The Puzzling SDA’s Apathy Towards the Plight of the Unborn
I wrote the following article three years ago at the request of Dr. Ervin Taylor, Executive Editor of “Adventist Today.” A shortened, edited version was published in the January/February/2007 issue of said magazine. The publication generated a highly controversial exchange between the author and one of the magazine readers. This unedited exchange is posted below
*********
The Puzzling SDA Apathy Towards the Plight of the Unborn
The Plight of the Unborn
Never in the history of humankind the lives of the unborn have been at risk on such a mass scale. There is no question but that the womb, the sacred chamber God provided for the protection of the unborn, is today the most dangerous place on earth (1). According to statistics provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute [Planned Parenthood], the number of abortions performed per year in the U.S. since 1973 averages 1,560,198 (2). The statistics for the entire world is even scarier: Approximately 46 Million (3). This surpasses by far any other cause of death, including wars (4).
If car accidents, smoking, or cancer, were responsible for the deaths of such a large number of human beings, I suspect that SDA’s would be demanding that something be done to put a stop to such a waste of human life. Half of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at or before the eight week of pregnancy (5); which means that approximately 800,000 developing babies are denied the right to life each year at a stage when they look very human, with recognizable arms, legs, head and feet, as revealed by ultrasound pictures (6). This is why when an abortion is performed, the nurse must account for all the parts of the dismembered baby to avoid serious health hazards for the mother.
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
59 Responses to “The Puzzling SDA’s Apathy Towards the Plight of the Unborn”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If God Values Freedom, Why do we Condemn Stealing and Murder?
by Janine Goffar
Hi Marsha,
How would you respond to someone who then asks (as Nic Samojluk does), if God values freedom so much, why don’t we legally allow people to be free to murder and steal? Oh, you say, but murder and stealing are wrong. We can’t allow it.
But to Nic, killing an embryo is the exact moral equivalent of murder. If that is so, and we as a society were agreed on it, then of course we wouldn’t allow even one abortion.
So, it is the disagreement on when fully morally valuable human life begins that is the issue, not whether God values freedom. Most Christians in America agree that God values freedom. The question is, when do we want the state to legally limit people’s freedom to choose? Even freedom-loving SDA’s want murder (and burglary and perjury and larceny and embezzlement and child abuse) to be legally prosecutable, even though we believe “God values freedom.”
Janine
It is Better to be Safe than Sorry!
by Nic Samojluk
What matters is not what Nic thinks, but rather what the Lord thinks and what the Christian Church has taught throughout the centuries. The new view on abortion is the tragic moral outcome of the sexual revolution which is in direct opposition to the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue. Abortion did not come by accident, but as a corollary of the new view of sexuality and free love, which the Lord abhors.
If you are still uncertain whether a three months unborn child is fully human or not, then I suggest you choose to err on the side of caution. If the ice under your feet is not solid, then stop skating on thin ice. Your life may be in jeopardy. It is better to be safe than sorry! On judgment day the Lord will not accept excuses.
Nic
Thanks for a Most Interesting Discussion
by Janine Goffar
Hi Nic,
I’ll just say at this time that I believe I have addressed each of your points here and in your above posting, in my earlier letters. The fact that you do not, for pragmatic and pacifist reasons, support killing an abortion doctor does not take away from my moral argument that it wouldn’t be, apart from the pragmatic considerations, wrong, if one assumes your premise and comes from the more typical non-pacifist stance.
Your main argument appears to be the side-of-caution argument, which I reject for the reason I have stated, i.e., it is an infinite regress, and can be used to make most any argument to the more conservative side of any position held, including yours.
But I honor the passion and conviction of you pro-lifers, who, while perhaps not positively certain, are at least convicted enough about the value of a fertilized egg to want to enforce that view on others. That’s where we disagree. I am not convicted enough until later. Then I am. Again, I’m not certain, and still don’t believe it’s murder, but I’m convicted enough about its wrongness to impose it upon others–particularly since the vast majority of Americans say they would be satisfied with such a compromise. (See? I can be pragmatic, too–as you are when it comes to the thought of killing an abortion doctor!)
God bless you, and thanks for a most interesting discussion.
Janine
Good for You to Stand for What You Believe
by Denise C.
Dear Janine,
Hmmmmm. Looks like you stirred some stuff up. But then, that’s what this forum [the "JList" email forum] is for. I am sure you are tired of discussing this. Good for you to stand for what you believe even when there are those who disagree with you. If you can do this now… then you will be able to stand when the majority is against you for your Sabbath beliefs.
As always, God bless you for bringing to us new ways to see and think about society’s problems.
Denise C.
