Home > Opinion > Z - Archived Opinion Writers > Howell, Melissa > 2011 >
.
Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
.
Submitted: Feb 25, 2011
By Melissa Howell

 
It felt like all eyes in America turned towards the SDA church last month when the Washington Post so prominently highlighted us in their article "Seventh-day Adventists and Abortion." On the 38th Anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case, the Post noted that although many religious groups marched in protest of the decision to legalize abortion in America, Adventists were somewhat...missing. Was our absence due to the fact that we perform abortions in our hospitals across the world? The Post questioned "Is this practice inconsistent with their otherwise strong emphasis on health?"

While the Adventist world balked, protested, or cheered over this PR break (or disaster) I myself immediately took the article to a group of over 150 teenagers and young adults, and discovered an emerging reality for Adventism that I wasn't even looking for. Here is a summary of what I found:

1. The largest majority of students were in agreement with our SDA stance of performing abortions in our hospitals only in "extraordinary cases."

"I am proud of our Adventist Hospitals for their work and progress in the medical field today. But I do not think our hospitals should offer abortion as a birth control method. I believe we should stand by our SDA beliefs - abortions are wrong and against our conservative take on life." - Brittany

"To have an abortion performed in our hospitals, I believe it needs to be a very specific case. If the mother will die, if the woman was raped and is not mature enough physically or emotionally to handle the child, or if she is unstable to the point where she could not handle the pregnancy, then it's ok. I don't believe God would want someone to lose their mind over a pregnancy they had no control over. However, if you were just simply irresponsible, it's time to take some accountability - you deserve your fate and should have to keep the child." - Megan

2. Among those who had personally experienced an abortion situation with a parent, close friend or relative (none admitted to having had one themselves), opinions leaned towards the pro-choice stance.

"I was saved from abortion when I was only a fetus in my mother's womb. She decided that she would put me up for adoption rather than abort me, and in the end she decided to keep me. I am eternally grateful for that. I believe abortion is completely wrong, but there still may be a time that abortion becomes a necessity." - BP

"I have many friends who have had abortions, and I know firsthand what they went through because I was there by their side the whole time. But I also know their scenarios called for it. The pregnancies would have ruined their lives and their babies' lives for good. Teenage moms have grim prospects for the future. They are likely to leave school, receive inadequate prenatal care, rely on public assistance, develop health problems, or end up divorced." - A.T.

3. Those students who were adamantly in favor of our hospitals performing all types of abortions tended to base their arguments either on the values of acceptance, grace, or civil rights.

"We need to remember that GOD IS LOVE. Simple. We can't determine what others do or how they will be judged, all we know is GOD IS LOVE. Jesus didn't hang out with people who judged others, he preached against it." - H.S.

"The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step on a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or to undergo sterilization? " - Dawn

"We shouldn't make people feel bad for making a choice that we disagree with. Adventists don't have the right to judge people on the choices they make, only God does. " - N.C.


4. Those who stood strongly against our hospitals performing abortions under any circumstances were definitely in the minority, but still spoke with strong voices:

"This is a matter of life or death for a child. Maybe it's not your plan, but it could be God's. God can turn any situation into an opportunity to be a blessing in a person's life, abortion or not." -M.S.

"Abortion is wrong because as soon as the two cells meet, they create unique DNA, and when you destroy that, you have killed life. Rape victims are a touchy subject, but I'd say that even though the life was created for very wrong reasons, we should not disable that life from becoming something great, or being used by God for something great. Why keep God from doing a miracle?" - K.B.


5. Amongst all who found abortion to be completely wrong, almost none were willing or even desiring to enforce this belief on anyone else.

"I personally would never choose abortion, no matter what my circumstance was, but if it's a choice that an individual needs to make, then I say let them make that choice." - R.J.

"Abortion is wrong. But I'm glad that our hospitals are saying, "Hey, if you need help, we'll help you." - G.P.

" I really do get a bad feeling in my gut when I think about a little life that God put inside of a woman being terminated. I think abortion is immoral...yet still women should get to choose." -James

"I think abortion is wrong. I would never get an abortion, even in the worst of scenarios. But neither am I angry at or opposed to people who think abortion is okay. I don't have the need to force my beliefs on anyone else. It's not a Christian's job to tell someone else what they need to do. All of us have to follow our own conscience." - Anna


It was the seemingly double-standard of #5 that left me thinking in the end, and musing on the viability of holding a belief firmly and yet not requiring another to hold it. What sort of moral fabric is emerging here among this generation, I wondered? I have seen this trend surfacing on quite a few other issues as well -- homosexuality, gay marriage, the death penalty, the war in Iraq, President Obama and all things political, euthanasia, suicide, and more -- they find something to be wrong, yet are still very accepting and comfortable with others who don't. Does that sound like Adventism to you?

Maybe we are seeing a reaction to our legalism of the past in a true attempt at living out the ideals of grace and acceptance. Or perhaps it's the emergence of the postmodern, relativistic mindset of the day. Either way, it seems a generation is coming on the scene which does hold firm beliefs, yet doesn't seem to have the need to enforce them. Is Adventism ready for this? Does this spell ruin or rebirth for our church, our beliefs, our evangelism? Is this a lukewarm, compromising-type of "conforming to the world" that we should worry about, or is it a welcome and much needed breath of fresh air that we should celebrate?

Comments


Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 25th, 2011 Andreas Bochmann says:

It may be of interest that the only SDA acute care hospital in Europe, Waldfriede Hospital in Berlin - which has a strong OB & Gynecology department and a more than 90 year history - does not perform abortions. (At least as far as I am aware this position is still in place). It does however have options for anonymous deliveries and a "drop box" for unwanted babies (even though both of these options are under a lot of public criticism in Germany).

 



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 25th, 2011 wfnoel says:

Melissa,

Wow! How much we could learn by listening to our youth, both to understand the future of our church and to know what challenges must be addressed if our faith is to be relevant and powerful for them!



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 25th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

For those who decry the government's intrusion into our lives, why are so many content with having the government make the decision of abortion, one of the most deeply personal choice a woman can make?

I personally know of at least three young women who had abortions. In each of these cases, they were the right and best decision for them and for their families. It is not something done without much thought, and may often be the better choice.

Recently, the WaPo printed and article on the pregnancy of an 11-yr-old girl! Had she and her family been aware previously she would have benefited from an abortion. Now, as a child, she is a mother, and no doubt, the baby's grandmother is the acting mother.

A Catholic hospital in Phoenix performed an abortion to save the mother's life. The administrator, a Catholic sister, was excommunicated. She did the right thing: preserving a mother's life who had several children who would have been left motherless.

No one aborts as a method of birth control. Did anyone see Representative Jackie Spier of California who spoke up when a male congressman was lambasting Planned Parenthood for performing abortions, in spite that no federal monies are used for abortion. She stood and courageously said that she had had that procedure and that for a congressman to speak so cavalierly about this was repugnant and degrading to women.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 25th, 2011 CherryAshlock says:

Find your wings and soar!

elaine where have you been? of course people abort as birth control! teenagers????? abortion is exactly birth control....controlling the birth of a baby

 


Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 25th, 2011 aaj says:

Interestingly, younger people (in general, not adventists, I don't know about SDAs) tend to be MORE conservative about abortion than their seniors, not less. It's the one issue on which they are more conservative. There's speculation that this is because they are more educated about birth control and tend to think that if someone got pregnant they were probably being careless and should own up to it.

I also wonder if the lack of Adventist presence on this issue is really because we tend to be have less of a desire to legislate morality than our Evangelical brothers and sisters. Not that we don't have some issues in this area as well, but it's really nothing compared to the religious right.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 25th, 2011 BillCork says:

Do they really grasp what impact abortion has had on their generation? Put those 150 young people in a room with 300 chairs. Each person would be sitting next to an empty chair. Those 150 empty chairs would represent their peers that were ripped from their mothers' wombs ... mostly out of "convenience." Since 1973 there have been 50,000,000 abortions in the United States -- roughly equivalent to the populations of California, Oregan, Washington and Nevada. This horror ... a mere choice, that they don't want to impose on anyone? The greatest tragedy is that these innocents were killed. The second greatest tragedy is that Christians taught them that it doesn't matter. It was "a choice."



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 25th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Cherry, since you're so certain, does it take one to know one? How many girls have told you that abortion is another form of birth control? Or do you merely assume that because it is a common assumption, made usually by those who either have personal experience or like to second-guess other people. Which is it?



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 25th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

" mostly out of "convenience." 
Bill sounds like a male name. How dare you say that abortion is done "mostly out of convenience? How many girls or women have confessed to you that their abortion was simply "out of convenience"?

As a male, since you have never been pregnant (I assume) to judge and convict women for something that would never be possible for you, it is very arrogant.



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 25th, 2011 pagophilus says:

How dare you, Elaine, suggest that because Bill is a male he cannot possibly be right.

How dare you suggest that because nobody has confessed something to you, that you cannot possibly know what the issue is.

How dare you suggest that someone cannot judge because their situation has not or cannot happen to them. Why not just remove most judges because they haven't experienced most of the situations they are judging.

And last of all, how dare you accept any and all arguments except those that are in disagreement with you. All your criticisms of others fall back right onto you.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 26th, 2011 Hansen says:

Abortions should not only be allowed, in some cases, perhaps most, they should be required. Children conceived through illicit relationships by irresponsible individuals who themselves should have never been born, have little to offer any society.

The Bible actually sets forth the guidelines in Numbers, chapter 5: 27,28. Children conceived in adulterous affairs were aborted and their mothers were sterilized. Better abortion than stoning to death later, after the children became nuisances to society.

Men also suffer, knowing that their offspring will be destroyed. Many of us are bums who would be lousy parents. anyway. An acquaintance of mine, having an affair with a married woman, experienced two of his children being aborted by his tart. He felt somewhat uncomfortable.

"Anti abortion" is another moronic movement fueled by the same papacy who gives us celibacy and a priesthood loaded with homosexuals and gay pedophiles.

Children conceived in a loving family with a reasonable hope of a stable future are what society needs. There are enough sociopathic, personality disordered individuals at large




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 26th, 2011 CherryAshlock says:

Find your wings and soar!

Elaine, elaine, elaine...........the non sda/christian world has such a different value about abortion.......ask that abortion question of yours in the inner city.......just because you don't know any who or haven't heard of any who doesn't mean it doesn't exist and in large numbers.

also just because someone counters your argument or defends another side of the argument doesn't mean they have first hand experience.......judging others through your paradigm makes for a slanted view and is not very accepting and is stunted.....




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 26th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Does one's comment in triplicate indicate passion?

For those who can only PERSONALLY testify of either having an abortion, or knowing very intimately a relative who has had one, it has little weight and becomes theoretical. Real life is never theoretical.

The last I looked, Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. Only law-breakers should be punished. However, states are trying to add all sorts of limitations to that law to make it of little effect. Thank God for Roe v. Wade or we would have the jails filled with women victims and their physicians.

Since there is so much animostiy against abortion, what is suggested as a remedy? More prosecution (how, when it is legal?), abstinenece only education (that has worked well in Texas which has the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the U.S.), birth control more available? This is what Planned Parenthood has been doing for years, but too many congressmen want their funds cut off.

It's easy to condemn; it's much harder to find solutions to problems. It is also impossible to stop raging teen hormones.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 26th, 2011 EdD says:

Melissa,

I love teens. I've worked with them for more than forty years. But they are teenagers! Almost nothing about them is fully formed. They're still asking questions (thank God!) although not always of their parents. Many are suffereing from Mark Twain disease: when he was sixteen, he was frightened by his father's ignorance; when he turned 21, he was amazed at how much the old man had learned in 5 years!

If we want to understand why the teens answer as they do, all we have to do is look at the range of opinions on this page. One characteristic of Gen-X and younger generations is that they're tired of the arguing. So many are from broken homes. They heard their parents arguing and that eventually led to divorce. To the kids, it hardly mattered who was "right." The foundations of their world fell apart with the divorce. So they've learned to hate arguing.

When they see arguments similar to some on this page, long on inflammatory language, and short on actual reason, they don't argue in return, they just click and move on. To some degree that's reflected in their answers. They personally feel strongly about the subject, but don't want to argue about it, even with a reporter.

What they need is safe people to talk to, in safe places. When they find those situations, they open up and get quite serious. But as a people, we aren't safe to talk to. Too much "How dare you" and too little 'How did you come to that conclusion?"

Ed Dickerson, AToday Web Columnist




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 26th, 2011 Markus80s says:

It is very disapointing that most of the teen students leaned more towards the so called "pro-choice" side, which in my opinion, is really pro-abortion.

More than 96% of abortions are for birth control reasons. Less than 1% are for rape and incest combined and only 3% are related to the health of the mother:

Abortion As Birth Control

Also, there are serious physical and psychological heath problems that many women who have an abortion go through and are not being warned about:

Medical Complications Of Abortion

In light of these facts, there is no way that abortion can be truly compatible with the Adventist health message.

Another problem is that many people call the Adventist church the church that breaks the 6th commandment (you shall not commit murder) through abortion. We like to "huff and puff" about how most other churches are breaking the 4th commandment, but do nothing about us breaking the 6th commandment. Many people have either left the Adventist faith or refused to join the Adventist faith because of the abortion issue.

We need to return to the original position of no abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger (which rarely happens). We also need to provide support services for those who decide to keep their babies or put those babies up for adoption. Less than 1% of women choose adoption, yet there is a shortage of babies in the adoption field. Adoption is a good non-killing choice of dealing with unplanned pregnancies.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 26th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Those who would allow abortions only in case of rape and incest have forgotten that there are women who, on discovering a terribly deformed fetus, or one with only a few short months of life, at that, accept that abortion is the only method to avoid the consequences of an infant that will never live to its first year, sometime, even a month.

The old canard of abortion as birth control is very true in places like Russia, where until recently, there was no information about contraceptions and there were as many abortions as live births. Planned Parenthood is perhaps the only source to get advice on birth control, as well as cancer screening and many other medical needs met.

The other suggestion: put the baby up for adoption. The studies show that very few of these mothers elect adoption, which means that often a young, unmarried teen will keep her baby (does anyone dare suggest she give it up?) How is that different than demanding she carry it to term when she elects not to do so? Should females not have control over their own bodies? Would anyone dare to say that a male should have the government control his reproductive rights--illegal vasectomies? illegal Viagra?

Recognizing that it is a problem, especially in the inner cities, one should realize the situation: many girls have few, or no role models of success that women experience beyond their community; their mother may also have become pregnant very young and single; they desperately want to feel needed and young males, or older, are eager to asssure them how important they are--until the girls become pregnant and he skips out. If the government doesn't step in with WIC and payment, does anyone suggest that these babies should starve? Not be educated or clothed?

Failure to face the entire problem and by only focusing on abortion, overlooks the many problems these girls face. Condemnation is not the answer. Only the right kind of help is the answer, but who is willing to give the time necessary to help these girls (and boys) escape their lives of poverty and try to show them a better way?




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 26th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Maybe someone will be bold enough to address this dilemma:

Today, with IVF used more frequently, there are always more fertilized embryos than can be used for one time. With successful pregnancy, those extra embryos are put in deep freeze for possible later use.

Currently, there are thousands in fertility clinics in this nation that will be eventually destroyed. Where is the cry over "aborted fetuses"? Only the potential parents own these fertilized embryos and only they can decide their future. Most will eventually be destroyed. How is that different from a fertilized embryo (for those believe that at that stage they have souls and to destroy one is murder) that is in a woman's body? Where is the grief of murdered "babies" when these embryos are destroyed? What is the difference if it is in a tube, frozen, or in a woman's body? They are equally destined for life or death. If the parents, or woman, are the sole owners and only they can exercise their right for life or destruction, why is there out outcry over "killing" all these unborn babies?




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 26th, 2011 Peace says:

A King had to make some harsh choices back in the day concerning life and death, and maybe we need to show that same wisdom and make choices that seem harsh at the time, but are better off in the long run.



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Tom says:

I usually stay out of discussions about this topic because I have a very personal bias against abortion and cringe at the thought that had I been conceived in the mid seventies rather than 1951 I may have never seen the light of day, but could have very well ended up in the trash can of some abortionist.

Hansen's callous comment is the most thoughtless and calloused disregard for human life that I could imagine anyone ever uttering here on AT. I was born of an unwed white teenage mother who had been thrown out on her ear by a ruthless and uncaring father who today would have shamed her into having an abortion for her one night stand, to save the "honor" of the family name.

Banished from home and disowned by her parents, she had no place to turn and found little sympathy from a society who judged her as nothing more than white trash who prostituted herself or fell for the philandering ways of a young man just looking for a way to take advantage of her.

Were it not for a caring lady who took her in and knew a family who was looking to adopt a child, who knows what my fate may have been. Upon birth I was never held or seen by my mother. In the birthing room I must have been whisked away and cared for in a nursury until my adoption several weeks later

The organization Planned Parenthood is a misnomer. There stance is anything but what their name indicates. Abortion is their predominate answer and they resist any attempts to try and give a pregnant woman or girl information that may give them pause to consider that they are indeed ending human life if they opt for an abortion.

The founder of the National Abortion Rights League, Bernard Nathanson, performed thousands of abortion in his clinic. He was one of the leading advocates of Roe v Wade. He switched positions about 20 years ago and produced the film "The Silent Scream". Sonograms were not yet invented in 1973. It has made all the difference in the world and gives one a view of just what is going on inside the womb. Planned Parenthood, as other die hard prochoice folks, vehemently object to asking a pregnant woman to look at one so as to weigh all matters before making her "choice."

Many pro life advocates are not without their hypocrisies too. The intimidating tactics of Operation Rescue nauseate me. In the name of preserving life, some applaud when an abortionist is killed. How absurd! Others are not pro-life, but are simply pro-birth, opposing the very support systems that may give an unwed mother an easier choice to not have an abortion.

The real victim in all this is the unborn child. Where is his/her choice? Many in the pro-choice crowd can not even bring themselves to acknowledge it is a baby, instead opting to depersonalize it by refering to this life as a fetus, or a piece of unwanted tissue to be easily disregarded.

Perhaps this similarity is a far reach, but Hitler drummed into the minds of Germans that Jews were something less than human, making it easier for them to just stand by as millions were slaughtered. History now looks back in horror to the holocaust. The question begs to be asked, will it not look back some day at this era of abortion on demand with the same abhorrence?




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Markus80s says:

What is being overlooked in the article is that Adventist hospitals are being accused of performing elective abortions; meaning abortions of convience and are unrelated to the health of the mother or baby. If this is true, then the Adventist hospitals performing these elective abortions have broken the "SDA stance of performing abortions in our hospitals only in "extraordinary cases." Another disturbing thing is that our church, at least to date and as far as I know, have not refuted the accusation.

I agree that the entire problem that lead women to consider abortion should be dealt with. But I don't think that a pro-abortion organization such as Planned Parenthood and others like it have much incentive to do that since they are making a lot of money from providing abortion services and selling contraceptives.

The "Adventists For Life" Facebook page in the article has been taken down, but there is an alternative page for pro-life Adventists called Advent Life Center.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Please furnish the official statistics for the percentage of revenue Planned Parenthood receives from abortion.

Do you agree that it is morally and ethically right to furnish contraceptive information; do breast, cervical and testicular exams? There are multiple services provided by Planned Parenthood, and as long as abortion is legal, they are operating within the law.

Is it suggested that the government decide women's reproductive rights? Men's? Should vasectomies or tubal ligations be made illegal?

Once reproductive rights are government controlled it would then be possible to only allow one child families, as in China where forced late-term abortions are done. Control goes either way.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Abortions are only one of many elective sugeries. The government does not pay for these, private citizens do. But, government does pay for all the "welfare babies and mothers" that are not aborted, plus the larger percentage that do not finish high school and prison. If cost is considered, abortion is far less money for taxpayers than the alternative. Who, but the mother and physician can determine an abortion is for "convenience"? I have had three joint replacements for "my convenience." They were not life-threatening, while pregnancy can be life-threatening.

Elective surgery? Shouls vasectomies be performed in SDA hosptails? Should liposuction? Which ones? Should the government are doctor and patient make those decisions?




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 dicknoel says:

Richard L. Noel, DMD

As a healthe care professional, I have spent considerable time reviewing my personal beliefs in the issue of abortion. I began with a rather liberal view. After I began submitting myself to the Bible, I have become much more conservative.

There are apparently competing ideas in this subject. One is compassion and mercy. The other is What does God say.

As I have studied and prayed, I learned that "abortion" is not acceptable to God. Abortion puts all involved under a curse from God.

My previous liberal view said things that sounded compassionate in favor of abortion. Today, my compassion seeks to salvage the people who have made such a sin against God.

The real goal God gives us is to learn to subject ourselves to the righteousness of God (Rom 10:3). Then we can rescue the perishing and help save those who are on the way to destruction. Ultimately, we end up seeking to prevent the situations that lead to abortion as well as salvage those who have already had one.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

No one, as yet, has addressed the problem I wrote about: if it is a "sin against God" to abort a fetus, what advice would you give a couple who have numerous frozen embryos that can never be used? Is it "murder" to destroy them? As you are well aware, IVF, to be successful, implants only two embryos, but many more eggs are harvested and fertilized for possible future needs (first attempt may fail, or further children may be desired). In some instances, twins are conceived. Does the surviving one mean that the other embryo was "murdered"? What about miscarriages: should each miscarriage be mourned as equivelant to a few weeks' embryo? Still all of the embryos can never be used. When they are disposed of why is this not murder? Why is murder in a woman's body and not in a ttube? They are all conscious, deliberate choices.



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Bobby McGhee says:

My questions on abortion are why do people walk by human suffering everyday doing NOTHING about it yet hold strong feelings opposing it? Also how can people be pro-life yet support the bombing of life, eat animals even test with animals also is something that I ponder. Oh and one of my favorite writers EG WHITE(I can barely read) asks how we can be cannibals on the still live flesh of people in our sphere when speaking of them at the Sabbath lunch table. For the record I really like pastor Melissa she to me is most wonderful. Now before you all tee off on me realize I am mentally challenged with an I.Q. of 69 so be kind as I was a poster child for pro choice.

Even if HE doesn't




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 flybabymom says:

An interesting development in the adoption world is that of adopting frozen embryos. There are many parents who do not want their "extra" embryos destroyed, because they see them as alive, albeit very undeveloped and frozen, humans. There are more than one adoption agencies that handle these unique adoptions. As an adoptive mom (we adopted a full-term baby--embryonic adoption would not have been an option for us), I am a HUGE proponent of this way of giving a baby a loving family. The abortion debate is truly incomplete without listening to the voice of the unborn.



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Offering one's embryos to other couples is a loaded question. If the couples are willing to do so, but few, I believe, are willing to see someone else bear and raise their child. Just as there are willing surrogates who carry and give the child to a couple, it is something that is so personal that, like abortion, should never be regulated. Why would anyone want to see another couple raise a child from their embryo?

Giving up for adoption is somewhat similar, which is why the larger majority of unplanned pregnancies are being carried to term and kept by the biological mother. We have also seen the lengthy searches for an adoptive parent which is so painful for the adoptee. Would you be willing to give a baby if you carried it for nine months, and turn it over to someone else? Unless no one is willing for a baby to be taken from its mother, no one should have a say in a prospective mother who makes the most difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Hansen says:

"As I have studied and prayed, I learned that "abortion" is not acceptable to God. Abortion puts all involved under a curse from God. "

Richard Noel:

How can you make a statement like thgat when Scripture in Numbers 5 clearly describes the administration of an abortifactant and consequent sterility;

Nu. 5:27 "When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people." NRSV

What would happen IF she was pregnant and her womb discharged/uterus dropped? An abortive process is being described here.

Tom,

I'm glad that things turned out well for you; however, your story is not at all typical. For every person like you, there are many with a very different story to tell, one which would include various forms of abuse, neglect, and so forth, leading to criminal behaviour or serious maladjustment.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 strattye says:

I also usually do not jump in to discussions on Abortion but Elain needs some defense.

It is the law of the land. One can choose not to have an abortion. If you do not believe in it, do not have one. One can choose to drink alcohol (pregnant or not), use illigal drugs (pregnant or not), eat right (pregnant or not) and there are not these inflammatory discussions.

I agree with Elaine that science has gone far ahead of the law and the religious mores.

As an Ob/Gyn, I have counselled many women re their pregnancy. In over 30 years, I've met one that used abortion as a means of birth control and frankly, since she was someone's mistress who refused to let her use other methods, she really did not have much choice in the matter. Most women who were contemplating abortion had used at least one and sometimes more than one form of birth control to prevent the pregnancy.

In areas where abortion is readily available (not where i currently live), I did not find that women had emotional trauma from their decisions. The emotional trauma comes in from inability to share with others their experience because of perceived shame.

There are far more risks to carrying a pregnancy to term than there are in having an abortion. Whoever talked about there being huge risks to abortion medically does not know what they are talking about.

The damage done to young women, the child and to, dare I say, even the young father, in being forced to carry a child that no one is prepared for emotionally, mentally, financially or physically is cruel and unusual punishment. Unless there are unusual circumstances of support for the young woman, both she and the child are often doomed to a life uneducated and in poverty.I am glad that the poster above was born in 1951 - if he had been born later and his mother forced to have an abortion, we would not know him. Hard to miss something that no one knows about.

Usually the men get off on this scot free. I say if they do not believe in abortion then they should have those discussions prior to having sex and make sure that no one is pregnant -- this would mean no sex as all forms of birth control have failure rates!

I've worked planned parenthood clinics - The four that I've worked in, none offered abortions and I certainly would not say that all pp clinics push people to an abortion. Someone has been reading too much anti-abortion literature which is usually filled with made up "facts."

It is true that a minor per centage of abortions are done for "declared rape, incest or anomolies" The key is the word "declared."

the Bible is pretty clear about abortion. Murder requires death of the murderer. One who causes an abortion has to pay a fine. Putting more into what the Bible says than that is re-inventing Bible verses for their own use.

Grace and compassion absolutely need to rule until 1. We can say we know all, like God, and judge fairly; and, 2. There are perfect methods of birth control that all can take without side effects.

I think men should have a say in the issue of abortion but it should be far less than it usually is (this blog for instance). Speak up before the pregnancy. I have little use for your comments afterwards. It might help if you spent more energy on fighting for women's rights not to be beaten, not to be forced to have sex, not to be sold, etc. And spent significant time educating young men on the proper way to treat women and their responsibilities in a sexual encounter/relationship instead of an attitude of "boys will be boys."

I have found no one changes their mind unless they've personally been confronted with the issue for themselves or for their child.

And if you choose for a woman, wife, girlfriend, daughter - then shame on you for not respecting her rights over her own body. I would suggest that is legalistic and abusive. Be kind, forgiving and compassionate and pay the fine for her.

