:40 PM

By the way, the Pro-life position is straightforward regarding abortion.  It simply asks “What are we doing when we are performing abortions?”  The answer is plain – we are taking the life of an innocent human being, who is still a baby.  Does anyone in here disagree with this statement?  Even the woman who loses her child to miscarriage states that she has lost her baby.  The next Pro-life question is “When is it okay to take an innocent baby’s life?  The answer is obvious – it is never okay to take a baby’s life.[1]  So instead of defending a woman’s right to choose to kill her baby in the womb, we should be defending the right to life of the unborn baby who cannot defend itself from her mother’s will destroy it. 
The argument I am using here is not from the Bible, but it is consistent with the Bible.  Even those who have no Christian conscience can plainly see abortion for the horror that it is.  So why on earth would any truly born again Christian think that killing their unborn children is okay?  By the way, the Adventist who defends this awful practice is actually okay with killing unborn Adventist children.  Is that right? Infanticide has always been the practice of the heathen and ungodly, so check your status of being a truly born again Christian before giving your approval to something that the Canaanites practiced.   

[1] The only exception should be if there is a medical condition where the mother’s life is at risk.  And this continues to be a tiny percentage of the total abortions per year.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-07 1:38 PM

Wayne, thanks for your clear thinking! Perhaps this explains why the church is not growing in North American while it is increasing by leaps and bounds in other countries of the world. How can it grow if we are killing the future members of the church?

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-07 1:46 PM

Wayne, and perhaps the U.S. is coming bankrupt for the same reason. Six decades ago our country was the largest creditor in the world. Today it is the largest debtor. No country can expect to thrive if it kills its future workers, professionals, and soldiers. We have lost 55 million already, half of which could be producing enough to pay our debt.

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-06 8:55 PM

Wayne asks "What are we doing when we are performing abortions" and then gives his answer:  "we are taking the life of an innocent human being who is still a baby."

That is neither a legal or biological fact.  Even this from a Catholic hospital:

In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people | The Colorado Independent

So, when its financially convenient, Catholics believe that a fetus is NOT a person and has no rights.

But when it doesn't hit them in the wallet, Catholics support the "human rights" of the unborn.


The fetus will become a human being only when it able to live on its own outside the womb.  This conforms to the Bible that when the breath of life enters the body it becomes a living soul.  The fetus becomes a human only as an apple seed becomes an apple tree.  Until that time, the mother should be the only one who should be concerned.  Only she and her physician should make decisions regarding her health and that of the fetus.

The majority of both men and women agree with this:  the government has no standing in this situation.  This runs afoul of both the Fourth and Fourteeenth Amendment.


 


Nic Samojluk
2013-02-07 2:05 PM

Wow, Elaine! You just killed Moses, Samuel, David, Elijah, all the Bible prophets, John the Baptist, and even Jesus. Can you tell me what was Jesus before he was able to survive outside his mother's womb? Was he a bunch of undifferentiated cells? Is this what you learned in Biology I? Those Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were designed to guarantee that Blacks, who had been legally non-persons before their emancipation would be now protected. We liberated the slaves and enslaved the unborn. Depriving of freedom is cruel, but depriving of the right to life is far more cruel than a life of slavery. Do you believe that it was smart for our church to allow our Adventist hospitals to offer abortions on demand? Is profiting from killing innocent babies an integral part of our mission as the Remnant church?

akamai
2013-02-06 9:16 PM

To Wayne, I agree with Elaine on this one. I miscarried twice, and neither time did I say, "I lost the baby." I told those who had known I was pregnant that I lost the pregnancy. One pregnancy was planned, one was not, and I grieved for the loss of both, but my grieving was certainly far less than if one of my children should die before me.

I really haven't met anyone without a "Christian conscience" (though I admit I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that) who considered abortion a horror, and I have met many pro-choice Christians with more love for their neighbors than many of their radical pro-life brethern.

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-06 11:10 PM

akami,

I, too, had an abortion many years ago.  A natural abortion, a.k.a."miscarriage in the common term.  In medical terms, it is a TAB, or therapeutic abortion.
Although it was a planned pregnancy, from the first there was evidence something was very wrong, and eventually, the fetus was aborted.  I had no grief, but relief that an anomaly (as evidenced by pathological exam) was nature's method of eliminating an abnormality.  Few people are aware that approximately one-third of all pregnancies end in natural abortion. 

Where are the sob sisters for all these naturally aborted "babies"? 