I Hope I am Judged by my Desire and Willingness to do Right
by L.H.
Janine,
I don’t know if you get enough feedback about what a service your JList is. Every once in a while I think about the amount of time you spend on your work and I’m grateful to you.
It seems to me you have grown in the acuteness of your analysis. Your writing style continues to be concise and gracious. I envy your wit and wisdom.
The idea of a “wrong choice” doesn’t seem to be quite what most of us mean when we say it. It presumes that one “knows” with quite a lot of certainty what the “right” choice is and deliberately chooses wrongly.
What most of us mean when we are talking about things like abortion, and we say we are opposed to abortion in most cases, means that in a certain select set of cases the argument is so persuasive that we can not really tell, as honestly as we might try, what the “right” or “wrong” choice is, so we “lean” more one way than the other always with sadness and regret and without absolute certainty.
In the day of judgment, I hope I am judged by my desire and willingness to do right and not by carefully thought out yet unintentional wrongs that become evident only in the light of God’s presence.
I have appreciated your thoughts on the topic of abortion. Your position is well thought out and articulated. Beyond that, every person must be persuaded twice, once generally and then once more in his/her own specific circumstance such as with a daughter, wife or friend etc.
L. H.
Thank You for Your Kind Words
by Janine Goffar
Very thoughtful points, L. H. I agree with what you say. I especially appreciated your last observation, that our view of things is to some degree unavoidably tempered and modified by personal experience.
Thank you for your kind words. My warm feeling is all the warmer because of my high regard for you, and my deep admiration for the way you write and think. You’ve been and continue to be a great teacher.
Blessings, my friend,
Janine
Depriving a Human Being of Life Can Never Be a Human Right!
by Nic Samojluk
Janine,
Thanks for submitting the comments you received from L.H. He/She states the following:
A pregnant woman who chooses life for the baby she is carrying and doesn’t want or is not ready to raise herself is less likely to regret the decision if she chooses to give the baby up for adoption than if she decides to opt for the abortion alternative. Besides she will have the assurance that she had done the “right” thing. It will be as close to “absolute certainty” as is feasible for human beings, because the good book encourages us to “choose life.” Besides, she will enjoy the gratitude of the family looking for a baby to adopt.
Sorry to disagree! Taking the life of a human being, regardless of its size and location, is never “unintentional.” It is always the result of a definite and deliberate choice–and a wrong choice, of course. Depriving a human being of life can never be a “right” choice! I marvel about the lack of vision of women who, having a much more desirable option, choose death for her own flesh and blood!
Nic
Skating on Thin Ice
You have repeatedly stated that you are not sure whether a fertilized egg–or an early embryo–has the moral value of a born baby. My answer is still the same: You should err on the side of caution. If you are not sure whether the ice you are skating on is solid enough, I hope you agree with me that it would be foolish to continue skating on it. That is precisely what society and our church is doing: skating on thin ice.
Your state that we could go further on the use of caution and include the unfertilized egg as well. You acknowledge that extending the analogy that far would be “silly”, and I fully agree with your assessment. There is a significant difference, I believe, between the unfertilized egg and a fertilized one. The unfertilized egg bears the woman’s DNA markers, while the fertilized one possesses its distinctive and unique identity. You also state the following:
My question to you is: If you are trembling at the thought that your position might be wrong, isn’t it time to stop skating on thin ice?
Continued below by Nic.
Is Murder the Solution for Murder?
Furthermore you argue as follows:
My question to you is: Is murder the right solution for murder? Should individuals fight fire with fire? Should we seek justice with our own hands? Should pro-lifers start killing the providers of abortion? My answer to all these question is a plain and loud “NO.” The reasons are many. I will limit myself to a few.
First, we live in an orderly society. We have agreed to be ruled by laws, and the current laws protect those engaged in the abortion industry. Fighting fire with fire would require that we take the laws into our own hands and murder not a few abortionists. It would require murdering all the justices who voted to legalize abortion, all the members of Congres who have decided to do nothing to protect the unborn, all the voters who believe that abortion should be legal, all the church members who believe that skating on thin ice is safe.
This means more than just another civil war. It means murdering a larger number of human beings than the number of fetuses that have been aborted so far. Fighting fire with fire is what we are doing in Iraq. Saddam killed his thousands, and we have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The remedy has turned to be worse than the disease. What good is democracy for the Iraqis if they are dying like flies? This is why I insist that your analogy of murdering the murderer is unacceptable in my book. We need to consider the eventual outcome of our actions. Martin Luther King did, and he is one of my heroes. Bush promulgated his “Preemptive War” doctrine, and we can see the terrible consequences of its implementation.
Continued below by Nic.