Thanks for reading.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Sarah says:

I am a physician who has followed women during pregnancy, attended their deliveries, and followed them and their children afterwards. I have attended to women who have delivered early in their pregnancy and found it to be sad. I have also delivered women with intrauterine fetal demise. These are women who have carried their babies 20 or more weeks before the baby dies. These deliveries have been haunting. In that moment you know that life is life, and death is death. No matter the age. I have seen a woman who has been pregnant over 10 times and time after time has aborted her pregnancies for reasons other than medical. I will not get into the argument of percentages of women who use abortion for contraception. Needless to say that it is done. I have seen it.

Years ago while still in the classroom, I resolved that for moral and ethical reasons I could not participate in or advise a patient in favor of abortion unless the woman was in immediate physical danger of loss of life due to the pregnancy - such as in ectopic tubal pregnancies. This is based both on the Hippocratic Oath which I took as well as on the Bible.

As for the text in Numbers 5:27-28. Thank you Hansen for bringing this to light. I went ahead and read those verses in context and found the following:

- If a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful but does not actually witness this, he is to take her along with an offering, to the priest.

- The priest is to take WATER and DUST from the tabernacle floor as well as a PAPER with a curse written on it, and put the woman under oath to tell the truth about whether or not she was unfaithful.

- IF the woman lied and is guilty, then drinks the water, she is to be under the curse and would be infertile. In Hebrew it would read "Her body will swell and her thigh will waste away".

- If she is innocent, then no harm would come to her and she would still be able to have children.

So in actually this text does not at all mention pregnancy or abortion. Rather it speaks of the woman NOT being able to get pregnant anymore because she would be infertile which in those times, being childless was considered a curse from God.

Concluding, I have a strong opinion against abortion and the taking of life in general both young or old. I don't have all the answers to this problem and I dont think anyone does. I believe that God can work out the evil events in our life for good. I will not force others to choice what I believe is right though. Going back to the Bible, God in Deuteronomy gives us two choices: Good or Evil. He begs us to choose Good and Life. He will never force us, though it breaks his heart when even one of His little ones chooses wrong. Until He comes again and sin is gone forever, I will continue in the role that He has placed me in and do my best to educate and love those under my care.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Tom says:

Hanson,

So you are glad things worked out for me, but then you launch into more of the same. No pause to truly reflect on just what I said, with any second thoughts for your outragious original post on this subject. Elaine you equate abortion to no worse than butchering animals for food or using them in medical research. Is human life so marginal that it is to be of no more consequence than lower forms of life? It boils down to loud demands for the right to choose and is nothing more in the minds of some than terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

Remember those words of Jesus, "as you have done it unto the least of these you have done it unto me." You can't be any more least and helpless than an unborn child. How heartless can some people get?




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Pickle says:

Judah was the fourth son of Leah, born at least 4 x 9 months after Jacob married Leah and Rachel one week apart at the grand age of 84. Then at 91 (at the end of the second 7-year period Jacob had to work for his wives) Joseph was born, after which Jacob worked 6 more years for wages.

Joseph became prime minister of Egypt at age 30, served during 7 years of plenty, and then 2 years of famine, after which Jacob arrived in Egypt and told Pharaoh that he was 130 years old.

Therefore, Judah was about 42 or 43 when he arrived in Egypt, since he was at most 4 years older then Joseph.

Now we backtrack. Judah had three sons. The first two grew up and married Tamar, and then died because of their wickedness. Then Tamar tricked Judah into fathering her twins, one of which (Pharez) had already had two sons by the time they arrived in Egypt.

Thus Judah, Judah's first two sons Er and Onan, and Pharez must have been on average 14 years of age at the oldest when they had their first kid.

That Jacob's family was dysfunctional is readily apparent. Add onto that early fatherhood for the sons? Certainly these early teens weren't well prepared to raise kids. If Judah were alive today, some might urge him to seriously consider abortion.

But then, King David, Boaz, Caleb, Joseph of Nazareth and/or Mary his wife would have never been. And "the Lion of the tribe of Judah" would have had to choose some other lineage than Pharez, Hezron, Boaz, and David.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Hansen says:

Sarah, Considering the context of Numbers 5, a situation of suspected adultery, the concept of abortion is implicit in the passage, if she was pregnant. What happens when her womb "discharges"? The fetus is expelled, i.e., aborted. The idea was strong enough that the NRSV translators did everything but use the word "abort" to make the point.

Numbers 5 is specificaly dealing with the administration of what would be an abortifactant if the woman is pregnant with the child of a man who is not her husband. One might argue that is the entire purpose of the ritual, to abort a fetus conceived through an adulterous liaison. The woman would also become sterile.

There are numerous women in American society who should have been forcibly sterilized by law enforcement agencies. There are little used laws on the books which allow for forcible incarceration of patients with active TB who refuse voluntary quarantine.

Why should women be allowed, through fornication, to conceive numerous fatherless children, be paid by the State, and then compel society to deal with the unloved, neglected, unwanted, poorly educated, teens and adults these children become?

Some people, perhaps many, are simply unsuitable as parents, especially those with substance abuse or mental problems. Drug addicted or alcoholic women who conceive should be subjected to forcible abortion and then sterilized. Not complicated at all.

Incidentaly, most of the guilt and psychological trauma women who have abortions experience is because of the unrealistic, puritanical mores imposed upon them by a hypocritical, cruel society. Conscience is something learned. I doubt that the Holy Spirit is making women feel guilty for doing something God required in OT times--aborting a scandalous fetus.

Will the mothers feel guilty later, when their children are abused, neglected, unloved? That's where the guilt should lie.

Tom. Obviouly, my post doesn't apply to you. There are lots of people to whom it does apply. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to wear it. I understand this is a touchy subject for you; however, you can surely see that one can not make polices based on exceptions to the rule. I apologize for any pain I caused you, personally.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Tom, that is you evaluation of my opinion of abortion, but not mine. I do not equate it with butchering animals. But, no one seems to consider the pregnant female and her particular circumstances. Most seem to equate abortion as birth control. A former poster, more familiar with those patients than we are, informed us that it is a false statement.

How many women have you personally known who have had abortions? Why do you judge them when you could never be in their positions? The Bible also says to judge not, and to judge that women are murderers is not shown by the Bible, so it is an opinion not based on the Bible. It makes Christians seem as very judgmental and devoid of compassion when there is more compassion for fetuses than a living, adult woman. For shame! Jesus noticed and had compassion on women, even one caught in adultery (where was the condemnation for her partner?).

Please answer: do you prefer the government make decisions on reproduction? Do you prefer the church opine on them? The SDA church has NOT taken a position on it, so it is personal and not backed by either the Bible or the SDA church--the Roman Catholic church might be more in tune with those who equate abortion with murder.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

The wife and husband depicted in Numbers is due to the accusation of unfaithfulness by the wife, and several times it mentions "because she is under the authority of her husband." In this patriarchal society, women had no place in making decisions at all, the man had complete control over her.

There is rarely, if ever, mention of a husband's unfaithfulness. But we know that David was not the only one who did not practice monogamy. Most of them had several wives and concubines; even God told them they were to take wives of the conquered enemy. It was strictly a man's world. For those who would like to return to those days, take a plane to the Middle Eastern countries where it still is practiced.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 27th, 2011 Tom says:

In my first post, I mentioned that I usually don't delve into this topic on such a public forum as this. The main reason is that it is too painful to me personally to talk about and the other reason is there are no easy answer to it all. It was Hansen's over the top post saying that some people should never been born, implying that abortion is a good solution that provoked me to respond.

I have had a good life and was fortunate to have been raised in a loving home, but with some of the very personal issues I have struggled with inside, insecurities, and self loathing over it all, has in my despondency, even led me to question at various times whether I should have ever been born.

I know you were not talking about me , Hansen, but what I thought, and still think, was a very thoughtless position on it all still stings.

One day when I was in the county office building, there were some pictures of children looking for homes to be adopted into. As I gazed into their innocent little eyes, I teared up wishing I could just hug and love each one of them. I could never look into the eyes of some poor child, no matter what their life condition is, and think, this child should never have been born.

We have been in this miserable world too long. The only real answer is Jesus. May He come quickly and rescue us out of all this misery. Sorry for being such a sob here. this is the last I will have to say on this subject.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 28th, 2011 Melissa Howell says:

Melissa Howell
AToday Web Columnist

Regarding the Numbers 5 text in question, where some have said God may have been specifically causing an abortion - you all inspired me to do some work with my Hebrew... I had to dust a few books off! I am not a top Hebrew scholar, by any means, but I do have a reasonable understanding of the language and how to use/translate it. Here is what I found, for those who want to know what is going in in Numbers 5.

The exact phrase in verse 27, from Hebrew to English - is "her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop." Now, depending on the verbs, this can either mean one of two things. #1 - Her womb discharges "something" (like a period, or a fetus, or just a discharge) #2 - Her actual womb itself is discharged, or collapsed.

In this case, #2 seems to be the correct reading. We know that this was not referring to a normal discharge, like a period, but something very, extremely abnormal and permanent. Hebrew scholars believe it probably refers to a prolapsed uterus in which "the pelvic floor collapses, and the uterus literally falls down. It may dislodge in the vagina, or it may actually fall out of the body through the vagina. If it does so, it becomes edematous and swells up like a balloon. Conception becomes impossible, and the woman's procreative life has effetively ended." ("The Flame of Yahweh - Sexuality in the Old Testament by Richard Davidson, p. 352, using the work of Frymer-Kensky, "The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah," Numbers, p. 112-113).

So we are not talking about the discharge of a fetus here, we are talking about a process that actually renders a woman permanently infertile. An abortion-like discharge is not really the meaning from the original Hebrew, and to argue that it is, simply becomes one of those "arguments from silence" type issues. Can we build an entire theory on abortion based on a silent, possible, hypothetical situation in which the woman whose uterus collapses could be carrying a fetus? One hard and fast rule in Biblical scholarship: Never, EVER build an entire belief on an argument from silence. Especially one that can be addressed elsewhere in the Bible.

I can see, however, how it would seem like the Bible is saying that, expecially from the NRSV! So no offense to any who have read it this way. Interpreting the Bible can be a tricky thing - such a different language, such a foreign culture, so many years between us. That's why we try to stand on the shoulders of scholars and giants! Try to read in as many versions as you can, and get help going back to the original language if necessary.

By the way - in all the other cultures around Israel in that area, at that time, if a husband suspected his wife of having an affair, she was killed. No questions asked. All he had to do was accuse her, and that was it - she was done. But in God's society, things worked differently. He set up ways to protect women and to intervene for them. In the Numbers 5 situation, notice it isn't the husband who has the last word - it is God. God becomes the Judge, as only He truly knows what happened. In this way, He would not let an innocent woman be put to death. Even if she was found guilty - because there were not at least 2 witnesses, she still was not killed, she just lost her ability to reproduce. I know it was quite the male dominated society back then, but I do like it that God set up ways to step in and defend His ladies!

Well, that's everyone's Hebrew lesson for the day...carry on with the abortion debate...!




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 28th, 2011 Melissa Howell says:

Melissa Howell
AToday Web Columnist

Tom,

I just wanted to thank you personally for your postings on this site. Your personal story has added such perspective to the debate, and I really, truly appreciate your courage and willingness to share. I don't know you, but when I teach on this subject in the future, I will most certainly be sharing your testimony with the kids I work with.

~Melissa




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 28th, 2011 Melissa Howell says:

Melissa Howell
AToday Web Columnist

Sorry...regarding NUMBERS 5:22 and 27 - a true Hebrew to English translation of the phrase would read more like this:

"and it is swelled the belly of her, and it falls away the thigh of her"

Or, more smoothly, without all the pronouns -

"and her belly is swelled and her thigh falls away (or rots)"

The first translation I gave was perhaps already too English-ified, and didn't include the "thigh" word of the original Hebrew. The "thigh" can be used to mean the loins, the area of sexual organs, or as in Genesis, the seat of pro-creative power.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 28th, 2011 Hansen says:

Melissa,

The point is that if the woman was pregnant, the "collapsing of her womb" would kill whatever happened to be residing in it, such as a fetus. Whatever you think the Hebrew says, physiologically, the fetus would be destroyed by the process described in the Biblical text.

Now it may be that a physician here can contradict my statement with an article from the "My most unusual case" column in an Ob/Gyn publication. Short of that, in general, a prolapsing uterus in a pregnant woman would likely be fatal to the fetus [I guess].

That's what an abortion is, the premature destruction of a fetus.

The passage in Numbers is a difficult one. Some of the words used to describe the process are rarely used in Scripture, so cross referencing is not an option. The last part of verse 28 makes plain the process, however. If the woman is innocent, she shall be able to continue bearing children.

If she is guilty as suspected, her ability to bear children will end.

Whatever wonders you may work with your Hebrew, it is going to be difficult to escape the fact that the sterilization process being described would destroy the fetus.

This translation [NRSV] of Scripture directly challenges the antiabortion movement. Perhaps it was intended to so do. Some people translate the passage differently, one even the opposite. Since it is only one passage and a difficult one, it's not the kind of thing to be dogmatic about; however, its implications should be considered before people start calling women or their physicians, faced with difficult choices, "murderers" or "baby killers."




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 28th, 2011 markham says:

Roe vs Wade may have been a hi point in jurisprudence when the Hi Court decided to allow women to make a decision about their own body during the first trimester. Do I believe that abortion should be employed for contraception purposes? No. Should a woman allow her relationship with her God to determine her course of action? Yes.

This is an incendiary subject and will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Rape, incest and the mother's health are very definitely situations where women should not be precluded from having an abortion.

Truth Seeker




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 28th, 2011 Melissa Howell says:

Melissa Howell
AToday Web Columnist

Hansen,

I read that in Mishna tradition, it says that the man must wait a few months to see if his wife is pregnant before performing the Numbers 5 test. If she is pregnant, the Nunbers 5 test is then not performed (as it would kill a baby, and also wouldn't be necessary). Other tests that could be used at this time include the Urim and the Thummim, to see whose baby she was carrying. (Even if she was pregnant, the baby could still be the husband's). I assume that during these few months of waiting, however, the husband would not sleep with his wife, just to be sure. Because, if it became clear that the woman was pregnant, and the husband claimed the baby wasn't his, then an entirely different process resulted. I also read that the woman would not have dared to drink the potion if she had been guilty - she would have just confessed to her husband instead. So it was more a proof of innocence than anything else. (Vetus Testamentum Vol 34 - Frymer-Kensky)

I'm not sure how much weight this really sheds on our situation today, except that we cannot really use Numbers 5 in our debate, if it was not performed on pregnant women. Even still, this doesn't make an airtight case for abortion or against it, one way or the other. I'm not sure it gets us anywhere! The reason I dove in to research it was that it would make a big difference, as you said, if we could prove that this was God requiring the performing of an abortion. From the research, I just don't think we can do that, except as I said before, to argue from silence. We were not there. We still may need to allow that argument from silence. But we can't build an entire theory on it. I myself feel extremely cautious about using the Bible like this, but that's just me. I also feel sort of protective of its original intent, when I see BOTH sides using it to make their own arguments.

Numbers 5 does continue to be a hotly debated passage, however. There are scholars who still say it was about abortion. And scholars who say it is not. I guess that statement in the Mishna about waiting for proof of pregnancy would make all the difference. I also found a number of Mishna and Targum scholars saying that according to tradition, the Numbers 5 test was not ever used, as in, it was never actually performed. For this reason, it was finally abolished in 50AD, and the woman had to appear before the Sanhedrin instead. Who can say, and who would have known that without all this research? Not me!

~Melissa




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 28th, 2011 RonCorson says:

The Numbers 5 procedure is pretty much based upon magical thinking, a mysterious potion and God causes a miscarriage and/or infertility. Because after all everything that happened was caused by God they had no Satan at that time so good or bad it all came from God. The usefulness of the reference is now mainly to realize that not everything in the Bible was really wise or in fact really from God. That man's ideas and superstitions can also be incorporated into the books and by incorportation people begin to think they really were statements of God. Much like God killing thousands of Israelites for David's sin. They make good stories however and you can learn good lessons from them but the logic falls through if you really begin to think God acted that way.



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 28th, 2011 strattye says:

O.k. I'll bite again: I am an ob/gyn who has practiced for over 25 years.

In regards to your post re Numbers: Prolapse makes no sense. Prolapse is the uterine ligaments being stretched to the point that the uterus is in the lower vagina or in severe prolapse completely protruding out of the vagina. This almost never happens unless the woman is elderly and/or the ligaments have been stretched multiple times (such as in multiple pregnancies).

If one were to get pregnant and the uterus was completely out of the vaginal canal (a very unlikely event by the way, if you think about it), likely the blood supply to the uterus would be more or less cut off. I can't imagine why this woman would be attractive enough to another man to carry on an infidelity and intercourse would be difficult if not impossible. If the uterus were less prolapsed and still in the vaginal canal, getting pregnant could happen and as the fetus grows, those ligaments would pull the uterus, despite being very stretched) up into the abdominal cavity where the fetus would grow very healthfully.

Interpreting this text to suggest uterine prolapse and death of the fetus is a very huge stretch of the imagination and not a likely interpretation.

On the other hand we do know that Egyptians were well aware of abortifacients and used them; therefore, it is very likely that the Israelite women knew of them and were skilled in their use. It is unlikely that a man would bring a woman to be judged months and months after the fact. It is more likely it was very soon after discovery. Thus, an abortifacient could cause an early miscarriage (discharge as a fetus would be very difficult to identify without a microscope) which might be just like a heavy menstrual period. If she were several months along, the abortifacient likely would not have worked as they tend to work only in first trimester. Very similar to our morning after pills (works to prevent implantation or create a hostile environment or Mefipristone which can cause an early abortion but not likely a later abortion.

An abortifacient is usually not a pleasant experience for the woman and in some cases could lead to death from hemorhraging of the woman so the threat of it could force her to confess if guilty hoping for mercy. If she was not guilty, she probably would not be pregnant and would have a heavy menstrual period with some cramping.

I am not aware of aborifacient's that would necessarily cause sterilization. Again, abortion was relatively common and the Egyptians were as skilled as anyone at medical care of the day. However, if she were having an illicit affair, presumably, she was running similar risks to a woman today in picking up an STD that could cause sterilization. We just do not know.

If God answered their judging needs via Urim and Thummim, He certainly could have caused anything to have happened to a guilty woman as well.

It is very possible that the rotting of the thigh is some total mistranslation by men who had no knowledge of what they were talking about re women's anatomy or were embarrassed to admit they did know anything about women. I cannot imagine any medical condition that would even come close to this description. My guess that the scholars you discuss are often using their imaginations as well - maybe based on other cultures, maybe based on nothing but someone's creativity.

I was referring to Exodus 21:22 in my previous post where if a woman is caused to miscarry, a fine must be paid as opposed to a death penalty for causing the death of another person. Clearly not putting abortion and murder on the same level. It is important to realize that many of the laws pertaining to women and children in the OT were designed to protect women. It does not seem like that to us today but compared to other cultures, the rules/laws of the Israelites were fairer and more protective of the innocent than their surrounding neighbors.

It is too easy for us, with our knowledge of anatomy, physiology, chemistry etc to put that same knowledge onto an old culture. They didn't know about sperm and eggs. They had figured out sexual relations tended to cause a child to be born. They thought of the man as planting his seed in the fertile womb (not same understanding of uterus as we have) of the woman. Thus clearly laying claim to the child as his. Since rights were passed from father to son, clear lineage was extremely important.

Another interesting bit of history here. Up until the early 20th century, most women (except the wealthy - and here the wealthy women had the raw end of the deal as having a baby in a hospital was very high risk for death for the woman) had their health care provided by midwives. Abortion was common and has been common throughout history going back at least to Egyptian times. It was a personal issue between the woman and her care provider, in this case another woman. In the early 20th century, male doctors (early AMA) wanted this business (women's health) for themselves and sought to destroy midwifery by donating big bucks and getting their legislative buddies to pass laws against abortion and birth control. This helped set off the women's emancipation movement. Once laws were made, by men, outlawing common health care methods for women (birth control, pregnancy issues), it became the hornets next we are dealing with today in this country. I think God is merciful and just and, unlike each of us, looks at the heart. Thank you, God.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 28th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Dear RonCorson

Is the love story of Hosea also 'made up' or did God actually make those difficult requests for him to fulfill? Many people like to be known as experts on human thinking and behaviour but are we also experts on God?

On what biblical grounds do you conclude that "The usefulness of the reference is now mainly to realize that not everything in the Bible was really wise or in fact really from God. That man's ideas and superstitions can also be incorporated into the books and by incorportation people begin to think they really were statements of God."?

Or, on what biblical authority or basis do you assert that this was "pretty much based upon magical thinking, a mysterious potion".?

Trevor




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On February 28th, 2011 Hansen says:

Dr. Strattye, Thanks for contributing to this discussion. I scanned the nearly 200 pages of Sotah, the Jewish tradition which covers this passage. Many of the observations that you made are also brought up in that document,

http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Sotah.pdf

You are likely right, that the exact meaning of these words has been lost or purposely hidden. The language may be euphemistic as well. The swelling of the belly and rotting of the thigh appear to be a parallelism, that is both are making the same point with different words.

The word translated "thigh" is used with reference to male or female. It often appears in references to men putting their sword on their thigh.

One reference to the female anatomy is made in Song of Solomon:

Song of Solomon 7:1 "how beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince’s daughter! the curves of your hips <03409> are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist."

In the above passage, "hips" is a translation of the same word translated as "thigh" in Numbers 5.

Here's a quote from the Keil Delitsch comentary on Numbers 5:

"It cannot be determined with any certainty what was the nature of the disease threatened in this curse. Michaelis supposes it to be dropsy of the ovary (hydrops ovarii), in which a tumour is formed in the place of the ovarium, which may even swell so as to contain 100 lbs. of fluid, and with which the patient becomes dreadfully emaciated. Josephus says it is ordinary dropsy (hydrops ascites: Ant. iii. 11, 6). At any rate, the idea of the curse is this: Δι ̓ ὧν γὰρ ἡ ἁμαρτία, διὰ τούτων ἡ τιμωρία ("the punishment shall come from the same source as the sin, Theodoret). The punishment was to answer exactly to the crime, and to fall upon those bodily organs which had been the instruments of the woman's sin, viz., the organs of child-bearing."




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 3rd, 2011 Doctorf says:

Ed,

Very insightful post. Thank you.

Dr. F



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 3rd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

"The punishment was to answer exactly to the crime, and to fall upon those bodily organs which had been the instruments of the woman's sin, viz., the organs of child-bearing."

Much is made in the Bible of women's sins, such as adultery. Where in the Bible are men punished for the same sin? Is David the only one? Surely, no woman dare accuse her husband of such a sin, as was the case in reverse.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 7th, 2011 nicsamojluk says:

Nic Samojluk, Editor, www.letsfocusonlife.com
On February 28th, 2011 markham said:

“This is an incendiary subject and will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Rape, incest and the mother's health are very definitely situations where women should not be precluded from having an abortion.”

I say: How about justice and fairness for one of the two victims of rape? If society allows the perpetrator of the criminal act to live, does it make sense to execute the innocent baby? Should not the guilty be punished instead of the victim?




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 7th, 2011 nicsamojluk says:

Nic Samojluk, Editor, www.letsfocusonlife.com
On February 27th, 2011 strattye said:

“The Bible is pretty clear about abortion. Murder requires death of the murderer. One who causes an abortion has to pay a fine. Putting more into what the Bible says than that is re-inventing Bible verses for their own use.

”I say: The Bible predicted that knowledge would be increased. This prediction very likely includes the knowledge of the Bible as well. If his is true, then it might be significant the fact that many modern scholars render said biblical passage using the “premature birth” as a reasonable option, which would imply that the harm refers to the baby instead of the mother, or perhaps to both.


New International Version (©1984)
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman's husband demands and the judges approve.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"This is what you must do whenever men fight and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely. If there are no other injuries, the offender must pay whatever fine the court allows the woman's husband to demand.



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 11th, 2011 sdaexpat says:

On February 26th, 2011 BillCork says: "Do they really grasp what impact abortion has had on their generation? Put those 150 young people in a room with 300 chairs. Each person would be sitting next to an empty chair. Those 150 empty chairs would represent their peers that were ripped from their mothers' wombs ... mostly out of "convenience." Since 1973 there have been 50,000,000 abortions in the United States -- roughly equivalent to the populations of California, Oregan, Washington and Nevada. "

Personally, I don't believe in abortion and would never get one. However, as far as legalities go, I've considered myself pro-choice. However, the point you bring up Bill, is a very good one. I don't think we realize how many people we would know in our lives had their mothers not chosen to abort them. It's a scary thought ...one that we should consider and be more aware of.

sdaexpat




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 11th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Duplicate this experiment in the large inner cities: place a chair next to the young person that knows someone who has been killed in gang violence.

Or, place empty chairs to show how many young people have been killed since 2003 in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Or, illustrate how many babies and children have been abused, victimized, and tortured and murdered by their parents or caretakers.

When someone crushes an apple seed he is not prosecuted for cutting down an apple tree.

When we start protesting all the thousands of mbryos now in cold stroage that will eventually be destroyed, where will be the cries of "murder"? These are owned by the prospective parents, no less than an embryo in utero is owned completely by the woman. Who dares to deprive of her choice? For those who wish the government to be less intrusive ("the government is the problem") they are often the same ones who wish to impose their idea of morality in the very private spheres. 'STAY OUT OF MY WOMB" YOU DO NOT OWN IT!




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 12th, 2011 nicsamojluk says:

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.letsfocusonlife.com
Elaine: the right to choose sounds very attractive; nevertheless, for some mysterious reason, we are not willing to apply it to other moral actions with less serious consequences like rape, burglary, and sexual abuse of children.

If someone steals my car, I can replace it. When a woman is raped, the pain and suffering can diminish with time and the victim can eventually with God’s grace experience healing and live almost a normal life. This is not available to the victim of abortion.

Do you really believe that those extreme cases you cited justify the genocide of fifty million innocent babies who have been deprived of life under the pro-choice mantra?




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 12th, 2011 nicsamojluk says:

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.letsfocusonlife.com

Elaine said: “'STAY OUT OF MY WOMB" YOU DO NOT OWN IT! “

I say: True, indeed. I don’t own it and you don’t own it either. It belongs to God who designed it for his own glory. Actually your entire body belongs to the Lord. That is what the Bible teaches.

This is why God instituted the Sixth Commandment which forbids the taking of human life. If you think that you are smarter than Almighty God, then go ahead and disregard his wise commands and get ready to reap the consequences of disobedience. Adam and Eve did, and we are still paying for their mistake.



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 12th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

"I don’t own it and you don’t own it either."

God gave us the gift of choice: not to be made by anyone but ourselves. Whatever we choose should be ours alone and we must answer to God. Each individual makes the best choice she sees at that time. No one else should have the gall to make it for her. You and I have made bad choices in the past, and we may do so in the future; but I would not dare make choices for you and neither should you make choices for me or anyone else. That is all that I am contending: Don't try to be other people's conscience, God did not give that ability to you. Stop trying to make other people into your ideas. It will never work.