Wayne Wilson
2013-02-07 6:10 PM

Akamai,
This matter of abortion is about loving to our neighbors, but in this case our little neighbors are still in the womb, unable to fight for themselves.  I contend that it is unjust and unloving to let someone kill them.  We have to stand up and fight for them and it is not always pleasant to do, especially when the ones who want to turn a blind eye to their murder are sitting in the pew with you, suggesting that you are being unloving for protesting. I imagine that these unwanted children view that I am being more loving because I actually care enough to say no to their slaughter and fight for their right to be born.  Just exactly how is it loving to stand by and do nothing about abortion other than saying that we shouldn't be judgmental of the practice? I have no problem being considered a radical pro-life Christian, and in my view it is shameful to be pro-choice.  Those who think this practice should be legal have either had their conscious seared with a hot iron, or are simply too weak-willed to speak out against the practice of state sanctioned murder.  How is abortion in any way acceptable?

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-08 10:07 AM

Wayne, I agree with your comments. I suspect that those who believe that it is morally acceptable to profit from abortion--especially abortion on demand--have developed a blind spot in their spiritual vision. In Spanish there is a saying which goes like this: There is no worse blind man than the one who has no desire to see.

Wayne Wilson
2013-02-07 6:28 PM

I am curious what the concensus is on this story.  Does anybody here think that it is okay to let the child of this horrible act live, as terrible the circumstances are?


http://now.msn.com/girl-age-9-gives-birth-in-mexico


akamai
2013-02-07 7:51 PM

Wayne, not a single person here has advocated infanticide. I understand that you and Nic feel that the instant the egg becomes fertilized it is a baby deserving of full protection. I do not. I  I know the anatomy, the physiology, and the wonder that comes in watching a normal pregnancy come to term. Nonetheless, I do not consider an abortion at 6 weeks the same thing as infanticide.  Since you seem to like rhetorical questions, would you force a woman to complete a pregnancy if the result was anencephalic, i.e., without a brain? Usually the woman's body somehow recognizes the fetus is not viable and expels it but in some cases the "shell" continues to grow within her, only to die within minutes of birth.  

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-08 10:19 AM

Akamai, an anencephalic is not totally deprived of brain activity, and there are many documented cases where an anencephalic baby has survived for weeks after birth. Since you have chosen an extreme case, can you tell me what is your opinion regarding the decision of the church leaders to allow abortions on demand back in 1970 which resulted in the death of thousand of innocent babies? Do you agree with me that the Adventist Church needs to publicly apologize for this moral failure?

akamai
2013-02-08 12:21 PM

Nic, I respect your beliefs and would not want you to be forced to perform an abortion or to benefit from them in any way. We disagree on the fundamental point, which is whether a first-trimester fetus is an "innocent baby." The public may become convinced that 2nd and 3rd trimester pregnancies should be progressively more difficult to abort legally, but to convince them that the morning-after pill is murder? It won't happen. 

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-10 10:17 AM

Akamai, I would suggest that you watch the pictures of first trimester unborn babies and tell me what you think. Here is the link: First trimester abortion pictures http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm Make sure you examine all the pictures listed at the bottom of the first page. You need to enlarge each one in order to have a clear view. I see tiny hands, feet, legs, arms, torso and so on. They are clearly human! Would you agree?

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-07 9:18 PM

Do you believe that someone other than the mother, be it government or right-to-life supporters have the legal or moral right to enforce their will on another human, a human with all the rights given by God for making a free choice in her life?  God has given us the right to make choices, often called "free will."  Anytime that is subverted it is taking the place of God to enforce compliance of their will on someone else.  No where is in the Bible has anyone been given the right to choose for  another.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-08 10:26 AM

Elaine, no one is denying the freedom to violate God's moral Law. Eve did choose to depart from the right path, but even we are paying for the consequences for her wrong choice. Men are free to rape a woman, but if caught they must do jail time. Criminals are free to shoot at the President, but if they choose to do that, they may be invited to sit on an electric chair. You seem to ignore this fundamental truth!

Elaine Nelson
2013-02-08 3:52 PM

You seem to ignore the fundamental truth that while a killer can be prosecuted and sentenced for a crime; abortion today is not a crime!  There are restrictions placed by states for women seeking abortions, but is not illegal.  Comparing it to rape and murder which are crimes, is absurd when the electric chair is used for comparison.  You are ignoring that women have free will and all the protestations cannot remove her conscience.  Anyone daring to do so is attempting to replace God.

Nic Samojluk
2013-02-09 10:02 AM

Elaine. We all know that what was a crime for two thousand years has been legalized. Does this mean that if theft, rape, and sexual exploitation of children become legal tomorrow, then our church should rush to profit from oral turbidity?

Anonymous


You do not have sufficient permissions to post a comment.


Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register

Adventist Today Magazine is published quarterly by Adventist Today Foundation

Phone: 503-826-8600   |   Email: atoday@atoday.org   |   Web: atoday.org