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 13th, 2011 nicsamojluk says:

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.letsfocusonlife.com
Elaine said: “God gave us the gift of choice: not to be made by anyone but ourselves. Whatever we choose should be ours alone and we must answer to God.”

I say: Does this mean that society has no right to have laws forbidding stealing, burglary, rape, sexual abuse of children, and murder? Does it also mean that the church should stop preaching and calling people to repentance and reformation? Were the prophets of old wrong in condemning the shedding of innocent blood? Was John the Baptist wrong in condemning the adulterous relationship of King Herod? Was Jesus wrong in condemning the actions of the Jewish leaders? Was Peter wrong in condemning the Jewish leaders for having killed an innocent man? Was Paul wrong in condemning sinners in the first chapter of Romans? Are you trying to negate the power of the Gospel to lead people o repentance perhaps in one swoop?




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 31st, 2011 Steve M says:

It is my understanding from liturature I have read that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. If known, a spontaneous abortion has an emotional effect on the individual. One that is caused on purpose also has an emotional effect on the individual. Either way the individual is always going to wonder what that pregnancy would have produced if allowed to reach adult size. This is true whether one is 11 years old or whether one is 39 years old. Whether its loss was one for the health of the mother, or the loss was for other reasons.

An ethical problem is: A planned abortion, can it be viewed as part of the spontaneous abortion group, or part of the pregnancies that survive. Both the unsurvived and survived are humans, potential children of God. This is the dilemma we as SDA's have that others may not have. This is why each procedure needs to be seen on the merits of its own with both pre- and post-counseling available so that each can feel whole before God.

Is an abortion an act of kindness? If so perhaps we as SDA institutions can provide for kindness. Steve in Macon, GA




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 31st, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

As one who had a spontaneous abortion at 4 months, there was no emotional involvement, only relief. But not because this pregnancy had not been planned years ahead, but very much wanted. The relief: having been pregnant twice before, from the moment pregnancy was certain, nothing went right--strange symptoms, followed by warnings that inevitably, a miscarriage would follow. Pathology revealed incomplete fetal development for the stage.

The whole question of abortion has moved to a new level with the new technology of IVF: What should be done with the many thousands of embyros now frozen that will never be used? Only the parents can decide as they have ownership. Should this potential life be destroyed? Is this unlike abortion? Are souls also being destroyed? When does "life" begin: at conception? At the first sign of fetal heartbeat (which has been brought to the legislature in one state as the cut-off for abortion)? When fetal life can be sustained outside the mother?

There are more states encroaching on Roe v. Wade that threaten to make abortion ever more hard to obtain. Remember: any government that seeks to control the reproduction of its citizens, can also require control over conception and number of pregnancies. This has been the practice for quite some time iin China with forced abortions after the first pregnancy in an effort to control over-population. Be careful what you wish for!




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 31st, 2011 Tom says:

Elaine

Certainly you see the difference in spontaneous abortion, more commonly referred in the past as a miscarriage and induced abortion, which became a right under Roe v Wade. Even in that decision the notion of state sanctioned late term abortions were unthinkable even by pro choice advocates in 1973.

Abortion is indeed a difficult issue with no easy answers. Both sides of the debate have their achilles heal in my estimation, though I definitely sway toward the pro life side.

Outright banning of all abortions is not the answer, neither is a pro-choice insistence that a woman's right to choose should be an absolute without any restraints.

Modern technology is proving to be the latest convincing evidence that has changed the dynamics of the abortion debate, and led to public opinion shifting away for unfettered abortion rights. Clearly there is more than just a piece of unwanted tissue to discard in the aborting of an unborn child. Late term abortion, in all but the most serious situation where the mother could die unless she aborts, is outright infanticide. This notion of a woman having serious trauma and her emotional health jeopardized as an excuse to allow a late term abortion is a red-herring. It shows the extent the prochoice crowd will go to protect political turf, and to me is as irresponsible as those pro lifers who cheer when an abortionist is slain.

Planned Parenthood with their objection to having a pregnant woman weighing all evidence and sides of the issue before deciding on an abortion, gives clear indication that this group is all to eager to have a woman choose abortion over being talked out of it.

In the final analysis, the biblical adage "as you have done it unto the least of these..." should serve as a good indicator of where our greatest sympathies as christians should lie. You cannot get more least or helpless than an unborn child.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On March 31st, 2011 Tom says:

Mellisa

I am a little confused. My post of February 28, says my post was deleted per reader request. What does that mean?




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Trish S says:

Elaine, I don't understand how you keep lumping the abortion issue together with reproductive rights. They have already reproduced! They had the right to not reproduce (except in the case of rape). But after conception, it's too late! Women's rights and choices are to not get pregnant. Not to reproduce and then kill their baby!

Section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that a child doesn't become defined as a human until it has fully emerged from the mother's body.

At any stage of pregnancy, a mother can do anything to her child to kill it and that's legal! She can shoot a bullet through her belly hours before she gives birth, and that's legal, because it's not a human yet. However, if she went into labour two weeks early and gave birth, then the baby is a human? I fail to see what is so magical about the moment of birth that makes a baby a human. However, if the baby is wanted by the mother and someone else does something to kill that baby before it is born then he/she can be guilty of murder. So, essentially, an unborn baby has rights, but only if its mother wants it. I don't see the logic there. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean we as Adventists or Christians should embrace it.

And I do agree with you on the issue of IVF embryos being created and then discarded willy-nilly. That is a problem!




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Regardless of what one thinks about abortion, there will always be abortions! At no time in the history of this world have there not been.. Recognizing this fact rasies the question: Should they be made illegal, what should the penalty be? Or, if not illegal, what should be the alternataives?

Who is in a better position to make such choice? The government? The potential mother? The doctor? If someone is willing to turn over their most intimate choices to others, do they get to choose? There is no state restrictions on who one chooses to marry, as ther has been in the past; and there is no requirement for marriage before sexual intercourse. How would that work?

As long as humans are free to copulate without government interference here in the U.S., why should the federal or state government be involved in medical decisions between the patient and the physician? Regardless of what one may wish to believe, without first reproduction, there would be no abortions, so as long as there is no government control of reproduction there should be none on abortions. One's moral responsibilities should never be granted to a state. And a child is not considered a legal person until viability apart from the mother, and she alone has its future in her hands. If anyone is adamantly opposed to abortion, don't have one. Just as one who may be against same-sex marriage, dont have one; but don't try to be another's conscience on these most personal decisions. Having known a number of girls who have had abortions, in every case it was the wisest decision for all concerned. No baby should be a punishment for an immature action. Babies should be loved, wanted and cared for and at any time they are not welcomed, they may end up on the police record as another of the many abused, tortured, and killed children. Women should have the right to control their bodies and never turn it over to anyone else.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

If you cannot understand why someone can kill a pregnant mother and be accused of murder but a mother who elects to have an abortion canmot? Simple: only the mother has such choices and no one else. "

The law in Canada is correct: only viability apart from the mother makes a baby a "person." To be declared a person it would allow a fetus to have all the privileges of a human to vote, own property, get a loan, buy a house, and all the other privileges granted a "person." "Personhood" carries many responsibilities that a fetus cannot be given. In many states (California), only at viability can a person be charged with harming that fetus; prior to that, in the first and second trimester, it cannot live apart from the mother, so they are "one" until its birth.

Just imagine the legal problems with a fetus having the rights of individuals and realize how complex it would be. Roe v. Wade became law in 1973 and until it is abrogated, it will be the law of the land, and only applies to those who wish to take advantage of it. No others should be concerned--it is none of their business what people do in their most private lives.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Trish S says:

I did not say anything about anyone killing a pregnant mother. Of course that would be murder. What I said is if someone killed her wanted unborn child (like by punching her in the stomach or something like that), then that is murder, but if she herself killed her unborn child then it is not. I don't see the difference. Everything functions in a baby hours before labour. Everything about it is no different and it no longer needs its mother to live, it just needs the opportunity to get out. How does being out or in make such a difference?

I'm sorry, but declaring a fetus a human would not give it any right to vote. Now you're being ridiculous. A newborn baby is a human (by your definition, is it not?), a ten-year-old is a human, etc., but (here in Canada anyway) they must be 18 before having the right to vote. Here in Canada, one also has to be 18 to get a loan, and probably all of the other things you mentioned. So are you now saying we aren't human beings till we're 18? Come on now.

It would be rather complex if people were attempting to find out how fetuses were wanting to vote on political issues. Such is true for any born child who has not yet learned to speak, or any child who is too young to comprehend political issues. Hence the reason the government has arbitrarily set the age at 18. Someone has decided that is the age one must reach before they are mature enough to make such decisions.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Trish S says:

There is a great book that anyone who is considering an abortion or who thinks someone else should have an abortion should read. It is called the "Atonement Child", written by Francine Rivers. It is a fiction novel, but Francine Rivers has an uncanny way of capturing authentic genuine human emotions in her writing.

Also, having an abortion does increase a woman's chance of breast cancer significantly. Here are a few links that support the abortion/breast cancer connection:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/175394.php

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm

http://www.lifenews.com/2007/06/14/nat-3190/

http://www.dianedew.com/aborcanc.htm

And yes, I did find some that deny the connection as well. No one has to tell me about them, I saw them too. There are two things you should think about: Cancer is big business and there are a lot of people who don't want a world without cancer. Abortion is also big business and there are a lot of people who don't want people thinking they should think twice about it. There are also a lot of people who want the population of the Earth to shrink, not grow. So these people don't want other people to quit dying from disease, and want as many pregnancies to be terminated as possible.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Tom says:

Elaine

You seem to be to be saying that a woman's right to choose is absolute, bar none. Does that mean that you think that a late term abortion, when indeed the life of an unborn child is viable outside the womb if allowed to be born, should simply be a matter of choice of the woman and that no restrictions should apply? Roe v. Wade never sanctioned late term abortions, but the prochoice crowd have taken it to that length.

I agree with Melissa on the notion of reproductive rights and the way that terminology has been used for all kinds of excuses to support abortion on demand.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

"Everything functions in a baby hours before labour. Everything about it is no different and it no longer needs its mother."

Which is exactly what was my contention: only at the stage of viability--after approx. 36 weeks, is a baby able to live outside the womb; prior to that, it is very "iffy" and any time during the first trimester, when most abortions ar done, there is zero chance of viability!

The abortion-breast cancer scare has been around before and been roundly condemned by the medical community. There is far more danger from a full-term pregnancy than abortion, so such scare tacticts are not based on the best medical advice. A woman who has been pregnant is less apt to get breast ca than s non-parous woman.

What is not considered is that in many countries, women have a much higher risk with repeated pregnancies and birth control information has been denied funding with several administrations only because Planned Parenhood does do a small number of abortions while a much larger activity is in breast screening, Pap smears, and birth control advice.

The real problem today is that too many teen mothers are NOT having abortions, but raising their babies, not finishing their education, and the government must see that these children have sufficient food and the necessities of life. Many say "Who needs a husband"! Compute that for at least 18 years with the cost of abortion. Remember, it's the taxpayers who pay for this welfare, but not usually for the abortions!.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

There are very few states, and very few physcians who do late-term abortions. Rarely, are they necessary except for the life of either the mother or baby.

Regardless of the stage of pregnancy, the government should not make criminal,by law, any abortions, any more than they regulate sterilization of either sex or the dispensing of Viagra (which, BTW, some insurance pays for while it does not cover abortions or birth control pills!)  These are well-known facts an have been in effect since Roe v. Wade.

What is difficult to understand is that few, if any, will object, or even notice when people they do not know change their religious beliefs, or their lifestyle, yet are very concerned about their private choices which cannot effect them. Why? How does it affect anyone else if someone you do not know has an abortion? Why do you need to know? These are very private matters between the woman, her partner, and her physician. It is against the law for anyone not related to a patient to have any information on other patients. A physician or nurse can be prosecuted for disclosing such information, so why in God's name do other people wish to know? And if they don't know, why do they want to make it ther business? What "standing" in a court is possible? None.



Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Tom says:

Elaine

I get the drift from your last post that a woman's right to choose is absolute no matter what. So you are one who has taken Roe v. Wade to the extreme length as I stated. In essence you are for abortion of demand with no restrictions by the state whatsoever at any stage of pregnancy. Have I stated that correctly?




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Yes, what you call "on demand" should not be regulated by the state. The fallacy is that many women are simply waiting until the last trimester to have an abortion. If this were fact, show the records. Otherwise, the very small number, less than 1% if I remember correctly, of"late-term" abortions are done because the prospective mother has a life-threatening condition (as in the recent Catholic hospital in Pheonix) or the baby is doomed to a very short life, if any because of inoperable conditions, anencephaly being one, and malformation another. These are not "minor" conditions, but threatening either the mother or baby or both.

If you were the prospective father faced with such a dilemma, what choice would you make? Women often must travel long distances with a serious medical condition to find a physician who does late-term abortions; these doctors are very few.

Since men don't experience pregnancy, unless you have a problem such as mentioned, you have the decision, what would you do? To assume that women are choosing late-term abortions thoughtlessly, how about the 9-yr. old who recently gave birth to a baby impregnated by her father! Very often such young girls are victims of incest an unaware of their condition. The real world is not so simple and easy. My late husband, a medical examiner for two counties, did many autopsies on young girls terribly abused by a "relative." Then there's the Dugard case where her abductor raped her and impregnated her with two children. Had she been able, should a abortion be denied her?

All of these laws stem from the still-relevant idea that women are too immature and should not be able to choose such procedures without the help of the government. This goes back to almost the beginning of history--men make the rules for women.




Re: Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals
On April 2nd, 2011 Tom says:

Elaine

I was not infering that women who have late term abortions are simply waiting for the third trimester to have an abortion. Yes, I will agree that late term abortion are a very small percentage of abortions. But that does not negate that some are still performed where the mother's life is not in imminent danger if an abortion is not performed. With you it all boils down to choice, choice, choice, choice...no restrictions period. When a bill to ban late term abortions passed Congress, opponents wanted more than an inclusion of exception for when the life of the mother was in jeopardy. Certainly if the life of the mother is in jeopardy I can see abortion as a viable choice. But the pro-choice crowd want it watered down to include "emotional health" of the pregnant woman, which is a huge loophole that puts it right back into the realm of abortion on demand.

Your claiming that opponents of abortion think that women aren't mature enough to make such decisions is an outdated red herring not worth a civil response. Come on now, you can do better than that. As a Californian how did you vote on an initiative put before the voters, more than once now, that would require parental notification and approval for an abortion to be performed on a minor? A minor can't even get a drivers license, go on a field trip at school, or be given an asparin by a school nurse without parental consent, but they can damn well go have an abortion and the parents be completely out of the know.

My entire point in this argument has been the length to which the prochoice crowd has taken the abortion issue, and that some state restrictions are indeed necessary. In refusing to concede even on that point, you are grabbing at straws to make your case. Perhaps you and I should move on to another topic, because on this one there appears to be no meeting of the minds, and I don't think the fact that I am a man has anything to do with it. I still consider you a friend in the AT world. I even gave you a verbal bouquet on another AT blog.






Mark Kellner
2011-05-25 4:33 PM

Partly in response to this blog post, my newest editorial for Adventist Review touches on one of the points raised by a young person Ms. Howell quotes: Are Christian beliefs something to keep "private," or do believers have an obligation to tell others about the hope Christian faith gives? http://bit.ly/izxnrO

Responses welcome!

Elaine Nelson
2011-05-25 6:14 PM

Why are men the loudest and most ubiguitous voices speaking out on abortion? No man can possibly understand, and so he should remain silent on subjects of which he is totally inexperienced; which has never stopped a man intent on speaking out. Amazingly, women who have had an abortion, tend to keep it very private.
Men, on the other hand, call more loudly on the "sin," one for which they can never be accused! But it still takes "two to tango," and for every woman who has had an abortion, there was a man who impregnated her; yet it is his sex who is the condemner!

Yvonne Stratton
2011-05-27 7:59 PM

If a man does not believe in abortion, he should, prior to sexual relations, have the discussion with the woman as to potential outcomes of the act. If he is against abortion, and she is for it, he should either 1. not continue the relationship with her or 2. take it upon himself to make sure there is no pregnancy (good luck with that - no Birth control method is 100%). If he does not speak his mind prior to sexual relations, he has no right to open his mouth about it later.

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-03 9:57 AM

“To have an abortion performed in our hospitals, I believe it needs to be a very specific case. If the mother will die, if the woman was raped and is not mature enough physically or emotionally to handle the child, or if she is unstable to the point where she could not handle the pregnancy, then it's ok. I don't believe God would want someone to lose their mind over a pregnancy they had no control over. However, if you were just simply irresponsible, it's time to take some accountability - you deserve your fate and should have to keep the child." – Megan”
 

*********

Megan,
 

I say “Yes” if the mother will die. Saving one life from a sure death instead of loosing two lives is still pro-life. Our duty is to save as many lives as possible. But rape? I say “No Way!” Our modern society lets the rapist live, but condemns the innocent unborn baby to death by dismemberment or poison. This is a miscarriage of justice and moral lunacy. The same applies to cases where the female feels inadequate to carry a baby to term. Nine months of inconvenience will never balance the result of rape, which deprives a baby of life on a permanent basis. The pregnant woman can eventually recover from the pregnancy ordeal with God’s grace, but for the unborn baby the results are irreversible.


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-03 11:57 AM

Nic, I'm assuming that you have daughters?  Nieces?  Granddaughters?  Would you condemn them to carrying a rapist's baby? 

 

Every week in the area where I live there are newborns, usually dead, found in trash cans, and worse.  It would have been much better to abort a zygote than a living, BREATHING human being.  Recall that when God gave Adam life he "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."  There is no life when a baby cannot possibly breathe.

Shouldn't we  fight more to prevent adults from dying in war?  Where is the similar outrage?


Joe Erwin
2011-12-03 12:52 PM

I have heard a view expressed regarding abortion that it offers an easy resolution to a problem based on misbehavior--and to that extent, it removes a natural consequence of sin. This view, in my opinion, is a prevailing view among people who are absolutists regarding the "pro-life" position. So, it is less that they are "pro-life" than it is that they disapprove of people copulating outside of marriage. Many of those who claim a "pro-life" position on abortion are all for the death penalty and for killing anyone around the world who disagrees with them (the killing of non-Christians is considered just fine, even as collateral damage).

I do not like abortion. I do not think it should be done casually, or as an alternative to effective birth control methods. I advocate personal responsibility. Even so, there are circumstances where ending a pregnancy may be the best of undesireable alternatives. That decision should be a very private one, made on a case-by-case basis, between a woman and her physician--not between a frightened woman and a back-alley abortionist. Men and women should always be prepared to share the consequences of copulation, but that is another issue. I would like to see people be honest and truthful in stating their reasons for being "pro-life"/anti-abortion. Remember, favoring the privacy of a difficult choice is not "anti-life" or even "pro-sin" (as it is too often portrayed). 

Elaine Nelson
2011-12-03 6:15 PM

Joe,

When we begin to feel that we have a right to make very personal choices for someone else, especially those that are based on one's own conscience which I believe is sacred,
we are entering in to a sacred place where we should not go.  The pregnant woman, in consultation with those she must trusts and her physician should guide her, but it must always be hers and hers alone as she is the one who must live with the consequences, whatever they may be.

I personally know three young girls who aborted.  It was traumatic for everyone who was involved.  But in each of those cases, more than 30 years ago, I firmly believe they made the best choice.  Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.  Never should another human attempt to be conscience for anyone else.

Trevor Hammond
2011-12-05 12:33 AM

Isaiah 44:24 – God’s incredible creative attributes takes care of the minutest details as seen in this verse which declares that He 'formed thee from the womb'.   Within a few months of gestation the living human 'zygote', which grows rather quickly into a real cutie, is ready to be born. Every human that is born starts out this way. All life is precious and belongs to God. ‘The Lord gives and the Lord takes’ should be a motto to consider in such matters, from a Christian perspective, when decisions are been made regarding the issue of ‘induced/surgical abortion’ Job 1:21. We are not a product of non-living matter or conceived/born of non-living things. Life is a present participant right from our conception until we die. The breathing apparatus is not all that is needed for life to exist: God must give life and it is He who sustains it.  Yes, the unborn does not 'breathe' as per lung function but the oxygen needed for the unborn child to survive and the various nutrients are readily provided by mom. Intelligent design at its best. Wow!


Trevor Hammond
2011-12-05 12:48 AM

Ps 139:13 – Reminds us that God has 'formed my inmost being' and that He ‘knit me together in my mother's womb'.  Question is does (civilized?) society have the right to 'cull' human life as a means of family planning or based on free for all human rights using this act of violence against a human child during gestation. Yeah, yeah sure - Pro Life, Pro Choice, Whatever! But what about Pro Voice for humankind.  What makes it morally right to advocate and advance such?  Isn’t termination of a pregnancy the termination of the life of the unborn. How can this ‘culling’ be compared to the execution of adults who commit capital offenses?  Or killing during war or killing ants or rodents for that matter?  Should rape then also not be included as a capital offense?  Society as a whole should have a say in such decision making, not some bureaucrats in Washington who take the votes of the masses and use it as proxy to do whatever, however.  Let’s face it, we live in a society that is sexually immoral and this immorality is supported by the govshop which sells out to the highest bidder or the ones who make the most noise or threats.  Sexual immorality is a spiritual problem and no ‘system’ on the planet can readily deal with it.  Only Christ offers the remedy for sin.  His love, forgiveness and healing is provided for all who believe and accept Him into their lives.  I will wholeheartedly say here too without a shadow of doubt that God WILL forgive those who carry the guilt or shame of aborting their offspring. 

(I have noted that medical practitioners too are divided on this issue - even my younger brother,  "howzit bro" if you read this - who practices as an MD somewhere in America, suprised me with his strong anti-abortion position even as a student in med school, as I would have expected all medical professionals to be pro-abortion but thank God, that isn't the case).

Sex is relational (and to some just recreational), but procreation is hard wired into it.  Induced abortion in the family planning context seeks to engage the sex and abort what very possibly may come next – a baby on board?  The question is: is it morally right for Christians to condone and support iiresponsible sexual behaviour and such means of culling?  I’m thinking maybe not…?

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-08 9:33 AM

 

Elaine Nelson said:

 

Your comments are within quotations marks.

 

“ReplyApproveDeleteNic, I'm assuming that you have daughters? Nieces? Granddaughters? Would you condemn them to carrying a rapist's baby?”

 

I have no power to force any female to carry her baby to term. Society has relegated such powers to the state. Right now, in California, it is a crime to perform an abortion past the point of viability unless the life of the pregnant woman is at serious risk. You may know who Dr. Sean Pitman is. He told me that not long ago, one of his patients requested such an abortion and when he discovered that the woman was determined to have her unborn baby killed, he reported this to the police and the woman was incarcerated until the baby was born.  
 

“Every week in the area where I live there are newborns, usually dead, found in trash cans, and worse. It would have been much better to abort a zygote than a living, BREATHING human being.”
 

The fact that killing a newborn is worse than aborting a zygote does not prove that the latter act is morally acceptable. Stealing a million dollars from a bank is worse than robbing a purse containing a 20 dollar bill, but this does not mean that the latter action is morally justifiable.
 

“Recall that when God gave Adam life he "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." There is no life when a baby cannot possibly breathe.”
 

If there is no life in an unborn baby, then why do we need to kill it to terminate a pregnancy? Likewise, why was Scott Peterson declared guilty of a double homicide for the death of his pregnant wife Lucy?

“Shouldn't we fight more to prevent adults from dying in war? Where is the similar outrage?”
 

We need to condemn all criminal acts and all violation of the right to life of human beings.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-08 10:06 AM

 

Joe Erwin Said:

 

Your comments are within quotation marks.
 

“Even so, there are circumstances where ending a pregnancy may be the best of undesirable alternatives.”

 

Is depriving an unborn baby of life the best alternative for the baby? Our actions must be decided on the basis of what is the best alternative for all, including the unborn. Adoption is a better alternative for the unborn. It is wrong for society to focus on the rights of the pregnant woman with a total disregard of the right to life of the baby. Carrying a baby for nine months is an inconvenience, but the results of abortion are more lasting. A pregnant woman can recover from an unwanted abortion; the aborted baby has no similar chance. Adoption is a redemptive act; abortion is not!

 

 “That decision should be a very private one, made on a case-by-case basis, between a woman and her physician--not between a frightened woman and a back-alley abortionist.”

 

Would you apply a similar logic to other crimes like stealing, rape, and the sexual abuse of children? If someone’s moral weakness if raping women, would you suggest that such acts should be decided on a case by case basis. Would you morally justify rape under certain circumstances? And bear in mind that a woman who has been raped can recover from the terrible ordeal with God’s grace. This the aborted baby cannot do!

 

“I would like to see people be honest and truthful in stating their reasons for being "pro-life"/anti-abortion.”

 

Would you also argue that those individuals who are against rape, stealing and sexual abuse of children lack honesty?

 

“Remember, favoring the privacy of a difficult choice is not "anti-life" or even "pro-sin" (as it is too often portrayed).”

 

All criminal acts should be condemned regardless of whether they are done in public or in a private setting.  The sexual abuse of children are criminal regardless of whether they were done in public or in a private situation. And do not forget that killing a human being is a more serious crime than sexual abuse.


Joe Erwin
2011-12-08 10:16 AM

Let's be clear. Sperm and egg are living cells--living cells with the potential to unite, divide, proliferate, develop into an embryo, be born into nuturing or neglectful or loving or abusive circumstances. The potential of each life is, at every stage, extraordinary. Each life is precious and valuable. Ending any life must not be taken lightly.

We do not worry much about the end of life for sperm, egg, and other cells unless they unite. When people do not wish to make new people, of course, they need to ensure that the sperm and egg do not get to each other. They need to exercise control over their reproductive potential and be personally responsible.

When they have no control, as in nonconsensual sexual relations (such as rape or incest), they should not be condemned to carry the product of their violation (the conceptus, zygote, fetus) to term, and the sooner the process of development is arrested, the better. Late-term abortion should not be an option that is easily taken, when very early termination methods are available. The decision must not be delayed.

Should "abortion on demand" be an available option? Probably, but only in the sense that it should be available when there is a serious health problem for mother and/or child. Late abortions should be discouraged. It is really essential that young people learn "the facts of life" very early, so they can understand how their bodies work and what can be the consequences of their actions.

I continue to believe that many of those who are most stridently opposed to abortion (including the "morning after" pill), are much less concerned about the lives of the unborn than they are about prohibiting what they regard as incentives for "sinful" copulation. To them, it is very important that people not be able to suffer the consequences of "fleshly pleasures."

I have had discussions on this issue with my siblings, both of whom are very honest and sensitive people, but they are on opposite sides of this debate. One says there should be no unwanted children and women who have lives should not have their lives derailed by being forced to bear and/or rear unwanted children. The other says people should not copulate unless they are prepared to procreate, and society should not offer easy ways of avoiding the consequences of their misbehavior.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-08 10:35 AM




Elaine Nelson said:

“When we begin to feel that we have a right to make very personal choices for someone else, especially those that are based on one's own conscience which I believe is sacred,
we are entering in to a sacred place where we should not go.”

 

An individual conscience is sacred, no doubt, but so is human life. Scott Peterson thought that killing his pregnant wife was not a big deal. He killed her in the privacy of his home, but society decided that he was guilty of a double homicide.   

 

“The pregnant woman, in consultation with those she must trusts and her physician should guide her, but it must always be hers and hers alone as she is the one who must live with the consequences, whatever they may be.”

 

I hope you’ll agree with me that human life is more sacred than private property. If I steal a car from a neighbor, would you justify my action if I can provide evidence that I did this in consultation with others? Suppose I do not feel guilty and rationalize such act by arguing that my neighbor had three cars and I had none and I needed transportation to search for employment? Are criminal acts justifiable when done under duress, like no food for the family or homelessness? How come society is so strict when we deal with the loss of property, but so lenient with the loss of life?

“I personally know three young girls who aborted. It was traumatic for everyone who was involved. But in each of those cases, more than 30 years ago, I firmly believe they made the best choice.”

 

Are you sure God agrees with your judgment? Would you admit that there was a better option for said girls—adoption?  

 

“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Never should another human attempt to be conscience for anyone else.”

 

Would you use the same logic in justifying larceny, burglary, rape and the sexual abuse of children? And bear in mind that these criminal acts do not compare with the deprivation of the most basic human rights—the right to life!


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-08 11:03 AM

Nic,

Since I know these three girls very personally, I am convinced that they made the better of two choices, neither of which was good.  Life often doesn't give us either very bad or very good choices, but often which is the better or worse.  This is where individuals should use their personal choice and no one else should dare to make that choice for her.  Yes, I very definitly believe that abortion was better than adoption. Would you presume to choose someone else's marriage choice?  Would you presume to choose another's vocation?  Why choose the most intimate decision for anyone?

Nor do I equate abortion with larceny, burglarly or sex abuse of children which are criminal offenses and some of these abortions were the result of sexual abuses of children, and punishing the victim is unconscionable.  As a male (?) to be so adamant about a problem you will never experience is a little ludicrous, and personally, I would never listen to any man who pontificates on pregnancy, menarche, menopause or such.  This is far out of your expertise and should be ignored.

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-09 10:26 AM

Elaine Nelson

 

Your comments are within quotation marks.

ReplyApproveDelete
“Since I know these three girls very personally, I am convinced that they made the better of two choices, neither of which was good.”

 

Killing an innocent human being cannot be adequately described as a good choice. Murder is strictly forbidden by one of God’s Commandments and it was written by God himself in stone. Should we dare to redefine what the Lord has explicitly forbidden? Isn’t this what Rome did to the Fourth Commandment? Sooner or later these girls will realize that they have sinned against heaven.

 

God is willing to forgive even murder, but they need to repent. If you tell them that they have made the right choice, they will not feel the need to repent and seek forgiveness! Selfishness is what leads girls to seek an abortion. They choose their lifestyle over the life of the unborn. Had Jesus made such a choice, there would be neither hope nor salvation for us. He placed our welfare over his lifestyle. Nine months of inconvenience can never justify the permanent deprivation of life for the unborn!

 

“Yes, I very definitely believe that abortion was better than adoption.”

 

Your belief is in opposition to God’s command. You can never be right if your opinion contradicts what the Lord has written in black and white with his own finger.

 

“Would you presume to choose someone else's marriage choice? Would you presume to choose another's vocation? Why choose the most intimate decision for anyone?”

 

I have neither power nor authority to make a choice for someone else, but the government can require that people reap the consequences of their wrong choices. Scott Peterson made the wrong choice, and he was declared guilty of a double murder. Can you explain this on the basis of your liberal moral philosophy? If you are right, he should have been guilty of the murder of his wife, but not guilty of the unborn baby she was carrying! The duty of the government is to protect every human being’s right to life. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. Neither personal property nor lifestyle can compare with the right to life.


“Nor do I equate abortion with larceny, burglarly or sex abuse of children which are criminal offenses and some of these abortions were the result of sexual abuses of children, and punishing the victim is unconscionable.”

 

Society did criminalize abortion for two millennia. The decriminalization of abortion was the result of the sexual revolution. Do not forget that adultery and fornication was also forbidden by a wise Creator. The decriminalization of adultery led to the decriminalization of abortion. These sins go together. The violation of the Seventh Commandment leads to the violation of the Sixth One. This is crystal clear if you take the time to look at this from God’s perspective. There was a time when adultery was forbidden in the U.S. Adultery and fornication tends to destroy the family and it leads to the disregard of God’s Law.

 

“As a male (?) to be so adamant about a problem you will never experience is a little ludicrous, and personally, I would never listen to any man who pontificates on pregnancy, menarche, menopause or such. This is far out of your expertise and should be ignored.”

 

You are forgetting that Nine Male Justices of the Court did rule about the legalization of abortion. If Males made a wrong rule, other men have the same right to undo what they have established. I don’t need to have experienced what it feels to murder in order to realize that murder is wrong.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-09 10:34 AM

 

A.T. wrote:
 

"I have many friends who have had abortions, and I know firsthand what they went through because I was there by their side the whole time. But I also know their scenarios called for it. The pregnancies would have ruined their lives and their babies' lives for good. Teenage moms have grim prospects for the future. They are likely to leave school, receive inadequate prenatal care, rely on public assistance, develop health problems, or end up divorced." - A.T.
 

*********

Their pregnancies would not have ruined their lives if they had chosen to give their babies for adoption. They would have simply suffered nine months of inconvenience. By choosing the abortion alternative, they permanently ruined the lives of their unborn babies. The choice is very simple, the inconvenience of a temporary pregnancy versus the permanent deprivation of life of another human being!


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-09 10:43 AM

H.S. wrote:
 

"We need to remember that GOD IS LOVE. Simple. We can't determine what others do or how they will be judged, all we know is GOD IS LOVE. Jesus didn't hang out with people who judged others, he preached against it." - H.S.
 

*********

Yes, God is love. But he loves both the pregnant female and also the unborn baby. The Bible teaches that those who God loves he also disciplines. Whenever we accept God’s punishment and repent of our sins, he lovingly forgives us; nevertheless, if we do not confess our sins, there is only hopelessness. The Lord is not planning to take unrepentant sinners to heaven. They would ruin the harmony of heaven for everybody again. This will not be. Sin and rebellion against God’s commands will not be permitted a second time.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-09 10:51 AM

Dawn wrote:
 

"The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step on a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or to undergo sterilization? " – Dawn
 

*********

The government has the duty to protect the life and property of every human being under its jurisdiction. The right to life is the most valued asset of human beings. The government can and has forced some women to continue their pregnancy. I have the testimony of Dr. Sean Pitman. He had a patient who was determined to have an abortion past the point of viability, and he reported this to the authorities, and the woman was incarcerated until the baby was born.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-09 10:56 AM

N.C. wrote:

"We shouldn't make people feel bad for making a choice that we disagree with. Adventists don't have the right to judge people on the choices they make, only God does. " - N.C.
 

*********

Neither Adventists nor members of any other religion have said authority. Nevertheless, the government does have such authority and said duty. Its duty is to protect the life and property of every human being under its jurisdiction. Read my previous posting!


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-09 12:08 PM

To date, the government has declined to enact a law prohibiting abortion.  Until such time, we should be thankful that the government has elected to stay out of our most personal lives and doctor-patient confidentiality is still held as sacred as the confessional. 

Dr. Pitman greatly overstepped his boundaries.  Not being privy to the situation, to enforce incarceration for wanting a surgical procedure should be reason for a great lawsuit.  There is much more to the story if you are willing to share; otherwise, Dr. Pitman could risk losing his license to practice.  No physician is a law enforcement officer.  Is your claim that a pregnant woman was imprisoned simply to continue a pregnancy?  What law and what state?  Hearsay?

Joe Erwin
2011-12-09 12:34 PM

All this rant from Nic is a thinly disguised effort to try to keep other folks from "sinning."

The Supreme Court did not make a decision to promote abortion. Its decision was to
recognize and respect a woman's privacy and her right to make a very private and
difficult decision with her physician.

The government has no business in our private affairs, and it is also no business of
busybodies to dictate our private decisions. When someone bullies or forces someone
else to do something against their will, the government should have a protective role.
Among consenting adults? It is no one else's business.

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-11 10:14 AM

Joe Erwin,

 

Your comments ar within quotation marks.
 

 

 “All this rant from Nic is a thinly disguised effort to try to keep other folks from "sinning."”

 

Thanks for placing me among all the prophets we find in the Bible whose aim was helping people stay away from sinning. Isn’t this the role of the Remnant church? If you were to encounter a woman threatening to take the life of her baby, wouldn’t you attempt to dissuade her from committing murder? Would you call the police?

“The Supreme Court did not make a decision to promote abortion. Its decision was to
recognize and respect a woman's privacy and her right to make a very private and
difficult decision with her physician. The government has no business in our private affairs, and it is also no business of busy bodies to dictate our private decisions.”

 

Taking the life of another human being is not a moral right! Murder is murder whether committed in public or in the privacy of your home. If I am wrong, tell me why Scott Peterson was declared guilty of a double murder when he killed his pregnant wife? Scott’s decision was a private one, but he is still in jail for taking the life of his unborn baby.

“When someone bullies or forces someone else to do something against their will, the government should have a protective role. Among consenting adults? It is no one else's business.”

 

Yes! And the duty of the government is to protect the life of every human being under its jurisdiction. Every human being has a right to life. There was a time when blacks had no rights whatsoever, not even right to life. They were considered to be the property of their slave-owners. The 14th Amendment was designed to do away with this legal anomaly. Now the Devil, who has been “a murderer from the beginning” deceived the Supreme Court to deprive another group of humans from their right to life: the unborn, and you seem to be happy with this arrangement.


Trevor Hammond
2011-12-09 6:01 PM

Mr. Nic Samojluk has been very convincing in his arguments in favour of Pro-Life.  Accusing him of 'rant' is a cheap swipe to discredit what he has been saying here and is without substance coming from typical humanists.

RE: "The government has no business in our private affairs"
haha This is a joke... right?

Elaine Nelson
2011-12-09 6:59 PM

Trevor, I am proud to state I am a humanist!  This is the meaning of the Golden Rule and The life and respect due to all humans, as given in our wonderful Declaration of Independence, maintains that there is no higher duty than extending to each human the right of his own conscience, insofar as it is at all possible.  Extending the long arm of the government into your bedroom is not what you are suggesting, is it?  Are  you suggesting that if a woman takes a physician prescribed pill preventing conception that the government should step in to prevent it?

Joe Erwin
2011-12-09 9:04 PM

Elaine and I agree on many things. One of them is the importance of treating others as one would wish to be treated. I understand that "humanist" is intended by Trevor as a pejorative term, and that Elaine proudly applies the label to herself. What one considers awful, the other is proud to be.

But I do not accept the label for myself. To me it conveys more human orientation than I have. As much as I wish to promote the careful consideration of humanity, my reference group is larger than that. I am an animal, a mammal, and a primate, as well as a human being. The diversity and remarkable accomplishments of humans are fascinating, but I have been so deeply involved in zoology, mammalogy, and primatology for so long, that I find the label "humanist" rather limiting.

Likewise, I do not claim to be a "Darwinist." While I give credit to Darwin and Wallace for important advances in thinking about biological change, speciation, and biogeography, population genetics and molecular genetics and comparative genomics are so much more than mere labels convey.

Those already convinced will likely remain convinced. But, to me, due consideration indicates that prevention of unwanted pregnancy is a responsible course of action. And prevention of implantation is also a reasonable and morally responsible action. Further, a few cells clumped together with the potential of becoming a human is not identical to an adult or child or full-term fetus. A blastula is not a person. Disposing of a blastula is not murder.

But, there is no end to this argument, because no one is going to change his/her mind. It seems clear, however, that a fundamental basis for the position taken by some here is that methods of preventing or safely ending unwanted pregnancies is just an excuse for immoral sexual behavior--which is anything other that sex between married partners for procreation. And, from my perspective, that belief is fundamentally wrong. Still, you are entitled to that opinion, as much as I am to mine. As much, but not more. But please do not misrepresent my position as pro-murder. It is not even pro-abortion. It is pro-privacy.

Yes, of course, "private affairs" was a joke. I'm pleased that you got it!

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-11 10:41 AM

Joe Erwin,

 

I have a question for you: At what point in the development of human life would it be a moral crime to take the life of an unborn? Is it fertilization? Implantation? Conception? Viability? Birth? Or some other point? The government needs to know! Our church says that human life is sacred and that it should be protected, yet it also claims that we don’t really know when human life begins. How can society protect human life if we don’t know when it begins? Would it make sense for the president of our country to order our border patrol agents to protect our borders, but then admit that we don’t know where our borders lie?


Trevor Hammond
2011-12-09 11:33 PM

This takes 'the killing fields' to the next level:
  • In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI). (The Guttmacher Institute (AGI)) [emboldened emphasis mine].

Elaine Nelson
2011-12-10 12:19 AM

Now compute how many people have been killed in wars throughout the world since 1973 for the true horror of human lives being taken.  Who is there to compare a son or father killed in war to a zygote?  I don't want to live in a world where they are considered equal.

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-11 10:45 AM

Elaine Nelson,

 

Stealing a billion dollars is morally wrong. Does this mean that stealing only 100 dollars is right?

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-11 9:53 AM

Elaine Nelson,

 

Your comments are within quotation marks.
 

ReplyApproveDelete

“To date, the government has declined to enact a law prohibiting abortion.”

 

What is legal today is meaningless when compared with two thousand years when abortion was illegal. It was the sexual revolution of the sixties which led the way for the legalization of abortion. What was considered to be murder before was transformed overnight into morally acceptable behavior.

 

“Until such time, we should be thankful that the government has elected to stay out of our most personal lives and doctor-patient confidentiality is still held as sacred as the confessional.”

 

The government is not completely staying out of our personal lives. The evidence is that Scott Peterson was declared guilty of a double murder when he killed his pregnant wife. How can you explain this? Right now this double standard makes no legal sense. If the baby is wanted, taking the life of the unborn is first degree murder, but if the baby is not wanted then no law has been broken. The right to life of the baby has been set aside and replaced with the whim of the mother. Is it safe to rely on the judgment of a mentally depressed woman when deciding whether a human being will or die?


“Dr. Pitman greatly overstepped his boundaries. Not being privy to the situation, to enforce incarceration for wanting a surgical procedure should be reason for a great lawsuit. There is much more to the story if you are willing to share; otherwise, Dr. Pitman could risk losing his license to practice. No physician is a law enforcement officer.”

 

Dr. Pitman did not overstep his legal rights and duties. He did not incarcerate the woman. He simply reported to the governmental authorities that his patient was determined to break the law which prohibits abortion past the point of viability. Reporting that a criminal act is about to take place is not a mistake but rather a duty.

 

“Is your claim that a pregnant woman was imprisoned simply to continue a pregnancy? What law and what state? Hearsay?”

 

What state? California. And if you have any doubt, you can ask Dr. Pitman. He is one of the founders of “Educate Truth.” You surely know him! He has been behind the controversy surrounding the creation-evolution controversy. I did not pull this story out of thin air! I debated Pitman over the abortion issue by email for about two months some yeas ago. I don’t know whether he has changed his mind since then, but he was of the opinion that aborting a baby before the point of viability is morally acceptable.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-11 10:16 AM

Joe Erwin,

 

Your comments ar within quotation marks.

 

 “All this rant from Nic is a thinly disguised effort to try to keep other folks from "sinning."”

 

Thanks for placing me among all the prophets we find in the Bible whose aim was helping people stay away from sinning. Isn’t this the role of the Remnant church? If you were to encounter a woman threatening to take the life of her baby, wouldn’t you attempt to dissuade her from committing murder? Would you call the police?

“The Supreme Court did not make a decision to promote abortion. Its decision was to
recognize and respect a woman's privacy and her right to make a very private and
difficult decision with her physician. The government has no business in our private affairs, and it is also no business of busy bodies to dictate our private decisions.”

 

Taking the life of another human being is not a moral right! Murder is murder whether committed in public or in the privacy of your home. If I am wrong, tell me why Scott Peterson was declared guilty of a double murder when he killed his pregnant wife? Scott’s decision was a private one, but he is still in jail for taking the life of his unborn baby.

“When someone bullies or forces someone else to do something against their will, the government should have a protective role. Among consenting adults? It is no one else's business.”

 

Yes! And the duty of the government is to protect the life of every human being under its jurisdiction. Every human being has a right to life. There was a time when blacks had no rights whatsoever, not even right to life. They were considered to be the property of their slave-owners. The 14th Amendment was designed to do away with this legal anomaly. Now the Devil, who has been “a murderer from the beginning” deceived the Supreme Court to deprive another group of humans from their right to life: the unborn, and you seem to be happy with this arrangement.


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-11 11:36 AM

Dr. Pitman was totally unethical.  The doctor-patient relationship should have been sacrosanct.  There are no conditions under which a doctor should report that a woman wanted an abortion as she had done nothing to be reported, and no crime would have been committed as long as abortion is legal.

Whether the law enforcement sought to prosecute, I would love to know under what law they incarcerated her and what the defense did.  This was a terrible miscarriage of justice.  Please report ALL the facts, not merely hearsay.

Not until the l960s was contraception information legal.  Should a doctor whose patient requested information report her to the police for planning something illegal????    

Scott Peterson is in jail for murdering his wife; the secondary cause was the INTENT to kill the child.  Whether he would have been guilty and sentenced for murder for only killing the unborn child is unknown as that was not the major indictment.  

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-12 9:17 PM

Elaine Nelson

ReplyApproveDelete

“Dr. Pitman was totally unethical. The doctor-patient relationship should have been sacrosanct. There are no conditions under which a doctor should report that a woman wanted an abortion as she had done nothing to be reported, and no crime would have been committed as long as abortion is legal.”

 

In California, as well as in some of the other States, it is a crime to abort a baby past the point of viability. You need to check the facts!

 

Here is an example of illegal abortions in the State of Kansas:

 

“Code Section 65-6701 et seq.
Statutory Definition of Illegal Abortion To perform or induce abortion when fetus is viable, that is, in attending physician's best medical judgement, fetus is capable of sustained survival outside the uterus without extraordinary medical means”

http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/abortion/k

 

You may want to read this story as well:

“Doctor Who Performed Illegal Abortions Indicted for Murder”

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/01/19/draft-doctor-performs-illegal-abortions-indicted-murder



“Whether the law enforcement sought to prosecute, I would love to know under what law they incarcerated her and what the defense did. This was a terrible miscarriage of justice.”

 

Those in charge of the case thought otherwise.

 

 “Please report ALL the facts, not merely hearsay.”

 

You are the one in doubt. I have no need to verify anything. You can write to Dr. Sean Pitman. He is all over the Internet.

“Not until the l960s was contraception information legal. Should a doctor whose patient requested information report her to the police for planning something illegal????”

 

There is no law that I know against contraception.

“Scott Peterson is in jail for murdering his wife; the secondary cause was the INTENT to kill the child. Whether he would have been guilty and sentenced for murder for only killing the unborn child is unknown as that was not the major indictment.”
 

Right now in most states if the woman wants the child, it is illegal to force her to have an abortion; but if she doesn’t want the child, no crime is filed if the unborn baby is killed. This means that the unborn is treated as the property of the pregnant woman. This is similar to what was the situation before the liberation of the slaves. They were treated as property of their slave owners. Giving to a frequently mentally unbalanced and depressed woman the right to make a life and death decision is morally irresponsible and it borders on lunacy.


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-12 9:45 PM

Nic, if what you say is true, Dr. Pitman did not perform an abortion.  If reporting that a women wishes an abortion to be done is now a crime, please furnish a copy of the pertinent law stating that a doctor is required to notify the law enforcement organization that someone merely "wants" an abortion.  When was this law passed?

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-12 11:45 PM

Elaine Nelson wrote:

ReplyApproveDelete

“Nic, if what you say is true, Dr. Pitman did not perform an abortion.”

 

My understanding is that Pitman has performed other abortions, but he refused to comply with this woman’s request because she was asking him to do what was illegal at the time. His statement indicated that she was determined to have an abortion, and he reported this to the police, and she was incarcerated until the birth of the baby. Abortion laws keep changing, and I don’t know if abortion past the point of viability is still illegal in California. Pitman related to me this incident close to a decade ago, if my memory serves me right, and he did not tell me what year this took place, but he is a young doctor and he hasn’t practiced medicine more than perhaps 10-15 years.

 

“If reporting that a woman wishes an abortion to be done is now a crime, please furnish a copy of the pertinent law stating that a doctor is required to notify the law enforcement organization that someone merely "wants" an abortion. When was this law passed?”

 

Since you are the one interested in this, I suggest that you contact him at www.detectingdesign.com

“Otherwise, "wishful thinking" is not a law.”

 

There is one thing I am as sure as I am writing this. What I related to you is what he wrote to me by email many years ago when we were debating about abortion. I have known him for many years, and I have never heard him fabricate things.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-12 9:48 PM

Timo Onjukka
 

“Perhaps the choice of our corporate church to enter health care as a business (with whatever legal machinations requisite to divorce liability yet claim benefit) was as unwise as our support of our publishing arm … The Mormons sold off their health care business for moral/ethical reasons.”
 

Catholic hospitals do no perform abortions in their hospitals and they are still in business!
 

“For very personal reasons I am not pro-abortion, but I am firm believer God does not judge me on whether I fit the arbitrary "pro-life v pro-choice" litmus test. Shall I then judge another so?”
 

The right to take the life of an innocent human being belongs to God only. This is like the prohibition against the eating of the forbidden tree was for Adam and Eve. They thought they could outsmart Almighty God, and we are suffering the consequences even today, thousands of years after this moral error was made.

There are certain things which the Lord in his wisdom has told us not to do. They include taking other people’s property and life. Would you apply that same non-committal policy to other moral actions? Would you say: “I am neither pro-rape nor against it?” Or “I am neither pro -theft nor against it”?

And remember that the results of rape or larceny can be alleviated with time and the victim can still enjoy life. This the victim of abortion can never do! The action is irreversible and the results fatal. Society considers the theft of an automobile as a serious crime, but the murder of an innocent unborn baby is of no moral import. I have noticed that those who defend abortion have been born already.
 

This attitude are similar to boat passengers who look the other way while a victim who has been thrown overboard is drowning and fighting for his life. And let’s remember that the two most popular methods of killing unborn babies is either dismemberment or poisoning. And, of course, this is done without anesthetics. When a murderer is executed, the procedure is done with anesthesia. We assume that the baby does not feel any pain, but the “Silent Scream” film seems to indicate otherwise.  


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-12 9:56 PM

R.J. wrote:
 

"I personally would never choose abortion, no matter what my circumstance was, but if it's a choice that an individual needs to make, then I say let them make that choice." - R.J.
 

Would you apply the same argument in defense of rape, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children? If “No,” why not? Are the consequences of such actions less serious than the dismemberment of poisoning of an innocent unborn baby?


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-12 10:01 PM

G.P. wrote:

"Abortion is wrong. But I'm glad that our hospitals are saying, "Hey, if you need help, we'll help you." - G.P.
 

Let’s try applying this policy to other moral actions like rape, theft, or the sexual abuse of children. Should the church provide assistance to those planning to commit said criminal acts? Is this the mission of the Remnant Church of God?


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-12 10:53 PM

Nic,

I'm still waiting for the California Law that requires a doctor to report anyone who wishes an abortion, period.  If it's a law, can you please cite it and when it was legislated?

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-13 10:23 AM

 

 

Timo Onjukka wrote:
 

“Nic, I apologize as I seem to have been unclear.

God permitted Cain to kill...

and David. Just to name two.”
 

Yes, God did not intervene to stop Cain from murdering his brother Abel. Does it follow that we are allowed to play God? Suppose someone was on the verge of inflicting a fatal blow to your son or daughter, would you say: “I have no right to stop the murder. I need to act like God who did not intervene to save the life of Abel”?
 

“Closer to home in time and culture, our church in Germany failed many Jews....”
 

If what I think you are suggesting is correct, then was it wrong for the Adventist Church to publicly apologize for compromising with evil while Hitler was killing the Jews by the thousands? If being silent while innocent people are being murdered is acceptable, then why the public apology by the church?
 

“Clearly, God is pro-choice, and put his own son on the firing line.”
 

I believe that there is a difference between what God did and what pregnant women seeking to kill their own babies do. In God’s case, Jesus volunteered for the dangerous and risky earthly mission. If women were to wait for their children to volunteer, there would be neither abortion nor killing.
 

“I remain convinced God will make it up to each innocent victim.”
 

God can do this. We can’t. This is why he did not give us the right to take the life of innocent human beings. It is dangerous to deviate from God’s will. There are serious consequences to disobedience and rebellion.
 

“On another level, I choose to work in ways to love the mothers who feel they have no options, and choose to provide for the unwanted, orphaned, fatherless...”
 

Women faced with an unwanted pregnancy do have a better option than abortion: Adoption. True love is expressed in affection and discipline. The Bible states that those who God loves he disciplines. The Lord allows us to reap the natural consequences of our mistakes. This is God’s method of disciplining us and helping us to avoid future mistakes.
 

“I personally believe God is not impressed in my defining "pro-choice" as a label to allow me to hate someone.”
 

When God says “Thou shalt not …” Is this an expression of hate or of love? Do you see God’s prohibitions as an expression of hate by God? Did the Lord give us the Ten Rules of human behavior because he hates our guts? When the civil authorities place a sign which reads “Wrong Way” is this an expression of hate?
 

“Splashing blood, hurling invective, shoveling shame on the mothers who have unfortunately chosen such action does NOT help the Kingdom.”
 

I agree! This is why I have not used a single picture of aborted babies in my book about abortion. At the same time, failing to warn someone that she or he is about to violate one of God’s rules doe not help God’s kingdom either. God did warn Cain that he was on the verge of committing a great sin. Was this wrong for God to do this? Should God have said to Cain: “I am pro-choice. Whatever you decide I will approve”?
 

 “Furthermore, your explicit inference that I am non-committal is baseless and untrue.”
 

I gave you a chance to explain because you did not make yourself clear. In fact, even now I do not see clearly what your position on abortion is. You still give me the impression that you want to ride the fence.
 

“I pray for each soul who perishes absent Fathers love. And I (try) love each soul who lives. Including abortionists, those who have had them.”
 

God loves sinners, but hates their sinful behavior because of what sin does to people.
 

“Oh, and the haters, too. One group of these is REAL hard to love...”
 

Do you mean those who hate people or those who hate sin?


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-13 10:38 AM


Elaine Nelson wrote:

ReplyApproveDelete

“Nic, I'm still waiting for the California Law that requires a doctor to report anyone who wishes an abortion, period. If it's a law, can you please cite it and when it was legislated?”

 

Wishing to break the law is not the same as giving evidence that a person is determined to commit a crime. Reporting that a murder is about to take place is based on common sense, and I doubt that there is a law requiring that people use common sense, or punishing people for failing to use common sense.

 

Failing to report a crime is a criminal act. But failure to report the desire to commit a crime is not. Dr. Pitman probably reported the case out of moral duty. You can ask him. He is on the Internet.


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-13 1:48 PM

Nic, quit fudging: you have not given the California law requiring a physician to report on a patient wishing an abortion. According to your statement five days ago:

"You may know who Dr. Sean Pitman is. He told me that not long ago, one of his patients requested such an abortion and when he discovered that the woman was determined to have her unborn baby killed, he reported this to the police and the woman was incarcerated until the baby was born."

You have yet to quote the law regarding this. Dr. Pitman is a pathologist, practicing in Redding, CA, and not a OBGYN specialist. He should have been reported to BMQA for violating patient confidentiality, which is what you claim. If you can't get the facts straight and allow your emotions to give such information, your credibility should surely be questioned.

My husband was a practicing physician and pathologist for nearly 50 years, and in all his years of practicing pathology he never was consulted by a patient because of her pregnancy. Either get your facts straight or stop impugning another person's good name. The "somebody told me" has no place in factual statements, especially when inferring such a law in the state of California.
 


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-13 2:01 PM

Nic, quit fudging:  is it or is it not a law in California that anyone WISHING an abortion MUST be reported?
 
You have given Sean's story, and if true, he could be charged with an ethical violation of dislosing patient confidentiality by the BMQA.  He is a pathologist practicing in Redding, CA, and not an OB-GYN. 

Unless you can give the exact California law requiring a physicia to report a patient saying she wants an abortion, your emotions have taken control of facts.

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-13 10:50 AM

James wrote:

" I really do get a bad feeling in my gut when I think about a little life that God put inside of a woman being terminated. I think abortion is immoral...yet still women should get to choose." –James
 

Why do we place so much emphasis on choice when dealing with murder, but apply a totally different attitude toward rape, theft, and the sexual abuse of children? Do we hear people arguing that we are against rape, but that men should have the right to choose to rape, or steal, or sexually abuse children? Why have we made the choice of murdering innocent babies a sacrosanct choice but treat other morally repugnant actions with such severity? Why is killing innocent human beings less repugnant for us than rape of theft?


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-13 10:57 AM

Anna wrote:

"I think abortion is wrong. I would never get an abortion, even in the worst of scenarios. But neither am I angry at or opposed to people who think abortion is okay. I don't have the need to force my beliefs on anyone else. It's not a Christian's job to tell someone else what they need to do. All of us have to follow our own conscience." – Anna
 

Read my response to James! Would you apply the same loving, considerate, and non-committal attitude towards rape, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children. If not, then why not? Is rape a morally more detestable action than the actual deprivation of life? Which action has more serious and irreversible consequencs?


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-14 10:19 AM


Elaine Nelson wrote:

ReplyApproveDelete

Nic, quit fudging: you have not given the California law requiring a physician to report on a patient wishing an abortion.”

 

Elaine,

 

Did I ever state that California Law required physicians to report to the police whenever a woman expresses a wish to have an abortion? Did I claim that there was such a law? I do not think that there is such a law in California. Wishing to have an abortion is not illegal.

Wishing to steal a car is not illegal either. What is actually illegal is to break the law. There is no penalty for wishing to break the law. Please, read what I said, and do not forget that I was talking about abortions past the viability point—that is past the point when the baby can survive outside the uterus. You quoted me as follows:

 

“According to your statement five days ago:

"You may know who Dr. Sean Pitman is. He told me that not long ago, one of his patients requested such an abortion and when he discovered that the woman was determined to have her unborn baby killed, he reported this to the police and the woman was incarcerated until the baby was born."

 

I stand by what I said, and not by what you suggest I stated.  


“You have yet to quote the law regarding this. Dr. Pitman is a pathologist, practicing in Redding, CA, and not a OBGYN specialist.”

 

I have no need to quote to you any law, since I did not claim that there was such a law. This happened many years ago, and laws do change. Perhaps there was a law requiring physicians to report when a crime is about to take place. I don’t know.

 

There is one thing I know for sure is what Pitman wrote to me: that one of his patients was determined to have an abortion past the point of viability and he reported this to the authorities and the woman was incarcerated until the baby was born. I stand by this. Nothing else! Stop demanding what I did not promise to provide!

 

I did not say that he was an OBGYN! Did I? I simply reported what he wrote to me. Since you are so eager to find other details, please take the time to contact him. He is all over the Internet. Do not try to force me to do the investigative work for you. You are old enough and can perform this type of research on your own!

 

“He should have been reported to BMQA for violating patient confidentiality, which is what you claim.”

 

Confidentiality? Since when is the confidentiality of a criminal more sacred than life itself? If you were to discover that a ruffian is definitely planning to rape your granddaughter, would you respect his right to confidentiality, or would you report this to the police? Do we protect the confidentiality of terrorists who are planning do us harm? What kind of morality are you defending?

 

I have known Pitman for many years and I have never seen him making things up. I believe that what he told me is factual. I have no basis for questioning his honesty. If you think that I am making things up, then I am sorry for you. Those who know me would never agree with you on this!

 

 “If you can't get the facts straight and allow your emotions to give such information, your credibility should surely be questioned.”

 

My facts are straight. My credibility is not being questioned by those who know me.


“My husband was a practicing physician and pathologist for nearly 50 years, and in all his years of practicing pathology he never was consulted by a patient because of her pregnancy.”

 

Was Pitman a pathologist the moment he graduated from LLU? Perhaps this experience of his took place when he was doing his residency? I do not know the details. The only thing I know for sure is that I reproduced the best I could what he related to me by email.

 

“Either get your facts straight or stop impugning another person's good name.”

 

I did report the facts the way I received them from him. I am not impugning the good name of Dr. Pitman. You are the one impugning my good name!

 

“The "somebody told me" has no place in factual statements, especially when inferring such a law in the state of California.”

 

You are twisting my words! I did not say that “somebody told me.” I identified the person and I told you that you can contact him and verify my memory of the event.


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-14 1:20 PM

Nic,

Please quote the law requiring a physician to report a patient wishing an abortion.  If this is the California law, when was it made a law?  What is the no. and date of enforcement?

If Dr. Pitman's report caused the woman's incarceration SOLELY to retain her pregnancy that is a violation of both the Fourth and Sixth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  You have asserted a grave abuse of the law and should be called on it.
If you cannot verify your statements, you could be accused of defamation of character, and Dr. Pitman could also be called before BMQA of violating patient-physician confidentiality.  This is a gave miscarriage of justice and such a charge should never be made without absolute valid facts, which you have failed to justify.

Such remarks do great damage to everything you might say unless they are fully supported, and you should be willing to provide them.

Ervin Taylor
2011-12-14 1:57 PM

Nic

May I suggest that you quickly check with Dr. Pitman personally on the factuality of your statement.  This is now beyond the level of simple discourse on a public forum.  Elaine is quite correct.  This is now a matter involving professional conduct which could have potentially serious consequences for Dr. Pitman.  Please do not take it lightly.  As you know, I disagree with Dr. Pitman on almost everything, but I do not wish him professional harm. 

Ervin Taylor
2011-12-14 1:57 PM

Nic

May I suggest that you quickly check with Dr. Pitman personally on the factuality of your statement.  This is now beyond the level of simple discourse on a public forum.  Elaine is quite correct.  This is now a matter involving professional conduct which could have potentially serious consequences for Dr. Pitman.  Please do not take it lightly.  As you know, I disagree with Dr. Pitman on almost everything, but I do not wish him professional harm. 

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-14 9:14 PM

Elaine Nelson wrote:

ReplyApproveDelete

“He is a pathologist practicing in Redding, CA, and not an OB-GYN.”

 

I did not claim that he was an OBGYN. I simply related what he wrote to me many years ago. Here is evidence that he did perform at least one abortion. He might have done this before he became a pathologist. I don’t know. I copied the following verbatim from an Email Dr. Sean Pitman sent to me a long time ago which I posted on my web site:
 

"There is such a case as a totally mindless unborn baby which never develops or can develop a mind. I myself have delivered a baby that had no head at all. It died shortly before delivery."
 

http://letsfocusonlife.com/?p=3155


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-14 9:26 PM

Nic you have yet to explain your statement that Dr. Pitman reported a woman who desired an abortion which caused her to be incarcerated an prevented this.  Do you still stand by that statement that Dr. Pitman informed the legal authorities?

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-14 9:34 PM

Ervin Taylor Wrote”

“Nic

May I suggest that you quickly check with Dr. Pitman personally on the factuality of your statement. This is now beyond the level of simple discourse on a public forum. Elaine is quite correct. This is now a matter involving professional conduct which could have potentially serious consequences for Dr. Pitman. Please do not take it lightly. As you know, I disagree with Dr. Pitman on almost everything, but I do not wish him professional harm.”

 

I do appreciate your concern. I will think about your friendly advice. Nevertheless, the way I understand is this: the only individual that could sue me is Sean Pitman, and he won’t because he knows that I am not making things up. I had his statement verbatim in my computer, but it crashed several years ago.

 

If Elaine doubts my veracity, she can ask Dr. Pitman and verify this herself. She is the one interested in this. I know what he wrote to me, and I never claimed that Pitman was an OBGYN or that there is a California law requiring that physicians report to authorities when a woman wishes to have an abortion. Elaine is distorting what I said and is not even reading my answers to her.

 

Suggesting that our California requires physicians to report to the police whenever a woman wishes an abortion is ridiculous on its face. Wishing to commit a crime is not a criminal act. Wishing to steal a car is not a crime, but being caught in the act of stealing is.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-14 9:51 PM


Elaine Nelson wrote:

“Nic you have yet to explain your statement that Dr. Pitman reported a woman who desired an abortion which caused her to be incarcerated an prevented this. Do you still stand by that statement that Dr. Pitman informed the legal authorities?”

 

The answer is “Yes,” I do stand by what I stated. That is what he wrote to me many years ago. I never asked him for details, and I did assume that this happened in California, but it could have taken place somewhere in the U.S.


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-14 10:01 PM

Such unsupported statements does not aid your credibility and we should take that in consideration in the future.

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-15 10:43 AM

Ervin Taylor

“Nic

 

May I suggest that you quickly check with Dr. Pitman personally on the factuality of your statement.”

 

I don’t believe I need to check with Dr. Pitman regarding the factuality of what I stated since I had it in black and white written by him and sent by Email. This was part of a debate we carried on for about two months about abortion and he knew that what he said would be posted on my now defunct SDA Forum. Com. I have no need to resurrect that debate with him. What he wrote stands; otherwise he would have informed me that he has since altered his position on this issue.

 

“This is now beyond the level of simple discourse on a public forum. Elaine is quite correct. This is now a matter involving professional conduct which could have potentially serious consequences for Dr. Pitman.”

 

I believe that Elaine is misinformed and I will provide some evidence that this is probably the case.

 

“Please do not take it lightly. As you know, I disagree with Dr. Pitman on almost everything, but I do not wish him professional harm.”

 

I do not wish him harm either; nevertheless, I do not believe that his conduct is in danger. This took place many years ago, and the statute of limitations is probably expired. We do not know whether this took place in California or some other state. The laws governing abortion reporting has been fluid and we don’t know what rules were in existence then, but I am confident that he did know them then.

 

Pitman is a very knowledgeable professional and he has demonstrated that he is not careless about the statements he makes about the many issues he has written about. He always documents his opinions and backs them with solid data. I see no reason to worry about Sean Pitman’s professional behavior; much less about what took place decades ago.  
 

I suspect that Elaine is wrong about her knowledge about the confidentiality rules. Said rules are not absolute and they are not as sacrosanct as she portrays them. Notice the following:

 

"Doctors can breach confidentiality only when their duty to society overrides their duty to individual patients and it is deemed to be in the public interest.”
 

“Doctors are required to report to various authorities a range of issues, including notifiable diseases (eg, TB), births, illegal abortions and people suspected of terrorist activity."
http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/booklets/medicolegal-hazards/confidentiality

 

There are many States which have curtailed the rights to confidentiality and have allowed the rights and interests of society to be weighed against the patients’ right to privacy and confidentiality. Child abuse is one example. The confidentiality is diminished and drastically curtailed when there is evidence of child abuse. And bear in mind that late term abortions are a good example of child abuse; such abortions not only harm a child, but it deprives the unborn of life. There can not be a worse child abuse than dismemberment and poisoning. The result is death of the child.
 

"As early as in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), the U. S. Supreme Court acknowledged that the doctor-patient relationship is one which evokes constitutional rights of privacy. But even that right is not absolute and must be weighed against the state or federal interest at stake."

"GEORGIA: Legal privilege is extended to pharmacists and psychiatrists (Ch. 24-9-21, 9-40). Mandatory disclosure to state officials is required for child abuse and venereal disease. (Ch. 19-7-5; 31-17-2)."

"IDAHO: Physician-patient privilege is found in the Idaho Code 9-203(4). There is mandatory disclosure for child abuse cases within 24 hours (16-1619) and sexually transmitted diseases (39-601)."

"ILLINOIS: Mandatory disclosure to state officials exists for child abuse and sexually transmitted diseases (325 Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated 5/4).”

"OREGON: Oregon Revised Statute 146-750 provides for mandatory disclosure of medical records involving suspected violence, and for physical injury with a knife, gun, or other deadly weapon."


http://www.enotes.com/healthcare-reference/doctor-patient-confidentiality
 

The reference to “other deadly weapon” would include to my judgment the abortion instruments used to dismember or poison the body of the unborn child. Remember that late term abortion is illegal in several States and even right now there are numerous legal cases being litigated as a result of the violation of such criminal activities.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-15 10:51 AM

Elaine Nelson wrote:

 

“Such unsupported statements does not aid your credibility and we should take that in consideration in the future.”

 

My credibility is not in danger with those who know me! You have the right to question it, and I cannot force you to accept what I have stated. Please, read my response to Erv Taylor! You need to educate yourself about the limits of doctor patient confidentiality. Said confidentiality rights are not sacrosanct and they are not absolute. The interest of society places a reasonable limit on them.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-16 1:36 PM

Timo Onjukka

ReplyApproveDelete

“I am assuming he is probably unaware of the license taken with his anecdote....”

 

License? What evidence do you have for your assertion?
 

“I know an anti-abortionist doctor and his wife; they have adopted or fostered 182 unwanted children.”
 

Adopted or fostered? Which one is it? There is a great difference. There are people whose business is taking care of children and the government pays for the expenses connected with this. Other people adopt unwanted children and raise them with their own financial resources.
 

I have close relatives who adopted three unwanted children at great expense because they had to go to the other side of the world to secure them, and one of them is a child with special needs. The government supplied zero assistance for their upkeep.
 

“This is where the work gets done. This is where the flock gets fed, the fatherless, the orphans, the widows find solace. This is where shame and guilt meet love and grace.”
 

Taking care of the orphans and widows is a noble work; does it follow, though, that saving unborn children from a sure death is less noble? If you were torn between feeding a hungry child and another one about to be dismembered or poisoned, which one would you help first? Suppose you have two children; one of them is hungry and the other is about to be murdered, which one will you take care of first?
 

“Specifically, Nic; I am anti-abortion for extremely personal reasons, but I know God is pro choice on the deeper question.”
 

Do you think that the Lord is also pro-choice regarding other crimes like rape, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children? And don’t forget that if someone steals my car, I can buy another one, while a stolen life can never be replaced.
 

 “She is much easier to love than many within my church. And when she realizes she IS loved despite, forgiven much, she loves more....”
 

How can women who have had an abortion be forgiven if they never repent of their sin because the church is telling them that they have committed no crime. Have you taken the time to read our Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion”? They justify the killing of the unborn under a variety of circumstances, even including when the woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy becomes depressed.
 

She tells her doctor that she cannot sleep or concentrate on her work or study and bingo, the physician provides and abortion on the basis of her mental health. Now, remember that her mental depression is temporary, but the death of the unborn child is permanent.
 

This Adventist liberal attitude is what opened the door for elective abortions in some of our Adventist hospitals. This took place in Hawaii back in 1970 and eventually spread to at least five other Adventist medical institutions. This is all documented in our Adventist literature. I know this because I did my doctoral dissertation on this topic, and I recently published my book about this issue.
 

You can find it at http://lulu.com. All you need to do is to type my name--Nic Samojluk—in the search blank space. If you can’t afford to buy the book, send me your mailing address and I will order a copy for you as a gift. My address is nicsamojlukATroadrunner.com


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-17 10:38 AM


Timo Onjukka

 

“ReplyApproveDeleteThats the sad thing, Nic. All of us have been forgiven, and this while yet sinner, and absent anything I or anyone did to earn it.”
 

This should be great news to people like Judas, Hitler, and all those who never repented of their evil deeds. My Bible teaches another Gospel based on repentance as a condition for forgiveness and salvation:
 

20First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds. [Acts 26]

46He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. [Luke 24]

9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. [2 Peter 3]
 

Here is my question to you. Do you think that when the church is telling the woman who had an abortion that she did nothing wrong, this will make it easier for her to repent and obtain the forgiveness and peace of mind she needs or will it make harder for her to ask for forgiveness?
 

“Saddest thing is a mother, who out of shame, aborts. She, too has already been wrapped in grace and forgiveness.”
 

Yes! That grace leads to repentance, but if the woman is instructed by the church that she has done nothing wrong, then said grace may not lead to repentance and forgiveness. Are you negating the need to repent as a condition for forgiveness?
 

“The pain of telling this girls mother that her daughter-successfully-committed suicide ostensibly because of her parents shame-based religious belief. The young girl was a community behavioral health out-patient of mine for number of years. Working in the ER when she was brought in DOA, I had contact with her mother. Her mothers ongoing pain is unspeakable. That is one senseless death too many.”
 

Did that mother tell her daughter that Jesus gave his life that she might be forgiven of her sin? Did that mother offer her daughter the gospel of love, repentance and forgiveness? Did she offer her hope or nothing but condemnation? Without knowing the particular circumstances it is difficult to determine what led her daughter to desperation and suicide. Perhaps the mother did show her God’s love like Jesus did with Judas, and the girl refused to show any sign of contrition. Jesus treated both Peter and Judas in like manner. Peter repented, but Judas did not.  
 

“And yet, the shame, pain, carnage continues, while others pridefully assert (and sell books).”
 

You forgot to mention that I also give my books away as a gift. Didn’t I offer one book as a gift? So far I have sold one book—two dollars of profit—and gave away fifty--$700 dollars of loss. Do you really think that I am after profit? I spent several years speaking on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. My investment in time and loss of business surpasses the six digits figure by far. I am almost 80 years old. Do you think that I have a chance of recovering my investment or that I am giving my books away with the expectation of making a fortune? What do you think my motivation is?
 

My concern is for the unborn and for the church I love which has deviated from the right path and has stopped preaching the full gospel of Jesus Christ and has stopped growing in the U.S. I am preaching at great personal expense what my church should be preaching thanks to my tithes and that of all the other tithers.  
 

“Regarding the unanswered questions over your assumptions, unknowns, probables? I'll leave them here...”
 

You haven’t read my book yet which is based on what has been officially reported in our books and magazines, but you seem to have already condemned my work. I suggest that you assume a more reasonable and fairer attitude towards my mission for the unborn!


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-19 9:09 AM

On February 25th, 2011 Andreas Bochmann said:

“It may be of interest that the only SDA acute care hospital in Europe, Waldfriede Hospital in Berlin - which has a strong OB & Gynecology department and a more than 90 year history - does not perform abortions.”

 

What Andreas described matches what I received what a retired hospital administrator living in Germany. He told me in a couple of emails that when he was in charge of the Adventist medical work in South America, Africa, and Europe, our hospitals were not permitted to perform abortions. This also agrees with what a friend of mine, now retired, a former dean of the Universidad Adventista del Plata, in Argentina, told me when I related to him how some of our Adventist hospitals in North America have been offering abortions on demand for many decades. He was greatly pained at hearing such undeniable news.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-19 9:23 AM

On February 25th, 2011 Elaine Nelson said:
 

A Catholic hospital in Phoenix performed an abortion to save the mother's life. The administrator, a Catholic sister, was excommunicated. She did the right thing: preserving a mother's life who had several children who would have been left motherless.”
 

If said woman was in real danger of loosing her life, then I agree that the decision to save the mother’s life was the right one. Physicians’ duty is to save lives, and it is better to save at least one life than loosing two.

“No one aborts as a method of birth control.”
 

Here we part company. Have you read what George Gainer wrote in our own publications detailing how our Adventist got into the abortion on demand business starting back in 1970? It took place in Hawaii when abortion was legalized in said State. The non-Adventists physicians in said medical institutions demanded the right to offer elective abortions to their patients, and our church yielded to the pressure for fear of loosing business. This spread to at least five other Adventist hospitals and it was documented in the pages of our Adventist publications. How can we deny what was publicly acknowledged by several of our leaders?


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-19 9:31 AM

On February 25th, 2011 pagophilus said:

“How dare you, Elaine, suggest that because Bill is a male he cannot possibly be right.”
 

Great question! And let’s not forget that the decision to allow for the genocide of the unborn was made by nine unelected Justices of the Supreme Court back in 1973. They were all men. If males made the wrong moral decision, then it follows that males also have the right to straighten what was made crooked by other men.


Elaine Nelson
2011-12-19 1:39 PM

The country's mood has swung as more people feel that government should stay out of our very personal lives.  What other part of your personal life are you willing for the government to question?  Who you marry?  How many children you choose to have? (Remember, in China reproductive rights are ruled by the government and how many abortions have they had?)  Where you choose to live and work? 

Whether one agrees or disagrees with personal choice for others, that is no different than the government choosing your religion, as the time of conception and when the soul enters the fetus can never be a decision of either the government or the church.   People will always do what you and I may not approve, but I will fight for your right to follow your conscience. Are you willing to do the same for others?

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-20 9:46 AM

Elaine Nelson wrote:

ReplyApproveDelete

“The country's mood has swung as more people feel that government should stay out of our very personal lives. What other part of your personal life are you willing for the government to question?”

 

Stealing, rape, and sexual abuse of children are the result of personal decisions and they are quite often done in the privacy of peoples homes. Does it follow that the government has no right to come after me if I engage in any of these immoral and harmful actions? The government’s job is to protect the lives and property of all the human beings within its jurisdiction. And do not forget that the harm resulting from abortion is much more lasting than the loss of property. A woman who is raped can heal with time and the grace of God. The aborted baby can never recover from the abortion ordeal.

 

“Remember, in China reproductive rights are ruled by the government and how many abortions have they had?”

 

Many! Actually, too many to count! But, bear in mind that communists do not believe in God. We in the West do!

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with personal choice for others, …”

 

Whenever personal choices harm other human beings, the government has the right to interfere. For centuries it was believed that slaves had no rights—not even the right to life. For centuries women were considered the property of their parents or husbands. Now that they are free, they have decided that another group of human beings—the unborn-- are their personal property without even the right to life.

 

“People will always do what you and I may not approve, but I will fight for your right to follow your conscience. Are you willing to do the same for others?”

 

Rapist and burglars do follow their own conscience, and the policemen in turn follow their conscience which tells them that they have to punish those who harm others.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-20 10:18 AM

Timo Onjukka wrote:
 

“Nic, the Great News is that a God of Grace strived ceaselessly for the Hitlers, the Iscariots, the Cains, even the Lucifers of this world. How dare I not pass grace forward? Even to the Bernard Nathansons?”
 

Yes, we are all entitled to grace. David repented of his sin and found grace; nevertheless the terrible consequences of his sin were not removed by grace. The government responsibility is to punish the evildoers regardless of God’s grace. If I steal and repent, the Lord will grant me grace, but the government will impose a penalty on me and I will likely end doing jail time.
 

Scott Peterson killed his wife and his unborn child, and he was declared guilty of a double murder. He can repent and find grace and forgiveness, but God’s forgiveness will not grant him an immediate release from jail. Teaching that there are no consequences to our evil actions is cheap grace.
 

True grace is accompanied with discipline. The Bible states that those whom God loves he chastises. God’s punishment is also an expression of his love. Scripture also states that a lack of punishment may be a sign that we are treated not as children but as bastards.
 

A physician who hides from his patient the fact that he has cancer should quit his business and do something else for a living. He can also be sued for dereliction of duty. We rely on our doctors to tell us the truth.
 

“Whether I am on either side of the contrived line you draw, we are all enemies of love and grace. I have a choice to align with abundant life...as do you. Did you even read what I wrote?”
 

I did read what you wrote more than once, but could not determine whether you were pro-life or pro-choice. This could be my fault or yours. What I did was to provide you a chance to clarify. I hope you do this, but you have the right to remain in limbo if you prefer.
 

I cannot accurately guess what your thinking is unless you spell it out! If you state your position, I may learn from you and alter my own thinking. I do learn from the arguments of others and I do appropriate for myself what I consider to be valuable.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-21 10:06 AM

Timo Onjukka
ReplyApproveDelete

“The silence on your behalf referencing the issues previously raised regarding your sources is deafening.”
 

Please, identify the statements I have made for which you want me to provide documentation. I will be ready to comply!


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-21 10:37 AM

On February 26th, 2011 Hansen says:

“Abortions should not only be allowed, in some cases, perhaps most, they should be required. Children conceived through illicit relationships by irresponsible individuals who themselves should have never been born, have little to offer any society.”
 

Do you think that you are wise enough to determine who should be allowed to be born and who should be torn to pieces before they have a chance to take the first breath? Can humans be that wise?

“The Bible actually sets forth the guidelines in Numbers, chapter 5: 27,28. Children conceived in adulterous affairs were aborted and their mothers were sterilized.”
 

Are you sure you are interpreting said passage correctly? Here is the text:
 

27If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away,f and she will become accursed among her people. 28If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.”
 

Where is the reference to abortion? The bitter water causes infertility, but I see no reference to abortion there.
 

“Better abortion than stoning to death later, after the children became nuisances to society.”
 

Yes, but how can fallible human beings predict which child will grow up to become a rebel deserving the death penalty? Would you recommend that killing of all unborn children because anyone of them can become an extremely rebellious child?

“"Anti abortion" is another moronic movement fueled by the same papacy who gives us celibacy and a priesthood loaded with homosexuals and gay pedophiles.”
 

The imposition of celibacy is definitely unwise! Does it follow that protecting innocent unborn children is also an evidence of stupidity? Jesus told us that our eternal destiny will be determined by the way we treat “the least of these.”

Can you name another group of human beings more deserving of the “the least of these” label than the unborn? Do you think that Jesus made a moronic statement?


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-22 10:37 AM

Timo Onjukka wrote:
ReplyApproveDelete

“Jesus did not-and your posing a question thus is intentionally polarizing, and off topic.”
 

Polarizing is not a sin. Jesus stated that he did not come to bring peace to the world but a sword. [Matt 10:34] Polarizing can be used for a good purpose or a bad one. A sword can be use to defend an innocent victim or to harm him/her.
 

My question was not off topic. Jesus did say that our eternal destiny will depend on the way we treat “the least.” Do you think that there exist right now some groups of human beings more deserving of said label than the unborn. Can you name a few of them?
 

“Perhaps your scripture has a different meaning, but Jesus seemingly meant 'the hate you pile on anyone (ABORTIONISTS even!) making them "least", you have done to HIM!'”
 

Abortionists are dismembering and tearing to pieces the bodies of innocent unborn victims, and our church is justifying such actions under a variety of circumstances. Is this the work the Lord assigned to the Remnant Church? Our Adventist pioneers described such actions as murder.
 

The Bible describes the Devil as the one who has been a murderer from the beginning. The work I am doing is prompted by my love for God, the innocent victims of abortion, and my concern for my church. Can you honestly accuse me of being motivated by hate?
 

This reminds me of a loving Adventist lady who exhibited the same attitude of yours towards my work many months ago. A few days ago I offered a copy of my book as a gift to her fearing that she would reject it outright, but she surprised me with the following statement: “I definitely want to read your book. I was not a Christian before. I do hate abortion.”
 

“Btw I note you quote everyone in this thread carefully, copying snippets (sometimes out of context) and then you drill into it with vigor. I'd like to suggest you likewise back up those questioned references above that you've given "assumptions, probables, and i dont knows" with your source, if you can.”
 

If I were to provide the entire context every time I quote somebody, my postings would be extremely long. It is the duty of the reader to ask me to provide the context for any particular quote that might be questionable. This would give me a chance to comply.  
 

“THE ONUS IS ON YOU. Also would like to clarify-to thwart any license with something I've written here-that you please not reference my words in any of your other ventures-at least without verifying with me what it is you think I said.”
 

I have never quoted you elsewhere. Anytime I quote somebody in other venues I always try to provide a link to the source so that people can verify the context.
 

 “I'd be a bit alarmed if I were Sean Pitman, and you think the onus is on me to check (and correct) wherever you might happen to use my anecdotes without my knowledge or express consent/notification, …”
 

Pitman has no reason to be alarmed. What I quoted was an integral portion of a long debate which we engaged in for a couple of months and he was well aware that what he was writing was meant to be posted on my www.sdaforum.com website. Once in the public domain, I do not need permission every time I quote what he wrote with his express knowledge and consent.
 

“…and you further rely on me to know statutes of limitations, confidentiality laws, or even the state/time/specifics of the reference to protect you. Nice view of the sand down that hole.”
 

Sean Pitman is not being sued by anybody and there is no threat of a lawsuit by the victim or the police who was responsible for the incarceration of the woman. Evidently, the woman must have realized that the police was acting with the proper authority; otherwise she would have initiated a legal action. Since this is something that you are interested in investigating, I have no duty to perform this kind of research to please your fancy.  
 

“Ignorance is no excuse; assumptions are dangerous, and emotional vestment in a subject likely to increase zeal beyond prudence.”
 

Ignorance is no excuse when there exists a duty to investigate. In this case, there is no such duty. Anybody interested in researching this issue can do so without interference from others who lack such interest.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-23 10:26 AM

Timo Onjukka wrote:
 

“I cannot justify means with intent or end. Apparently you can.”
 

I can’t either! I am not a Jesuit.
 

“Your single-minded zeal admirable, as your sanctimonious and arrogant "answers".
 

I have given you answers based on what the Bible teaches. If you think that this is arrogant, so be it. The Lord will judge both me and you. Let him decide!
 

“I am as soul-weary to see a woman end her life because she can no longer live with her inner pain consequent to an abortion, any more than the death of her unborn child.”
 

The Lord forgave David for his adultery and murder. Did anybody remind that woman that there is forgiveness for her sin? Was she surrounded by hate or love? We are studying this week in Galatians about forgiveness and restoration. Did anybody attempt to restore this woman following her sin?
 

“I am equally saddened to see 'pro-lifers' (even within same faith community, or family) further guilt, unforgiveness and shame as i am to hear of another doctor killed for doing what is legal (but still tragic).”
 

The duty of physicians is to heal—not to kill innocent unborn babies. The Hippocratic Oath, which was held in high esteem for two thousand years, states that doctorss should “do no harm.” It doesn’t follow, though, that we have the right to take the law in our own hands. Such violent actions create chaos. Our duty as pro-lifers is to use our influence and use our voting rights to do away with unjust laws which leave innocent human unprotected. The duty of the government is to protect the right to property and life of every human being under its jurisdiction regardless of the size, stage of development, or place of residence of said individual.
 

“I am deeply disturbed how some pro-choice folks so casually speak of ending a human life. But these are all actions that they are responsible for-your zealous taking responsibility for them (and the God who is eventually going to allow his grace to be rejected, and ultimate consequence visited) will deal with them, and you, and I.”
 

Sorry to disagree! I am not taking responsibility for nobody’s actions. I have no power for the actions of other individuals. My zeal is for the protection of those who cannot speak for themselves. If you were to witness someone being butchered to death, wouldn’t you call the police at least? Would you say: “Oh, well, this man is exercising his pro-choice rights”? Suppose someone were on the verge of raping your daughter. Would you justify this by thinking that you have no right to interfere with the actions of others?
 

“If I clearly speak, and ask, yet you continue to inducing shame, condemnation, and unforgiveness (in God's name, even) i have acted conscientiously.”
 

I suggest that you read Peter’s sermon found in Acts 2. His condemnation of those who crucified Jesus was accompanied by an offer for forgiveness. This has been the model I have been trying to follow. Do you have a better model? There are two extremes, legalism and cheap grace. We need to avoid both. Right now, cheap grace is more prevalent than legalism in our church and society.
 

“How many unwanted, rejected, widowed, orphaned, fatherless, about-to-be aborted children (and their mothers) have you fostered? Adopted? Hugged? Loved? Fed?”
 

 More than you imagine! We are still feeding the hungry and clothing the naked almost on a daily basis. In our extended family we have adopted three children from an orphanage from the other side of the world at great expense. How about you? What have you done on behalf of the naked, the hungry, the unwanted, and those who are being killed on a daily basis? Is this a spitting contest? Is this what you want to engage in?
 

“This is the front lines; where you battle is full of subterfuge and counter-espionage.”
 

I reject your unfounded accusation. You don’t know me, and yet you dare to condemn what I am doing. The Lord has given me a sacred mission for the unborn, and I will try to be faithful to my duty regardless of whether you approve it or not.
 

 “Even in the name of the one who asked Peter the Rejector (prior to any repentance) If you LOVE me, feed the least of my people...”
 

Feeding the lambs is definitely the opposite of butchering them inside the abortion clinics. There have been documented cases where some babies have survived a saline abortion and the nurses have let them die from lack of nutrition. This is not feeding the lambs!


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-23 10:39 AM

On February 26th, 2011 Elaine Nelson said:

“The last I looked, Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. Only law-breakers should be punished. However, states are trying to add all sorts of limitations to that law to make it of little effect. Thank God for Roe v. Wade or we would have the jails filled with women victims and their physicians.”

 

Yes! Let’s do away with our war against drugs as well, our laws against rape, and our laws against crime in general, because there are too many law breakers. Perhaps chaos will be a better solution to criminal behavior.

 


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-23 10:54 AM

On February 26th, 2011 Markus80s said:
 

“Another problem is that many people call the Adventist church the church that breaks the 6th commandment (you shall not commit murder) through abortion. We like to "huff and puff" about how most other churches are breaking the 4th commandment, but do nothing about us breaking the 6th commandment. Many people have either left the Adventist faith or refused to join the Adventist faith because of the abortion issue.
 

True! I know of several individuals who left the Adventist Church precisely for this reason. Some of them have chosen to join the Catholic Church because of their firm stand against the killing of innocent human beings who are simply waiting for the right to take their firs breath.
 

“We need to return to the original position of no abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger (which rarely happens). We also need to provide support services for those who decide to keep their babies or put those babies up for adoption. Less than 1% of women choose adoption, yet there is a shortage of babies in the adoption field. Adoption is a good non-killing choice of dealing with unplanned pregnancies.”
 

This is also true. I know of people very close to me who have gone to the other side of the world for the privilege of adopting babies from an orphanage, and some of them have special needs which makes them harder to be chosen by adoptive parents. By the way, such adoptions can cost a fortune. This is hard to understand, since thousands of unwanted unborn babies are routinely killed in our own country every day.


Trevor Hammond
2011-12-23 3:50 PM

Dear Mr. Nic Samojluk.  You Sir have survived much unwarranted badgering and numerous personal attacks regarding your Pro-Life/Anti-abortion position while still keeping your cool.  An admirable feat at that.   Much appreciated Sir.  Your answers have been very convincing and clearly very sensible without compromising your Pro-Life/Anti-abortion position.  As can be seen, there are many voices that side with the living who brag and brandish their government 007 license to kill the living unborn which come into being as a miraculous result of the special sexual intimacy between male and female which I think most people call LOVE.  Yet the Pro-Choice argument preferring the Government sanctioned first degree premeditated murder of the unborn doesn’t aptly fit the tone of what LOVE presupposes, especially when the ‘Thou shalt not kill’ does emerge out of our Christian Belief system.  Yeah, Yeah, so the world does it their way; but do we have to be so gutless not to stand up against such atrocity?  How can anyone say that we value life and yet subscribe wholesale to killing unborn babies?

 I remember not too long ago when some youth together with my wife and I went to visit a two year old in hospital who was very ill as a result of been born with HIV (he has since died two years ago on Christmas eve).  His mom was with him in the ward and we sang Jesus Loves the Little Children of the World, Jesus loves me this I know and The Love of my Jesus is Wonderful (sung in his vernacular tongue as well) and we also said a prayer after a short chat with them.  That Jesus loves children is what made this little two year old battling with AIDS worth living and worthwhile even for such a short time on this planet.  His life was so much worth the short while!  It will be kinda hard to sing these songs in those hospitals where instead of ‘feeding the Lambs’ we silence them.  Thank God that Good Samaritan’s like Mr. Samojluk will not be silenced: a loud unshaken voice on behalf of the  Silenced Lambs... Yeah Jesus Loves them ...this I know!

Peace and Goodwill to ALL MANKIND!  May T-H-E-Y rest in peace.  At least God loved them.

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-24 9:36 AM

Timo Onjukka wrote:
 

“I'll keep praying for you, Nic.”
 

Thank you! We need to pray for each other.
 

“I'll keep praying for the mothers, shamed by the actions of over-zealous pro-lifers-

more likely to abort because of the added shame, guilt, condemnation.”
 

Are you also praying for the under-zealous pro-lifers? Prophet Elijah was zealous in his God-assigned mission. Was he over-zealous? John the Baptist was zealous in his preaching. Was he over-zealous? About Jesus it is written:
 

13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” 17His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”b[John 2]
 

Would you suggest that Jesus was over-zealous? Read what the Bible says about zeal in God’s work. Could it be that God’s Remnant people have compromised over the moral issue of abortion and for this reason they are exhibiting an incredible apathy towards anybody being properly zealous about what the Lord cares?
 

“I'll pray for their babies-born and unborn. I will pray for the Doctors, clinics, hospitals. And now, seems I ought pray for the Jesuits.”
 

In this you are doing well! We all need to do this!
 

“Most of all I pray that I will continue to speak my conscience, not try force another, nor try take the place of God.”
 

Most of us don’t have the power to force the conscience of others, except those who live in Moslem countries and under totalitarian regimes. But I have a question for you: Do you think that John the Baptist attempted to force the conscience of Herod when he reminded him of his sin? How about Peter when in his Pentecost sermon accused the Jewish leaders of murder? Did he try to force the conscience of the Jews? What is the role of preachers? Isn’t it to remind his listeners of their sins and thus lead them to repentance?
 

“I pray I represent him in spirit and truth that I can be a true testimony, without guile, and not create an anthropomorphic, shaming, forceful god.”
 

Shaming sinners into repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit. The role of the church is to preach the truth as it is in Jesus Christ. Both Law and Grace must be preached in its true balance and leave the rest to God.
 

“I will give grace to you, as well. We both, you and I, agree, abortion is a sin.”
 

I am glad we agree on this!
 

“It is NOT however a crime.”
 

True. Nine unelected Justices of the Court usurped the power of a pusillanimous Congress and created an unconstitutional law out of thin air and declared that killing a group of innocent human beings is not a crime. Nevertheless, this did not alter God’s opinion about this moral issue!
 

“And the deeper issue is; did God grant absolute free moral agency?”
 

There is no such thing as absolute free moral agency. If we had absolute free moral agency, government would be superfluous. Read what Paul stated about the role of government. Its duty is to protect the property and life of human beings.
 

“If not, then the whole controversy is rigged. I believe your trying to force a crime label on sin represents God in error.”
 

In this I firmly reject your argument! Sin is, was, and always be a crime in God’s eyes.  
 

“And I believe you have not answered any of the questions scattered throughout this thread.”
 

Let the reader and the Lord be the judge!
 

“You have thrown emotion-laden extremist rhetoric as evidence of your moral superiority in the little battles where the deceiver would have God's people caught in confounding conflict.”
 

I deny this charge! I do not consider myself morally superior to others. We are all sinners in need of God’s grace. Paul was a saint doing God’s work, and yet he stated that he was of all sinners the one in need of grace.
 

“In the larger controversy....? I'll let God decide.”
 

In this we are in agreement.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-24 10:16 AM

Trevor Hammond wrote:

 

“Dear Mr. Nic Samojluk. You Sir have survived much unwarranted badgering and numerous personal attacks regarding your Pro-Life/Anti-abortion position while still keeping your cool. An admirable feat at that. Much appreciated Sir.”

 

Thanks for you kind comments! The Lord, and the prayer of many saints, has sustained me so far.

 

“Your answers have been very convincing and clearly very sensible without compromising your Pro-Life/Anti-abortion position. As can be seen, there are many voices that side with the living who brag and brandish their government 007 license to kill the living unborn which come into being as a miraculous result of the special sexual intimacy between male and female which I think most people call LOVE.”

 

If I were to fail, the Lord will raise others to do his work. I am not the only Adventist believing like I do. I know of many others. Some of them are afraid to rock the boat. I believe that our Adventist boat has been hit by an iceberg, but we keep singing on board as if nothing has happened. In this I am referring to our North American Adventism. In the country I grew in, abortion is still illegal thanks to the influence of our Adventist brethren and the influence of the Catholic Church. This seems to apply to other countries in the world.

 

“Yet the Pro-Choice argument preferring the Government sanctioned first degree premeditated murder of the unborn doesn’t aptly fit the tone of what LOVE presupposes, especially when the ‘Thou shalt not kill’ does emerge out of our Christian Belief system. Yeah, Yeah, so the world does it their way; but do we have to be so gutless not to stand up against such atrocity? How can anyone say that we value life and yet subscribe wholesale to killing unborn babies?”

 

Good question! The partial answer is profit and apathy towards what the Lord has written on two tablets of stone! Today cheap grace is sacrosanct, and God’s Law has been laid aside for the sake of profit. It started back in 1970 in Hawaii, when our leaders allowed our hospital there to offer abortions on demand; this practice was mimicked by at least five other Adventist hospitals.

 

A former Adventist NAD president publicly stated that there is money in abortion, and that if we refuse to take advantage of this opportunity, others will benefit. One of our Adventists physicians, who later left the church,  took his statements seriously and became the owner of over 20 abortion clinics in California. Recently he retired and sold his profitable business to other Adventist investors.

“I remember not too long ago when some youth together with my wife and I went to visit a two year old in hospital who was very ill as a result of been born with HIV (he has since died two years ago on Christmas eve). His mom was with him in the ward and we sang Jesus Loves the Little Children of the World, Jesus loves me this I know and The Love of my Jesus is Wonderful (sung in his vernacular tongue as well) and we also said a prayer after a short chat with them. That Jesus loves children is what made this little two year old battling with AIDS worth living and worthwhile even for such a short time on this planet. His life was so much worth the short while! It will be kinda hard to sing these songs in those hospitals where instead of ‘feeding the Lambs’ we silence them.”

 

Yes! Unfortunately, many modern liberal Adventists believe that unborn babies who will not live long after birth should be killed. I had a niece who was born with spinal bifida. She lived only two months, but she was loved and properly buried. Had my sister had an abortion, she would be ridden with shame and guilt for the rest of her life.

 

“Thank God that Good Samaritan’s like Mr. Samojluk will not be silenced: a loud unshaken voice on behalf of the Silenced Lambs... Yeah Jesus Loves them ...this I know!”

 

I am overwhelmed! God inspired you to post these comments. I would like to order for you a gift copy of my book entitled: “From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Attitude Towards Abortion.” It is available for purchase at http://lulu.com. But I am willing to pay for it in appreciation for your kind words. All I need is your name and mailing address. You can email me at nicsamojlukATroadrunner.com.


“Peace and Goodwill to ALL MANKIND! May T-H-E-Y rest in peace. At least God loved them.”
 

Amen!


Jan
2011-12-24 6:15 PM

Trevor Hammond's quote:

  • In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI). (The Guttmacher Institute (AGI)) [emboldened emphasis mine].
Trevor, Thank you for this statistic.  Thank you to Pregnancy Clinics that educate women on adoption option.  On Ultrasound education.  This is very hopeful.  From 1.36 million abortions in 1996 to 1.21 million on 2008.

Nic,  Thank you for devoting your life mission to the choice of the unborn.  The unborn need a voice.  You, Nic are devoting hours and hours, lifetimes, into one lifetime, for the unborn to be given a "prochoice".  I have so wondered, who is speaking for the baby?  Bless you, you are.

Tom, Thank you for sharing your personal story.  Bless you for being vulnerable.

Elaine,  Timo and others, thank you for having mercy and trying to offer ministry to those who have aborted a child.  They have faced relentless shame.  You are trying to embrace them, while not embracing abortion.  You have opened my mind to walk more humbly; offer more education and shelter to those who are in a crisis; a crisis I pray to never have to walk in.

Thank you to Advent Today, through Melissa, for opening this discussion.  I do have four young adult children.  They have more grace toward me, than I have had toward them.  Each of us have a part to this discussion, which offers value.  As a pro-life person, I pray that these types of discussions will continue to cause the statistics to go down, down, down.

Nic Samojluk
2011-12-25 10:12 AM


Timo Onjukka wrote:
 

“Nic, I am not so concerned with the peripheral issues and little herrings you propose to use as defense for your position. Fact remains, valid questions were raised about some specific credibility and veracity issues of record that you continue to play loose, and avoid.”
 

Let me try again. Yesterday Dr. Sean Pitman came to visit my Sabbath School. I could have spoken to him about the issue you and others have raised.
 

Had I done so, Pitman might have suspected I was getting senile. He would probably have said: “Nic, don’t you remember that I wrote to you in black and white fully aware that you were posting my responses to you in your www.sdaforum.com website”?
 

I am not planning to play the role of a fool. Nobody has threatened to sue this man, and he is very careful in the things he says and writes, and this incident took place when the dinosaurs were roaming the countryside. It is high time that you listen to logic, reason and common sense.
 

“I'm inviting you out of the "dividing the letter of the law" in your finely parsed quotations you extract here and there from my posts (adroitly avoiding the elephant in the room) and instead wish to engage you in the spirit of the law.”
 

Please identify and produce the elephant so e can deal with it!
 

“God gave so much choice; Eve, you may choose to kill all humanity, indeed all life of creation.”
 

Sorry, but that was not the choice God gave to Adam and Eve according to my Bible. The Lord said: “Obey and live or disobey and die.”[my paraphrase] When the pre-flood wicked generation went over God’s tolerance limit, he wiped them all off the face of the earth. Why did God act in this seemingly strange fashion? Because the earth was “full of violence.”
 

“Man, you may kill my son, if you choose, BUT I, GOD, WILL COVENANT TO BE WHO I AM FOREVER, no matter what YOU do or choose. My covenant is with myself, to be longsuffering, merciful, abounding in love.”
 

The Bible talks about God’s grace and forgiveness, but do not forget that it also talks about God’s wrath. The earth is again being filled with violence. In China only it is estimated that over 400 millions of unborn babies have been sacrificed over the altar of convenience.
 

In our own country, over 50 million babies have perished. It is high time to start preaching not only God’s grace, but also about God’s soon coming judgment. The last message found in the book of Revelation is a message of judgment. Grace is offered under a serious warning of a coming judgment.
 

“If we act to force another, or Adam-like abdicate our choice...we are counter to the core principle of God's government.”
 

Adam and Eve were clearly told what the consequences would be in the event of disobedience: death. The Lord, who is merciful and long suffering, stated in no uncertain terms to the nation of Israel what the consequences would be in the event they were to choose to disobey.
 

The same can be said about John the Baptist, the Bible prophets, and about Jesus himself. Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and wept when he realized that his warnings were falling on deaf ears. Today history is being repeated. The often repeated pro-life warnings are again falling on deaf ears.
 

A few years ago, the prayers and warning of a group of pro-lifers in front of the residence of one of the owners a large chain of abortions clinics fell on deaf ears, and a tragic disaster followed which resulted in the death of many members of his family. This could have been a mere coincidence; but it might have been God’s way of showing his displeasure to the Adventist community over the abortion genocide.
 

“God said that a government based upon LOVE was a Kingdom which would never end.”
 

My Bible states that those who God loves he also chastises. True love demands that said love be accompanied by discipline. Open rebellion must be met with judgment. Forgiveness is contingent on repentance and confession. Remember what happend to Ananias and Saphira.
 

“Oh, and regarding your use of some unverified anecdote? You have NOT answered that! You offered to, yes, but then reversed and said I could.”
 

I deny the charge. I did not make such offer and I did not reverse my position. Please, quote me in its proper context.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-26 10:10 AM

Timo Onjukka


“I do not object to what you do, Nic; the ends are noble. The voiceless need a voice; they do not need rage or shame. Have you stopped to think; deep down in her soul, each mother who aborted (or even the equal number who suffered stillborn) has a hundred times the anger, pain, rage that you posture here. Consider that well. Gasoline on a fire...”
 

You started by arguing that I was guilty of showing inappropriate zeal. I answered by showing how men God used in biblical times displayed extraordinary zeal in their work; so now you cleverly decided to accuse me of rage and shame. Can you, please, quote me where I give evidence of rage?
 

Suppose you succeed in finding in what I have written so far evidence of rage, then how would you explain the wrath exhibited by Moses when he came down from the mount and in utter disgust through down the two tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments which broke into pieces? What happened to the man who is described in the Bible as the epitome of patience? Did Moses sin in breaking those sacred objects the Lord had given him for custody?
 

How about Jesus, who on observing how those in charge of God’s Temple were selling inside the sacred prescints and taking a whip chased them from God’s House? What happened to the gentle Jesus you love and admire so much? Would you accuse Jesus of pouring gasoline on fire? And how about Paul who stated that if anybody came preaching another Gospel, let him be accursed? Did he sin in speaking wish such extreme zeal? Are there circumstances under which God’s messengers should exhibit extraordinary zeal?
 

Moses reacted with holy fury because God’s chosen people had broken God’s Law. God’s Remnant Church has redefined one of God’s Holy Precepts and has allowed the violation of one of God’s Commandments to take place in some of our own Adventist hospitals and you want me to be silent? My aim is not to shame the women who are simply following the teaching of God’s leaders. These women have been deceived by our leaders into thinking that they can break God’s commands with impunity. These women are victims of both our society and our leadership.

“The "how" I object strongly to; the why I only question, for it seems to me if you were interested only in carrying out scriptural purpose, you might be able to dialogue from a less emotionally vested position.”
 

In the Day of Judgment Catholics and their Pope will rise and condemn our Adventist leaders, because Catholic hospitals have consistently refused to seek the profit connected with the killing of innocent unborn babies. Rome has departed from many other sacred teachings, but regarding abortion they have stood firm like a rock in spite of the pressure from society and a population enamored with adultery and fornication.
 

“I admire your zeal and passion. That you have devoted so much of your time to this is remarkable. God bless you, Nic.”
 

If you admire my zeal, I invite you to join me in this sacred mission. The unborn are dying like flies, and it seems that Adventists are blind to what is taking place. At the same time, some of our holy coffers are being filled with gold tainted with the blood of the innocent.
 

“I pray you have heard my cry. I have worked on the other side of this issue, and have experienced firsthand the continuing damage in human carnage, by apparent failure of grace and the continued piling on of shame and condemnation.”
 

There is no need for me to condemn anybody. Our actions connected with the killing of the unborn are the ones doing this sacred work. What I am doing is simply letting the light from Scripture shine on the evil deeds of the church I love. As God’s people we ned to repent. If this does not take place soon, if we do not wake up from our slumber, the Lord will come and found us wanting, and write again those enigmatic words: “Mene, Mene, Tekel Uphasin.”
 

“I have been inspired to work on the other issue of this problem. I am not your enemy; in my cautions and words are care and concern for all involved.”
 

If the Lord has inspired you to do what you are doing, then keep doing it to the best of your ability. At the same time, I will try to fulfill my mission.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-27 9:57 AM


Timo Onjukka

ReplyApproveDelete

“I'll not strive with you any longer, Nic. Its quite clear that the zeal and passion you have is too entrenched, albeit in the (I believe) wrong ditch of hating abortionists, and shaming the ones who see no viable options.”

 

What evidence do you have in support of your belief that I hate abortionists? Can you read my inner motivations? Are you a clairvoyant who can read my thoughts? I could also argue that you hate my guts! I will not make such a mistake! I have chosen to give you the benefit of doubt and grant you the possibility that you are doing this out of love for my soul, and that you are motivated by love—a misplaced love--instead of hate.

 

You are assuming that women in crisis have no other option. This could be true in China where some pregnant women have been physically forced to abort their unborn babies against their will. I doubt that this is true in our country. There is adoption. American women must grant their consent for abortion to take place. This makes them accomplices in the murder of their own babies. God looks at these women with compassion, but they must repent and ask for forgiveness in order to obtain peace. This is difficult when the church is telling them that they have done nothing wrong!
 

“Sadly, in my experience, far too many that vaunt proud their pro-life status never even see the need in this situation for even glimmer of love and grace, instead choosing to heap more shame and rejection, and often with means at which surely God cringes.”
 

This is not the kind of pro-lifers I am familiar with. It is rather a caricature of what I have observed. To an unsympathetic observer, the condemnation heaped by Jesus Christ on the Pharisees might have looked like lacking in love and grace, but Ellen White told us that there were tears in the eyes of our Savior as he pronounced those harsh words. It is in the eyes of the beholder. Quite often the hate people see in the actions of pro-lifers is in their own imagination because they are under a strong delusion.
 

By the way, when I presented a copy of my book to a very influential former LLU professor of ethics, he exclaimed: “This book should be in every Adventist school library.” Yesterday I received a telephone call from another retired university professor. He used to teach both in Andrews and Montemorelos. This is what he said: “I am reading your book as fast as I can. I believe every Adventist should read it.” I suggest that you take a look at it. You can find it at http://lulu.com. All you have to do to locate it is to type my name—Nic Samojluk--in the blank search space.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-27 10:11 AM

On February 26th, 2011 Elaine Nelson said:

“Those who would allow abortions only in case of rape and incest have forgotten that there are women who, on discovering a terribly deformed fetus, or one with only a few short months of life, at that, accept that abortion is the only method to avoid the consequences of an infant that will never live to its first year, sometime, even a month.”
 

Would you apply the same policy to those who have terminal cancer? Sometimes the physician tells those patients that they probably have no more than three months to live. Would you recommend that they be killed out of mercy? Many of them are under constant pain. I had a niece who was born with spinal bifida. She was provided with love and nourishment until the day she died. Do you think that she should have been killed?

“Should females not have control over their own bodies?”
 

You have expressed a totally humanistic approach to life which is antagonistic to the biblical view. My Bible tells me that we do not own our bodies. It belongs to the one who created it—the Lord. If women don’t own their own bodies, how can they claim ownership of the body of their unborn baby?


dini
2011-12-27 8:46 PM

Hi, I know it's a little late but I just had to put in my two cents.

I am shocked at the ignorance and arrogance I was reading on this page. I had to quit after about a donzen or so. I would like to address some of the arguments for abortion but first I would like to clarify something.

1) I am a woman. 2) I am alive. 3) I have freedom of choice given by God. 4) I am a Christian. Now I would like to start with the 1st and work my way through.

True or false? According to the laws of this land I have the right to do with my body as I wish -False. I have limited automomy. i.e., I can not drive in a car without my seatbelt without being penalized. Furthermore, If I decide that my middle finger is causing me nothing but trouble and I would like to cut it off I would be  (you guessed it ) institutionalized and held for psychitric evaluation. Finally, If I decided to end my own life (not someone elses, just my own) I would once again end up institutionalized and held untill I am no longer a threat to myself. Ofcourse if I should decide to make a big fiasco of ending my life and strap some bombs to my chest in the middle of a bussy store, and someone manages to stop me I would be sent to an institution for the criminally insane. So, you see, thare are limits to what I can and can not to to or with my body even though I am a woman. Therefor the argument that a woman has a right to do with her body as she please is false.

2) . As I am alive it would be logical to be for life, yes? Absoluteluy. It would be stupid for me to be for death. Can you immagine someone comming up to you and asking you if you were for death and then when you say yes he would say " well then let me help you with that". I know it sounds silly but that is just where we are headed for. Coming from Netherland I know what I am talking about. Euthanasia is practiced there along with abortion. My paternal grandmother, two sisters, an uncle and atleast one niece were euthanised in my family alone. Not all within their wishes. sometimes docters take the right to play God on themselves.

3) Now that said, I have been given freedom of choice By God Himself, so I'm not willing to give that up to Ceasar or the Powers that Be. But here is the crux. when choosing abortion I am not ending my life I am ending someone elses life (this is not legal). I know that by this worlds standarts they are not considdered person, but remember the jews, and the slaves, and yes, women and children. All at one time held the lowly position of non-personhood. It seems to me that whenever one group(A)  in society wants to undermine, use /abuse, wipe-out or commit horrible acts of autrocities against a group of people (b), group-A  simply reduces group-B  to the lowly status of non-person. So Ceasar,  if you don't mind, I choose to opt out of that excuse to eraticate my offspring. 

4) As I have said I am a Christian. Now I have noticed that some of the argumetns depend on giving to Ceasar and living under the Rule of the Powers that be. But I am a Christian! That means that I first give unto God. My first and formost alegiance is to God. then, if it does not go against His will, I am to follow man's law -So yes, I'll have to wear the dreaded seatbelt and yes I'll have to pay  my taxes. But when it comes to life, that is not Ceasar's to give, Even freewill is not Ceasar's to give. Both come from God! So agian, living by the law of the land is insufficient reason to me.

Well what about saving the mother and all that and the quality of life and such?
I was born # 10 of 10 children. when my sister #9 was born my mother was not to have anymore children as she nearly died. MOnths later she conceived again and the doctor offered her abortion as she probably would not cary me to term and if she did she could die during delivery. She choose to have me! She is now 89 and still kicking. From this I learned that thaerre are no certainties in life -even doctors can have it wrong.
As to qualuity of life, we were dirt poor tight up untill i was about 15, then God opened all sorts of doors for us and our life (not without it's struggles) became a marvel.

There are always more than one option. Babies do not ruin peoples lives, mentalities and heartness of heart do. My mothers was date raped and got pregnant, she ended up having to marry the babies father (this was in the 1930s) She never once blamed my brother, infact he was the apple of her eye eventhough her husband(whom thank God left her in time) put her through hell. Please remember that when a woman is raped and concieves that there are two victims -both who need a lot of love and support.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-28 9:25 AM

dini wrote:

Hi, I know it's a little late but I just had to put in my two cents.”

 

Two cents? I think your comments are rather worth two million dollars! You have a unique experience which no other person on this thread has had. Thanks for sharing your views with us!

 

I also thought that it was too late for me to respond to the comments posted on this blog. When I first discovered this thread, the last comment was already six months old. I didn’t think anybody would read what I initially posted. Well, I got a big surprise and was able to participate in a lively discussion with a few bloggers.


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-28 10:35 AM

On February 27th, 2011 Markus80s said:

“What is being overlooked in the article is that Adventist hospitals are being accused of performing elective abortions; meaning abortions of convenience and are unrelated to the health of the mother or baby.”
 

There are several definitions of “elective abortions.” Some experts argue that every abortion is elective, because it requires that the woman decides to end the human life developing inside her body. The “health” of the pregnant female has several meanings as well. The most common meaning is mental depression. The unexpected pregnancy causes her to worry; she can’t sleep as before, and her studies and work might be affected.
 

Another meaning is when the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman. An ectopic pregnancy is a good example. Some years ago, there was a news report about a woman whose doctor warned her that if she tried to continue with her pregnancy, both she and her baby would die. She was pro-life and decided to continue with her pregnancy and both of them ended dead, this leaving several small children as orphans. In other cases, some women likewise disregarded their physicians’ warning and had a beautiful baby without any adverse results.
 

My view is that when the evidence is very strong that the life of the woman is in serious danger and she elects to end the pregnancy, there should be no moral condemanation for her action. The duty of a physician is to save lives; if he/she cannot save both lives, saving one life is still pro-life.
 

In the case of a simple mental depression, my view is that there is no moral justification for violating the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue which forbids murder. A pregnancy is a temporary condition. Nine months of inconvenience will never morally balance the permanent deprivation of life of a human being regardless of his/her stage of development, place of residence, or circumstances connected with the pregnancy .
 

“If this is true, then the Adventist hospitals performing these elective abortions have broken the "SDA stance of performing abortions in our hospitals only in "extraordinary cases."”
 

This is fully documented in our Adventist literature. I did an exhaustive investigation about this issue and recently published the results of my research. The Title of my book is “From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventists’ Attitude Towards Abortion” and it is available at http://lulu.com. All you need to do to locate it is to type my name—Nic Samojluk— or the first portion of the book title in the search blank space.
 

“Another disturbing thing is that our church, at least to date and as far as I know, have not refuted the accusation.”
 

Yes, this is very regrettable. I spoke with Ted Wilson before the publication of my book. He advised me to contact the General Conference Health Department. I did follow his advice. This took place in February 2011 and I am still waiting for a response. I wrote to Wilson back in March, but got no answer. The church has opted to keep silence on this issue.
 

When the State of Hawaii legalized abortion back in 1970, the church was faced with a serious dilemma: The non-Adventist physicians at our Castle Memorial Hospital demanded the right to offer abortions on demand to their patients. The church opted for the Pilate solution. Our leaders declared that the church does not condone elective abortions, but they gave our hospital the right to offer abortion services to their patients. This practice spread to a least five Adventist hospitals.

“The "Adventists For Life" Facebook page in the article has been taken down, but there is an alternative page for pro-life Adventists called Advent Life Center.”
 

Thank you for advertizing my pro-life Facebook page. It was created in response to the action of the General Conference legal department which forced Mark Price to abandon his “Adventist For Life” trade name and Internet presence. I have a hard time understanding this. Our church has claimed to be pro-life, but some of our medical institutions have been profiting from abortion. Our Washington Adventist Hospital is a good example. It carries our “Adventist” name with impunity, but when Price decided to do something on behalf of the unborn, the church put him out of business right away. Can someone explain this to me?


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-29 10:20 AM

Timo Onjukka wrote:

ReplyApproveDelete

Abortion is not murder; murder is legal definition.”

 

If abortion is not murder then how come Scott Peterson was declared guilty of a double murder when he killed Lucy, his pregnant wife? For the Adventist church to rely on our human definition of murder is tantamount to dereliction of our religious duty.

 

The legal view is that if a woman wants the baby, and you kill it the action is treated as murder, but if the female doesn’t want the baby and the baby is killed then no crime has been committed.

 

My view is that in God’s eyes the abortionist is guilty of murder, and the U.S. Supreme Court Justices and the woman are accomplices to murder. There is one exception, though. If the physician can’t save both the mother and the baby, saving only one is still pro-life.
 

“Demanding that government criminalize a moral decision is equally wrong, and usurps the choice which God ratified through the cross.”
 

Yes! You must have taken this from our Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion.” And if this is true, then the following is true as well: The decision to rape a woman, robe a bank, or sexually abuse a little innocent child involves a moral decision as well. It follows then that demanding that the government criminalize rape, burglary and the sexual abuse of children is equally wrong and it usurps the choice which God ratified through the cross.
 

Can you imagine a more twisted morality than this Adventist reasoning? My Bible tells me that Jesus died to save his people from their sins, yet the church teaches that Jesus died to protect people’s right to sin. Is this the kind of Gospel we are supposed to preach?
 

“She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." [Matt. 1:21]
 

What is the role of government? What does the Bible say about this? Isn’t it to punish the evildoers? Without government society disintegrates into chaos. The role of the government is to protect the property and the lives of the human beings under its jurisdiction. The Devil is always busy inventing false reasons to remove such protection from certain groups of people. This is why there were times when women, children, slaves, and people of certain skin color had no rights—not even the right to life. They were treated as property belonging to their owners.
 

“Lets next petition the government of the world to enforce the 4th commandment as well.”
 

You are forgetting that there is a separation between church and state. Jesus said: “Give to Caesar what belong to Caesar and to God what belong to God.” Our duty to worship belongs to God, while the duty to protect the lives of human beings belongs to th government.
 

“Nic, come out of the peripheral and confounding struggle you are embroiled and emotionally vested in, and view the greater controversy.”
 

You have been deceived by the false humanistic reasoning devised by people like John V. Stevens who even today is arguing that the unborn babies have no right to life until they have taken the first breath. For our “Remnant” church to defend murder is the epitome of dereliction of our religious duty.
 

“However, unless you wish to deal with these parts of the conflict, as the original article highlights "about using force to enforce this on anyone", your posts continue to veer off topic, and continue to vaunt your position, posturing, and book/website etc.”
 

The role of the church is to preach against sin and to call people to repentance in order to secure God’s mercy and his forgiveness. The role of the government is to protect the lives and property of human beings. My role and yours as citizens is to exercise our right to vote for candidats more likely to fulfill their duty to protect those human rights.
 

“Atoday is not about "advertising anyone", and is just a venue for discussion. Melissa brought a salient question. Allow it to be addressed freely. Your means, and motives, have been questioned. I do not need your answer; perhaps God does.”
 

My motives are crystal clear: defending the right to life of all innocent human beings and my love for the church which has nourished my Adventist faith for nearly 80 years. I love my church and I have sacrificed my livelihood for this love; yet you are impugning my motives? I have been preaching “ad honorem” and performing the duty which the church has neglected to perform. You should be encouraging me instead of condemning my God assigned mission!


Nic Samojluk
2011-12-30 10:54 AM

Timo Onjukka wrote:
 

“Nic, I can honestly utter a prayer of thanks that you are neither a judge, nor God. To codify the 6th, but not the 4th? I am saddened how you represent Him, though.”
 

Jesus is the one who assigned to the government certain duties and to the church its proper role when he said: “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to him.” The specific role of the government is to protect the life and property of human beings, and the role of the church is to preach the good news of the Gospel. Said good news includes the Ten Commandments, which were designed for our welfare and happiness.
 

“The role of God in my life is rather to love those who feel unlovable and unloved.”
 

True love includes discipline. The Bible clearly teaches that those whom God loves he disciplines. You can’t divorce discipline from love. If you have children, you probably understand this basic principle.
 

“I am not so certain that my role is to become involved in the peripheral political struggle of prognosticating pro-life vs pro-choice candidates. You certainly may choose that as yours; your reasons and means to effect this you will answer for.”
 

Ellen White did encourage us to exercise our rights to vote for the right candidates. In order to vote for the right candidates for political office, you need to know what values they hold.
 

“Until you stand in the ER waiting room trying console an inconsolable mother (who treated her daughter much as you treat anyone you can label pro-choice), until you hold her in her inconsolable tears lamenting all those lost years, I suppose you will not have the heart of compassion for the babies, their mothers, the families and churches and communities behind them.”
 

I have been in the ER more than once; my sister was a nurse, and my wife is a nurse. There is an ER only half a block from my home. Pain has been very close to me. I have lost ten family members to death, including my dear daughter—nineteen—and my dear son—fifty-one. There is no need for you to preach to me about compassion!
 

“Carry on with your mission. Keep condemning; heap on the shame and pain.”
 

Did you look yourself in the mirror before writing this? Where is the love you preach so much about? Aren’t you condemning my actions simply because I disagree with you on this issue? Heaping shame on what I stand for has been your objective, and you blame me for defending those who are mercilessly slaughtered by the thousands every day?
 

 “Assuage not one hungry orphan (no, your cousin adopting-even at great personal cost to them, is not sufficient), make broad unsubstantiated statements about the faith community you profess as yours.”
 

Helping those in need is what we do almost on a daily basis. Of course, ignorance is bliss. You are ignorant about what we do, yet you are demanding more from me?
 

“When the question comes to answer 'what did you do for the least of these", consider well how to answer for your life, for your soul will be required.”
 

My duty to the Adventist community includes speaking on behalf of those being sent to the slaughter house. If I fail in this respect, the Lord will demand an account for such a dereliction of sacred duty. Read what the Holy Book says about this:
 

11If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;

12If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?” [Prov. 24]
 

“I understand how polarized this subject is, and have a unique perspective that you've yet to even try embrace in tiniest sliver of grace. I am encouraging you, for the sake of the babies, their mothers, the village, our faith community, for those reading, try.”

The Sabbath question is also a polarized subject, and it will become more so, according to the predictions made by Ellen White. Nevertheless, she encouraged us to preach it in spite of the polarization. We need to preach it for the sake of grace. Grace moved God to give us those Ten Rules of human behavior, and they include not only respect for Holy Time, but also respect for Life.
 

“I am not your enemy. The mothers who are choosing this tragic decision out of shame are not your enemy.”
 

True! They are not my enemies. They are their own enemies and the enemies of their own babies. By choosing lifestyle over life, they are choosing a life of guilt. I will not condemn them, their own conscience will do this until they kneel in front of the cross of Jesus Christ and ask for forgiveness.
 

The duty of the church is to lead sinners to repentance instead of justifying their sinful actions. Our church needs to stop offering abortion services in our hospitals. We have replaced a clear command written by God’s hand on tablets of stone with our own Guidelines on Abortion, thus negating one of God’s sacred commands. Rome redefined the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue, and we have done the same with the Sixth. This is a great sin the Lord will not overlook.
 

“But I dare say one bit of grace and love towards 'the least of these' (even one of those mothers) will save more babies than a world full of hate and shame.”
 

“The least of these” applies more to the babies than to the pregnant women who are choosing to kill their own babies. For two thousand years in the Christian community the love towards the unborn reigned supreme. This love has been replaced with the love for women’s lifestyle. This new—but false—gospel has given us over fifty million victims of the abortion genocide. Grace for the victims must have priority over all other considerations.
 

“Grace...is the light that erases the condemnation behind the shadow of the law.”
 

Without repentance the condemnation will not be erased. The Law is like a mirror. Unless we look in the mirror, we think that there is nothing wrong in our appearance. When we look at what the Law says about abortion, we are led to the cross in search of forgiveness and release from guilt.
 

“Please pass the good tidings....”
 

That’s what I have been doing! Not your version, though; but the biblical one!


Joe Erwin
2011-12-30 1:05 PM

"For two thousand years in the Christian community the love towards the unborn reigned supreme." 

This statement seems to indicate a belief that abortion did not occur, at least among Christian women, until the Supreme Court recognized that physicians and their patients could not be prosecuted for ending pregnancies. As I'm sure you know, the criminalization of abortion in America had mostly occurred within 100, or so, years prior to Roe v. Wade. As recently as 1930, 8 to 10 thousand women were dying in America of botched self or illegal abortions. By the 1960s the figure had declined substantially, in part, because many D&C procedures were actually abortions that were safely done by physicians in hospitals (including, by adventist physicians in adventist hospitals). Of course, the widespread availability of pre-conception birth control procedures helped many women avoid pregnancy who did not wish to become pregnant. Use of the widely available and safe "morning after" pill that prevents implantation when conception might have occurred is another reasonable way of preventing an unwanted pregnancy--even though Nic considers that "murder" and wishes women to feel profound guilt if they use it. I don't like abortion. It should not, in my opinion, be taken lightly. On the other hand, I have seen too many tragic results of people having unwanted children to take that lightly either. But people surely will copulate, regardless of whether or not we approve, and--sadly, too many will transmit or be infected with STDs or conceive due to ignorance, stupidity, or carelessness. Should the products of carelessness be condemned to live and the women, sometimes victims of forced sex, be required to live with those consequences?

Nic Samojluk
2012-01-01 9:41 AM

Joe Erwin
 

"For two thousand years in the Christian community the love towards the unborn reigned supreme."

“This statement seems to indicate a belief that abortion did not occur, at least among Christian women, until the Supreme Court recognized that physicians and their patients could not be prosecuted for ending pregnancies.”

 

Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify my statement. What I meant is that in Christian countries the killing of the unborn was illegal. The Hippocratic Oath prohibited the practice of abortion. Physicians had no license to kill. Their duty was to heal—not to kill.

 

“As recently as 1930, 8 to 10 thousand women were dying in America of botched self or illegal abortions.”

 

I personally question the accuracy of those figures. We need to remember what took place prior to the legalization of abortion in the U.S. Notice the following:

 

*********

"Dr. Bernard Nathanson who was one of the original leaders of the American pro-abortion movement and co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights Action League), and who has since become pro-life admits that he and others in the abortion rights movement intentionally fabricated the number of women who allegedly died as a result of illegal abortions."
 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life003.html

 

*********

 

“Use of the widely available and safe "morning after" pill that prevents implantation when conception might have occurred is another reasonable way of preventing an unwanted pregnancy--even though Nic considers that "murder" and wishes women to feel profound guilt if they use it.”

 

If you think that Nic discussed the use of the “morning after” pill, please document your claim! Can you cite me on that? I don't recall having dealt with that in this blog!

 

What is the number of abortions done prior to implantation? Do you have the figures? According to Planned Parenthood, the number of abortions resulting from rape, incest, and malformation is two percent. This means that 98 % of abortions are elective.

 

What we need to discuss first is abortions on demand, which is where our Adventist Church has sinned the most. Read the history of abortion in Adventist hospitals which started back in 1970 and it spread to at least five of our medical institutions. And I am talking about abortions on demand—not the morning after pill. You prefer to start with the gray areas and thus justify what we as a church have been doing.

 

“I don't like abortion. It should not, in my opinion, be taken lightly. On the other hand, I have seen too many tragic results of people having unwanted children to take that lightly either.”

 

There is a morally acceptable option for women who don’t want their unborn babies. It is called adoption!

 

“Should the products of carelessness be condemned to live”

 

Have you read the story of Judah and Tamar, his daughter-in-law.  The baby born of such careless sex act became the progenitor of David and Jesus Christ. Would you argue that that baby was wrongly condemned to live? Would you suggest that you and I were condemned to live by the fact that nobody killed us?

 

“and the women sometimes victims of forced sex, be required to live with those consequences?”

 

Adding another crime will not erase the memory of the rape. There is no way to un-rape a woman. If the woman gives the baby for adoption, she will not have the additional guilt of having been an accomplice to murder. We need to be consistent, if we let the rapist live, does it make sense to punish the innocent baby for the crime of the perpetrator? What kind of justice is this?


Nic Samojluk
2012-01-01 10:39 AM

Timo Onjukka wrote:
 

“I feel your very methods and means cause MORE abortions.”
 

We are not supposed to be guided by feeling, but rather by a “Thus said the Lord” and by a reliable source of statistics. Following the legalization of abortion in the U.S. the number of abortions doubled in less than a decade. You can document this by the reports published by Planned Parenthood. This means that statistics negate your “feeling.”
 

“Abortion is wrong, but not illegal.”
 

We know this! Should we also legalize rape, burglary and the sexual abuse of children in order to show compassion for those who have a strong impulse to steal, rape, and satisfy their depraved sexual appetite?
 

“Want to help? ADOPT! Or foster, support. Teach responsibility to the ones who so casually. Work for and with love, not with shame.”
 

You are forgetting that shame is the natural result of teaching “responsibility.” You see shame as a curse, but God uses shame to lead sinners to repentance. Read the following biblical statements. Would you fault Paul for shaming people into a better behavior?
 

“Because of the violence against your brother Jacob, you will be covered with shame;” [Obaddiah 1:10]

“I say this to shame you.” [1 Cor. 6:5]
 

“I wonder, if say, your daughter committed suicide because she could not bear the very real lifelong pain after having a few abortions, knowing the stance that you have against it, would you realize your hating abortion cost two lives?”
 

There are only three possible attitudes towards abortion—and towards other crimes like rape, theft, and sexual abuse of children. They are: Love, hate, and apathy. Do you think that loving abortion is the proper way to save a girl from suicide? You are confusing the love toward sin with the love towards the sinner. We do not have a duty to love sin, but rather to love the sinner.
 

There is only one correct attitude towards sin, and it is hate. God loves sinners, but he hats sin, and because he loves sinners, he disciplines them. God loved King David, and he forgave his sin, but did not remove the natural consequences of his sin. The same is true about Adam and Eve.

Physicians hate cancer, but they have compassion for the sufferer. This hate of disease leads doctors to be truthful with their patients. They do not pretend that everything is fine. Surgery is painful, but sometimes it is the only way to extirpate what will lead people to more suffering and death.
 

Hating abortion will not bring anyone to Christ”
 

I disagree! Read what I have stated above about this. You are confusing hate against sin with hate against the sinner.
 

Making abortion legally negatively sanctioned will not stop it.”
 

I agree! The same is true about burglary, theft, rape, and the sexual abuse of children.  Should society then legalize all criminal activity simply because making those actions will not stop crime?
 

And do not forget that women who are the victims of rape can eventually heal from their tragic ordeal with God’s grace, but the victims of abortion do not have such a privilege. If someone steals my car, it can be replaced; while the life of an aborted baby no man can give it back to the victim.
 

I am appealing to the Bible, to your common sense, and to your sense of justice.


Nic Samojluk
2012-01-02 4:25 PM

Timo Onjukka

ReplyApproveDelete

“Love; perhaps you have heard, covers multitude of sin. I've not read the reciprocal in my book...”

 

Love without discipline does as much harm as discipline without love. It’s too bad you were not alive when Paul mixed love with shame in his dealings with the Galatians and those in Corinth. You probably would have straightened him up on this issue. The same can be said about John the Baptist. He mixed love with shame when addressing Herod, and he paid with his life for doing so. Did he sin? What did Jesus said about him? Did Jesus condemn his actions like you are condemning mine?

 

Ellen White told us that Jesus had tears in his eyes when he uttered the strongest condemnation against the Pharisees. Even to the penitent woman caught in adultery, Jesus issued a serious warning: “Go and sin no more!” Our church tells those women: “You have done nothing wrong!” Don’t tell me that this is the true Gospel! It resembles the one preached by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden.
 

“But no more so than failing to love, feed, house, clothe the babies and their already shamed mothers.”
 

True! I didn’t say it was.
 

“In the admission hall of that great orphanage in heaven, when the questions are asked that require your soul, will someone answer "Nic told me I was naked, and shamed...?"
 

On that Day of Judgment many women will say: “My church, the “Remnant Church” authorized the abortion on demand in our own hospitals, and the Guidelines they designed justified the killing of unborn children under a variety of circumstances. My faith was weak, and I was afraid I wouldn’t be able to raise my child, so I arranged for it to be killed; and my church supported me in my decision. This led me to believe this lie!
 

“My conscience calls me to love you, too, despite, that seems your means causes more shame and pain, and that is sin.”
 

I can’t figure you out! You condemn mixing discipline with the love of the Gospel, yet in every one of your posting you keep condemning my actions. If you hate shame, why are you persistently shaming me and my mission for all to read? You are, inadvertently perhaps, negating by your actions what you are preaching.


Nic Samojluk
2012-01-02 4:34 PM

Timo Onjukka wrote:
 
"Can you adress me as a friend?"

Yes! I don't hate those who criticize my work and my mission. I have learned from my critics more than I learned from those who have only nice things to say about me. One of my worst opponents is now pro-life. This is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit. 

Trevor Hammond
2012-01-03 3:26 PM

Failing to love a 'living' sinner or to feed a 'living' orphan or loving a 'living' person who willfully aborts an unloved unwanted baby in gestation, ISN'T the same ballgame as willfully terminating the life of the 'living' unborn en mass with full 007 licensed to kill powers and have this bloodthirsty privilege provided courtesy of some glorified Govshop legislation. To me, such dodgy legislation clearly is placed on higher authority than that of God Himself and marketed as a beneficial, noble and decent commodity to the callous human rights pro-choice market which is used to legally carry out such genocide against certain conveniently classified non-entity/non-person groups (like the unborn) without granting them any (human) rights in order to exterminate them without batting an eyelid.  I recall how (not too long ago), during the sickening genocide in Rwanda, the savage militia referred to those they brutally hacked and murdered as 'cockroaches' and not as human life.  Is abortion any different?

The Govshop sells these baby killings through dodgy 'non-person' legislation in order to legitimize such a terrible atrocity. ...And to think we have to further put up with self righteous benefactors who do and say nothing much for the snuffed out lives but pamper the perpetrators of such snuffing and hold them in high esteem for exercising their killing rights. Should Adventists support this? That is the big question. Let’s ask those gas chamber hospitals how much love they got. Huh! This isn’t Mickey Mouse stuff here: we’re talking killing babies here for crying out loud.

I admire and support Nic (and dina) for speaking out and standing up for what they believe regarding pro-life and I especially think that this is admirable and courageous on such a hostile pro-abortion thread.

Trevor Hammond
2012-01-03 4:11 PM

Oops...I meant to write "(and dini)".

Nic Samojluk
2012-01-04 10:18 AM

 

Timo Onjukka

 

“Nic, I would love to sit down with you, hear your story. What is it that brought you to your beliefs, and drives your passion? I do not mean you quote anything other than your own narrative in your telling.”

 

Sit down? Do you live in or near Loma Linda? If you do, I’ll be glad to sit down with you and exchange my personal experience with you. If you don’t, then why don’t you tell us your story and I will be glad to reciprocate through this Internet medium.

 

“Sadly, your responses seem to more focus on reasons to paint others as 'enemy', and self as "right".”

 

Perhaps you have not looked yourself in the mirror. It seems that the way you perceive me is the way I perceive you. You have opposed my views right from the start.

 

“Your allegations are not backed up with any evidence (broad assertions of 'church sanctioned' abortions performed so the church could profit-this is egregious allegation without corroboration), let alone credible data;”

 

The corroborative evidence is in my book. Have you read it. I am wiling to order a gift copy of it for you if you give me your mailing address. You can sentd it to nicsamojlukATroadrunner.com. I have donated approximately 70 copies of it to some of my friends and acquaintances.

 

I have reduced my profit to almost zero by allowing 20 percent discount on the paperback version and 30 percent on the hard copy. I am doing this for the unborn, for God, and for my church. I have consistently donated half of my time to this mission for the last fifteen years, and I do not expect to recoup even one percent of my investment in time and money.

 

Most of the evidence I have included in my book came from what has been published mainly in our official “Ministry,” “Spectrum,” “Adventist Today,” and similar publication plus Adventist books in print. Here is a sample of the evidence I discovered as a result of my research. This is what Neal Wilson, the then president of the North American Division of our church, stated back in 1970 as justification for the church shift away from the pro-life position of our Adventist pioneers:

 

“Though we walk the fence, SDAs lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted with big problems of hunger and over-population, 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.]

 

Think about this: The NAD leader of the Remnant Church, the church chosen by God to proclaim the last message to the world, the people identified in Revelation as keeping God’s Commandments, declaring that killing unborn babies was morally acceptable because there were too many people and too much hunger in the world.

 

And bear in mind that this declaration was made three years before the legalization of abortion in the U.S. mainland and in the richest country of the world. If you want more stunning evidence of the way our leaders have compromised on this moral issue, let me know. Of course, I hope you decide to read my book and thus get all the evidence.

 

“Does God employ "force" (or legislation, guilt, social activism etc), and if so, are you charged to be the 'consequence police' for the ones you deem are failing said "legislatiuon"?”

 

The Lord rarely employs force. There are a few exceptions like the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Ananias and Sapphire. The church has no civil power to enforce its moral values on the rest of society, but it has a duty to preach against sin. The Bible describes the pastors’ dereliction of duty in this respect as dogs which will not bark.

 

“Arguably most ironic is how your answers always toss in other crimes like theft, rape, murder;”

 

Theft, rape and murder were included by the Lord among the Ten Commandments for our benefit. Do you have any objection to God’s wisdom in doing this?

 

“All of your answers, to me, seem to be tinged with 'throwing blood', and your posture there is not a drop on you.”

 

I could level the same charge against you! Have you looked yourself in the mirror?

 

“Let me again state; I am against abortion.”

 

Perhaps you are, but you do not sound like one!

 


Nic Samojluk
2012-01-04 10:38 AM

 

Trevor Hammond wrote:
 

“Failing to love a 'living' sinner or to feed a 'living' orphan or loving a 'living' person who willfully aborts an unloved unwanted baby in gestation, ISN'T the same ballgame as willfully terminating the life of the 'living' unborn en mass with full 007 licensed to kill powers and have this bloodthirsty privilege provided courtesy of some glorified Govshop legislation.”

 

I couldn’t have said this better.

 

“To me, such dodgy legislation clearly is placed on higher authority than that of God Himself and marketed as a beneficial, noble and decent commodity to the callous human rights pro-choice market which is used to legally carry out such genocide against certain conveniently classified non-entity/non-person groups (like the unborn) without granting them any (human) rights in order to exterminate them without batting an eyelid.”

 

Amen, brother!

 

“I recall how (not too long ago), during the sickening genocide in Rwanda, the savage militia referred to those they brutally hacked and murdered as 'cockroaches' and not as human life. Is abortion any different?”

 

And, according to the testimony of some Adventists who have lived there and are more familiar with what took place in said country, our Adventist brethren did all the killing of their own Adventist members only during the week, but abstained from the slaughter during the sacred hours of the Sabbath. This is reminiscent of the behavior of those who crucified Jesus, who then rushed home to keep the Sabbath Holy!

“The Govshop sells these baby killings through dodgy 'non-person' legislation in order to legitimize such a terrible atrocity. ...And to think we have to further put up with self righteous benefactors who do and say nothing much for the snuffed out lives but pamper the perpetrators of such snuffing and hold them in high esteem for exercising their killing rights. Should Adventists support this? That is the big question. Let’s ask those gas chamber hospitals how much love they got. Huh! This isn’t Mickey Mouse stuff here: we’re talking killing babies here for crying out loud.”

 

I am amazed at your fidelity to what Scripture teaches about this issue and the clearness with which you defend what is morally right. May the Lord continue to bless your efforts to speak on behalf of those who cannot speak in their own defense!

“I admire and support Nic (and dina) for speaking out and standing up for what they believe regarding pro-life and I especially think that this is admirable and courageous on such a hostile pro-abortion thread.”

 

I have no words to express my appreciation for your comments. The Lord has sent you to post such timely comments!


Nic Samojluk
2012-01-04 11:04 AM

Timo Onjukka wrote:
 

“most SDA are clearly AGAINST abortion”
 

My research seems to support the theory that two thirds of those Adventists whose opinions were published in our Adventist publications between 1970 and 2006 were opposed to abortion. Nevertheless, two third of the Adventists leaders were rather pro-choice, and the church granted the power to draft the church policy regarding abortion to the Loma Linda University, which had a stake in the abortion issue. This was akin to granting the Tobacco industry the power to legislate the rules relating to smoking.
 

“but also clearly NOT FOR legislating choice for another person.”
 

Ellen White did all in her power to influence legislation dealing with the liquor controversy. Were she alive today, I have no doubt that she would use her influence on behalf of the protection of the unborn.
 

“I sense in our culture that one human choosing a moral decision for another is equally wrong.”
 

We have no right to impose our moral values on others, but the role of the church is to preach against sin and the violation of God’s Commandments. Ellen White did state that we have a duty to exercise our civil rights and she also said that doing nothing is a dereliction of our moral and religious duty. She added hat God will hold us responsible for failing to act in this rspect.
 

“I do not believe you, or Nic, or any man, or any other person can, should, or ought to choose for any woman what the laws of the land allow.”
 

I agree! Nevertheless, we have the sacred duty to warn sinners about the consequences of their evil deeds.
 

“Tragic? Undoubtedly. Even more tragic is the polarization and condemnation it fosters within families, churches, villages, states, nations.”
 

Wrong! Jesus did say that he did not come to bring peace to the world, but rather a sword, where individuals would be against their own family members.
 

“We cannot demand legislation codify one of our moral laws, and not the other....while we condemn Sunday law legislation!”
 

If we have a duty to vote against Sunday legislation, our duty to vote for the protection of human right to life is even more sacred. Nobody is dying as a result of Sunday worship, but over 50 million human beings have perished as a result of the wrong law dealing with abortion.


Trevor Hammond
2012-01-06 12:35 AM

1John 3:12 says that Cain murdered his brother. Do we have to have to wait for the US Government via its glorified Courts to approve whether this can be termed murder or not?  Gen 4:8 says that Cain ‘killed’ Abel.  Then 1John 3:15 goes further and builds on what Jesus said in Matt 5:28 (regarding committing Adultery or sinning in the heart): “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” These routine legal killings of the living unborn is quite a serious matter in terms of the wholesale slaughter advocated and supported by Society in the form of Government Legislation and Taxpayers money, the latter of which funds much of this killing and hence the need for conscientious objectors to voice their indignation.  By the way, Encarta Dictionary defines ‘kill’ as: “TO CAUSE SOMETHING LIVING TO DIE.” (also, it goes further by adding – “transitive and intransitive verb to cause the death of a person, animal, or other organism.”) So, what part of kill don’t Abortionists understand? I think the teens referred to in this blog are quite right in questioning the goings on at these bloodthirsty easy money killing factories.

Nic Samojluk
2012-01-06 10:23 AM

Timo Onjukka wrote:
 

“Respect the forums by stopping these continual off topic forays. It is my right and responsibility to maintain some decorum on the forums.”
 

Off topic? You used the same argument when you tried to silence me sometime ago. Could you explain to us what is off topic in what either Trevor or I have said which prompted you to resort to issue such a warning? Dictionaries define murder as the killing of an innocent human being, and the topic of this forum is abortion. Are you suggesting that an unborn baby is guilty of some crime? Or that the unborn is not a human being? I am asking this because reason should prevail when there is a disagreement.
 

“God granted the choice to Cain, to even kill Abel.”
 

Yes, God granted Cain the freedom to murder his brother Abel. But Jesus said: “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” Can you define the role of the government and the church for me? How does our Constitution define the duty of the government? Isn’t it to protect the life and property of each human being under its jurisdiction? If we had no police, would our life and property be safe?
 

By legalizing the killing of innocent human beings, the government is guilty of failing to perform its sacred duty. Likewise, the duty of the church is to preach against sin, and if the church fails in its duty as well, then instead of freedom the result will be anarchy. The church has no power nor authority to impose its moral values on any body, but it has the responsibility to preach against sin, and the killing of innocent human being is a grievous sin in the eyes of the Lord.
 

Read what Jesus said about those who cause people to sin, be it the government officials or church leaders:
 

1Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3So watch yourselves.” [Luke 17]


Nic Samojluk
2012-01-07 8:48 AM

Timo Onjukka wrote:
 

“Nic, please answer the thread, not someone else through response to another individual. Tactics such as this will not be permitted to continue here.”
 

Please, quote me the Adventist Today's rule I have violated. Where is the rule stating that I cannot comment on somebody else’s arguments and views? If there is such a rule, I need to know. I do believe in abiding by parliamentary rules and I always try to abide by them, but they must clearly posted for everybody to see them. I have been blogging for many years now, and I have come across hundreds of instances where bloggers respond to views posted by others. Is this a new rule AT has designed recently?
 

“I firmly believe MORE abortions are performed when the subject gets this emotional.”
 

Do you have any statistics in support of this? I have evidence which contradicts your assertion. Can we compare what you have with what I have been able to discover?
 

“Grace, brother, grace to you. Shame never cured shame, nor guilt.”
 

You are calling for grace instead of shame, but you have been shaming my mission from day one. Is this a one way street? I count with the support of highly educated and very intelligent Adventists who care for the church probably much more than you do. An LLU retired very influential ethics leader told me that my book should be in every Adventist library, and a friend of mine who is scheduled to teach a course in ethics at Andrews University told me that he will be using my book in his classroom.
 

I have received favorable comments from around the country and the world from Adventists who believe in the work I have been doing. Who are you to demean and criticize my work? I have seen the hand of providence as I worked on my research. On one occasion, as I struggled to secure some sensitive statistics about our Adventist involvement in the abortion industry, I asked the Lord in desperation to help me secure what the church refused to provide, and a friend out of the blue sent me a link to a web site where some Adventist statistics had been posted by someone.
 

I posted a request for the author of said statistics to contact me without realizing that the thread had been dead for six months. The following day, when I visited the site, I discovered that my comment had been deleted. I discovered hat management did not allow anybody to resurrect a dead thread. The next day, I received an email from the person I was trying to contact. He told me that by “coincidence” he had visited the thread and decided to contact me. He helped me secure the statistics I was searching for.
 

I have had similar experiences as I worked towards my goal. I will share with you another anecdote. As I was preparing the book for publication and taking care of my real estate business, I realized that I was working against tremendous odds. I asked the Lord to give me more time. Overnight, my real estate business failed and I had no option but to close it. It dawned on me that the Lord had intervened in response to my request. Now I had the time needed to complete my task.
 

“Gasoline on a fire.”
 

Innocent unborn babies are dying like flies by the millions, and you are shaming me for trying to stop this merciless genocide? The real victims here are not those who need another pair of shoes, better clothes or a better diet, but rather those whose bodies are being torn apart by forceps inside abortion clinics.
 

“Begin to love”
 

Love means giving priority to those whose lives are being taken from them on a daily basis. If one child is hungry and another is dying, which one do you take care of first? Isn’t it time for us to examine our church’s priorities? We have invested precious time to extend the life of smokers, and when we succeed we glory in the fact that we have extended their lives by four or five years; yet we do almost nothing to extend the lives of the unborn by 80 or 90 years! And we look the other way while hundreds of innocent babies are being killed inside our own medical institutions.
 

“instead of hate.”
 

It is love which prompts me to continue with my mission, yet you are trying to tell me that it is hate?  Are you a clairvoyant? Can you read my heart? Should I listen to you instead of the Holy Spirit which has guided me from day one?


Joe Erwin
2012-01-07 9:24 AM

Claiming to be led by the "Holy Spirit" is a claim that cannot be falsified. How can we know whether that assertion is true? Our only recourse is to evaluate what one says or does. We should remember, of course, that some people who do horrible things are merely following the instructions of the "voices in their heads." In some cases, these voices are attributed to the devil ("the devil made me do it"), while others are thought to be the voices of angels or God or the Holy Spirit. Whatever the source of obsession, there is probably some acceptable range of focus that is quite healthy and constructive. When one moves beyond mentally healthy and constructive focus into compulsive and paranoid obession, in which everything is seen through the lens of the focal issue, there is a need for concern and modulation. Of course abortion warrants attention, careful consideration, and action to address issues of women's health and prevent unwanted preganancies and to promote adoption of infants from unintended pregancies carried to term. I don't think anyone here has argued against that. I hope all our efforts can be focused on addressing problems constructively and effectively, with due consideration, and appropriate and constructive passion and compassion.

Preston Foster
2012-01-08 3:52 AM

 Biblically speaking, being led by the Spirit can, indeed, be confirmed -- or not:  "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law," Galatians 5:22-23.

Trevor Hammond
2012-01-08 1:28 AM

Are the issues surrounding whether abortion is right OR wrong merely a 'belief' when considered in the context of Christianity or is there more to this? For me, the 'thou shalt not kill' [Ex 20:13] does suffice as a strong base for how this issue should be looked at especially for a Commandment keeping people. I express my opinion of course in this regard (as always) of which I may very well be wrong.

My dear wife and I were driving passed an anti-Abortion march some time ago and there was a placard with something like 'honk if you support our anti-abortion march' which was accompanied by the protesters shouts. We were moved to honk in support.

I fixed up an old VHS tape player the other day and stuck in an ultrasound video of my daughter at six months during my wife's pregnancy thirteen years ago. We could see the head, face, heart, spine, hands and feet. This was so amazing. Praise God for the remarkable blessing of life!

Trevor Hammond
2012-01-11 1:37 AM

The theory that an unborn baby is a human being but not a person was the key factor in disqualifying the unborn baby from Fourteenth Amendment protection which is offered to those qualifying as ‘persons’as far as I know.  The Supreme Court in their Roe vs Wade decision accepted this theory so as to separate personhood from humanity.  I’m curious to know on what objective scientific evidence this was based on or even full proof theological argument for that matter for such a decision which even today has no general consensus among experts.  Even the Supreme Court was unclear as to when an unborn child is 'viable' or actually 'alive' and left this for the individual states to decide so it seems.  Secondly how could such a decision remain without being overturned whilst it is still being argued whether the unborn baby feels pain during an abortion?  Although this 'pain or no pain' issue in my opinion doesn’t warrant abortion either way, shouldn’t this (among other arguments) at least be established first before just granting abortionists Carte Blanche?  Thirdly, should the Christian community and in particular SDA's, accept such unclear prescriptive measures as an ethical basis for supporting and participating in it?  I am not convinced.

Elaine Nelson
2012-01-11 11:25 AM

For those who rely on the Bible for their answers, the Jewish law accorded "personhood" when the "breath of life" entered the body (God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he became a living soul).  Prior to that, it was a simple miscarriage,  which can be up to 40% of all conceptions.  Only when an infant can breathe, can it be alive, and that point of viability, which is earlier all the time, does inevitably reach a point of impossibility:  a 12-week fetus cannot breathe, and by that rule, cannot not be considered a person.


Elaine Nelson
2012-01-11 1:10 PM

Did God "conceive in his heart" all the many deformed infants?  The anencephalic?  The many defects inhibitive to life?

Did God "conceive in his heart"  every child conceived in rape?

Extending such a premise begs too many questions.  It's similar to saying  "whatever will be is all according to God's plan."  Do you honestly believe that to be true?  Did God PLAN or ALLOW evil?  Does  he give man free will to choose?  Yes, choice has consequence, but God allows man that freedom; otherwise we would be robots. 


Ervin Taylor
2012-01-11 2:12 PM

This topic provides a almost perfect example where two equally reasonable people--in this case, Elaine and Timo--can respectfully disagree on a fundamental issue with a lot of emotional content.  It's too bad that more of us are not able to do that.  

Elaine Nelson
2012-01-11 2:25 PM

In the end, just as in personal religious choice, no one but those involved in such dilemmas should be allowed to make their own very personal decisions.  God would not have it otherwise.  To allow any one, or any government institution to make such choices would be a violation of our first amendment rights.  What possible reason, other than religion, would induce anyone, including the government, to deprive an individual of such inalienable rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence:  "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" and concurrent with the IV Amendment:  "the right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated."

Trevor Hammond
2012-01-12 2:00 AM

Gen 2:7 tells us that the inanimate form of Adam was given life when God breathed into him the breath of life.  Fundamentally this is not the same as conception in which living organisms from both a living man and a living woman miraculously join together to become a unique living entity which is very much alive.  All human beings start out this way and develop rather remarkably during this time.  The unborn child is a living entity which receives and transfers the oxygen needed for survival and development as perfectly designed by God.   The ‘mode’ of this process is changed at birth when the lungs provide this function. 

What about those who are on respirators or oxygen machines?  Are they non-human/non- persons  just because their breathing process isn’t working as it should?  I think of Asthmatics who battle breathing and need medication to relieve and assist their life threatening condition.  Adam, or even an unborn/born child for that matter, would die within a very short while without receiving the vital oxygen supply needed in order to sustain human life.  Killing the unborn denies ‘us’ the basic security found in the right to life, personhood and the dignity of humanity that is so precious and sacred to ‘all’. 

“Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21).

Joe Erwin
2012-01-12 8:09 AM

The sperm and ova are both alive prior to conception, as is any cell in the body until it dies. So, life is already present BEFORE conception. Unless implantation occurs, the conceptus is not on a trajectory toward becoming an independent individual human.

I'm sure you are aware of the efforts by some to declare some nonhuman animals as "persons" as a justification to extend to them "human rights." Do you have thoughts about that?

Trevor Hammond
2012-01-13 1:05 AM

Apart from the experiments with ‘chimeras’ and the ‘human rights for dolphins’ enthusiasts I have come across the talk of certain ‘primate upgrades’ which seek to wire these apes with some nifty human data in order for them to be considered ‘persons’.  The last example I think would be what you may have perhaps referred to.  The big question that arises in all of this is a clear definition of what constitutes a person.  Some from the ‘primate upgrade’ camp discussions have suggested that a person has to be rational and have a continuous stream of consciousness.  Some even say that an animal of ‘any’ type could be a person.  To me, this is some bizarre stuff – even suggesting that the primates would kinda like to be upgraded! 

I find though, based on the 'rational' component of what they suggest is one of two criteria defining a person (according to them of course), that if the same principle of being rational is applied to distinguish between an unborn child and a child that is born (as per criteria posited by the ‘Frankensteiners’), then even born babies won’t qualify as persons too.  Also, if we still can’t sort out all the ‘monkey tricks/business’ that real humans beings are up to why upgrade our distant ‘cousins’ (as you perhaps may be more comfortable calling them).  We have already got it wrong in defining humanity and personhood as seen in the current horrific Abortion issue so I think we need to take a rain check on those dodgy proposed  primate ‘upgrades’.

I'll just say sorry 'pri' mates for suggesting to turf your 'upgrade'  - just in case you may read this one day... :)

Trevor Hammond
2012-01-12 11:40 AM

Here is a link to an interesting Alexander Tsiaras video clip called 'from conception to birth' which I have found fascinating and hope others will too:

http://christian-apologetics.org/2011/new-scientific-visualization-out-of-yale-from-conception-to-birth/

RuthAnn Wyman
2012-06-12 3:23 PM

I've read with much interest the above entries about a very complex issue.  I used to be more pro-choice (ie. pro-life for myself, let others decide for themselves) until my husband and I experienced the the very real pain of infertility, and I had worked for awhile in the Obsteterics area as a nurse.  I just found it interesting that others considered a developing fetus, as "just a mass of cells", but if it was theirs and a wanted pregnancy, and then they miscarried, they grieved the loss of their BABY!  I've come to the conclusion that there are definitely gray areas in this issue, such as doing AB's to save the mother's life, or in the cases of rape and incest, leaving that decision up to the mother....However, after finally having a child after 12 years of marriage, and holding our precious son in our arms, I became decidedly pro-life.  We also went on to adopt a baby girl through the foster system (which some of you would probably have thought would be better off being aborted) who suffered birth asphyxia, from a heroin/methadone addicted birthmother, who also drank alcohol during pregnancy.  Her first month on a vent was a very rough one, and the following 6 months as well, being on continous oxygen due to lung damage from the birth asphyxsia...  It's been difficult raising her through some of "her issues", but we consider her arrival and survival nothing less than a miracle, and a true gift from God.  We firmly believe that she is just as precious to Him as any "normal" child, and that He has a plan for her life....Our society seems to be overly focused on perfection, and some find it easy to make declarations, that many unwanted pregnancies (children) would be better off being aborted etc....Well, we do live in an imperfect world, where both children and adults suffer, but I don't feel it's our job to decide who should live and who should die...as I believe God can bring good out of any situation, and that each little life is so precious to Him...This may sound simplistic to some, but I cannot think otherwise....It just saddens me to see how many in our church and society have such little respect for these little lives....I have such a burden for the children in our foster system, and it frustrates me when I see people applauded for adopting children from third world countries, while there are millions in our own country who need a loving home...I call them "America's Forgotten Children"....It's hard to sleep at night sometimes thinking about all of these little ones.....Just wanted to share some food for thought....I know we as a society and individually face difficult decisions about these issues....but to me, each little life is so precious to Him and should be treated as such by the rest of us!

Elaine Nelson
2012-06-12 5:08 PM

As a Christian, it should be first and foremost the position that only each individual should have the free will of choice and conscience to make the most personal decisions.  To abort or not to abort is one of those most personal choices.  To interfere is to deny one of God's children to have the free choice and making one for her--in contradiction to all the ideals of Christianity.

You have done an admirable act by reclaiming an infant who had little hope.  But again, this was your personal choice and should not have been made by others.  Whether one believes that "God can bring good out of any situation" should be determined by each individual, not society, not the church, not the courts, not Congress.  It is restricting one's religious liberty to do otherwise.

God does not always bring good out of any situation.  Only those who don't know history could make such statements.  Did good come out of the Holocaust?  Will good come out of the Syrian massacres?  Does good come out of murder?  This is very simplistic thinking and should not be part of a Christian vocabulary.

If a young woman is faced with a horribly deformed condition with a pregnancy, she, and no one else will be responsible for it for life.  If she feels incapable of properly caring for this fetus, it should be her decision alone, and no one else.  If she wishes to carry to term, she should engage the family and friends in that decision with assurances they will help and sustain her and not be faced with it alone.

Many young girls have made a decision that they are not capable when pregnant, to be a mother with all its many responsibilities and have chosen to abort in the early first trimester.  It is not an easy decision, but was best in all the many circumstances that I know of.

Today, the problem is not abortion, as there are far fewer every year.  The problem is teen mothers who aren't ready to be mothers; who have not yet completed their education (often high school) and they become societal dependents on taxpayers who often begrudge their subsidies, especially when several children are being  covered in the same way.  There should be much more concern over this phenomenon as we pay for each child for at least 18 years compared to an abortion that we do not pay for.  Think about it.

Kevin Riley
2012-06-12 7:27 PM

Elaine

I am sure you didn't mean it to be your main point, but reducing life to a simple matter of economics as you do in your last paragraph hardly seems to be 'pro-life' to me.  The same argument would have us refusing treatment to the elderly because we would not get a good 'return' on our 'investment'.

Elaine Nelson
2012-06-12 9:53 PM

This topic:  life and the close of life and its costs are being discussed in many areas of the media.  It cannot be ignored when healthcare is being actively debated. 

I have read the recent article in either Newsweek or Time about the elderly parents of the writer and the costs for their last few weeks.  We cannot turn a blind eye.  At the age of 87, I have long ago signed power of attorney for my health which designates no extreme measures when death is soon.  So, I have no problem whatsoever in thinking of treatment and costs.  Physicians are actively discussing the endless round of diagnostic tests and procedures that are very costly and yet contribute to no length of life. 

I was hospitalized a week in January of this year and although Medicare covered all costs, I carefully review the statements.  There were many useless procedures that contributed nothing to improving my health or furnished essential information.  But the fee-for-service type of practice must end and be replaced by evidence-outcomes based on studies determining those that are necessary for either diagnosis or treatment and those that only add to the costs.

This must change.  Economics CANNOT be removed from healthcare.  If patients and hospitals and physicians do not control costs, health insurance companies will do it. 

As far as life as "simple economics" that is exactly how life insurance actuarials determine their premiums.  Who has a problem with that?

Kevin Riley
2012-06-13 12:18 AM

After hitting "add comment" I realised I have argued for taking economics into account throughout teh life cycle.  What I am against is it being primarily an economic decision.  There are many reasons why we may be against prolonging the life of ourselves or those close to us, but I would hate to think that the economic issues are uppermost.  We have a close association with a paediatrician and an on-and-off relationship with a psychologist and OT for my son.  I have a psychologist and am waiting to see a psychiatrist for help that the psychologist is not able to give.  I know my doctor well, as well as a couple of her colleagues, and have been on a first name basis with a couple of technicians at the local pathology service (apparently they remember the 'difficult' patients, especially if we have tests they don't get to do often).  Both my wife and I have fathers only a couple of years younger than you, and our mothers are not far off 80.  We are very familiar with the economic aspect of healthcare.  There are times when you do have to say that the (possible/probable) benefit does not justify the cost.  But there are other considerations as well, and they may at times over-ride the economics for everyone.

Elaine Nelson
2012-06-13 12:44 PM

What area of our lives is unaffected by economics?  As healthcare is a very large part of the U.S. today, it cannot be ignored nor will it be in the future.  Tough choices must be made and cannot continue to be dictated to the patient's immediate family when they will not be paying the bills for the treatments desired to prolong life a day or two longer.

A reason that all should make such decisions in advance to avoid these situations,

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