Business Between Sisters
Share
The word of God says:
11 Pound those who are led to death; Save to those in danger of death. —PROVERBS 24:11
This is a text that we must all consider, as followers of Christ and/or as human beings that we are. Those of us who are human, I clarify.
The following article is an excerpt from our study:
Ellen White Under the Magnifying Glass, PART 12: The “SOLA SCRIPTURA” Not So Sola, Rafael Díaz and the “Seventh” Day Adventists
In that article we cover in depth the Babylonian adventures of the most dangerous sect that has ever existed in the history of humanity: The “Seventh” Day Adventist Church. Since we cover quite a few areas—all of their “28 Fundamental Beliefs”, we saw it prudent to extract and focus on the part that most identifies it as a religious institution: The practice of abortion in its “health” institutions. Yes, more than the fourth commandment of God's law, the Adventist Church distinguishes itself even more with the sixth: “you will not kill“—but vice versa (EXD. 20:13), and here we are going to demonstrate it once again, as a very popular TV program from the 80's said: "Although you do not believe it". [2]If You Will Kill — Abortion, THE HYDE AMENDMENT and The Adventist Church
[STUDY, Cristo Verdad]
Although in CristoVerdad we have covered a lot about the criminal practices of the Adventist sect, here we will focus on the documentation on the official position of the Adventist Church on Abortion, what they think about it, and where that is written. And let's not leave behind the members of that church, what they think about it and what action plan they are taking once they have learned the truth about their beloved church.
We will also draw information from our other studies that cover this issue, showing evidence—with its protagonists, exposing the evil of the church that claims to be “God's people, because it keeps his commandments.” From now on I can assure you that this will be put to the test, with the Bible in hands, and with the same published and practical evidence of said Christian denomination, in addition to what the world out there knows about this institution.
It is very common that when one confronts the Aventist sheep—call them sheep, on this matter—they simply say that “it's a lie.” You put all the evidence in their hands, and yet they deny it. And they deny it for two unique reasons that we have identified:
1. Your ignorance
2. His perversity
And we really should put perversity first, only it doesn't come to light until they are first shown their ignorance. And once their ignorance is exposed, perversity comes out very naturally, because although everyone in that sect claims to love God and their neighbor, the reality is that the vast majority of them only love their church, thus not understanding a basic and fundamental principle for everyone who has heavenly aspirations:
29 And Peter and the apostles answered and said, It is necessary obey God before men. —ACTS 5:29
Of course, in the Adventist mind they believe that they love God above all things. Well, we'll put that to the test in this very study—once again. We have a study titled How Funny the Adventist Is. It is very interesting and I recommend that you read it because Adventites are truly very funny people. [3]How Funny is the Adventist?
[STUDY, CristoVerdad]
Just yesterday I had a conversation with an individual named Fredy Pinto in an Adventist Facebook group. A conversation that we later ended privately, since Facebook blocked me for 29 days for publishing a video exposing the fraud of the Covid-19 Vaccine, which the Adventist Church itself claims to have collaborated with its creation. [4]aAdventist Church and La Vauna COVID-19
[VIDEO 00:07:08, Adventist Church] A vaccine that kills and a church that kills, would two walk together if they were not in mutual agreement? (AMOS 3:3).
[EDITION, November 13, 2022]
This video has been converted into a private video, and therefore we do not have access to it, at the moment. However, the same official website of the church presents this news. [4]bAdventist Church and La Vauna COVID-19
[VIDEO 00:07:08, Adventist Church]
[END OF EDITION]
This man, Fredy Pinto, had the audacity to say that “The Adventist Church is the only church that keeps the ten commandments.” And Pinto simply represents the thinking of every Adventist who walks and has walked this earth. Yes, truly, members of the Adventist church swear and reswear that their church keeps the law of God. Ah, how clever the snake still is! (GEN. 3:1).
While I gave evidence to Fredy about the falsehood that his sect keeps the law, he simply posted messages “laughing.” I don't think they were laughing, but that's how they act to avoid facing reality, because they prefer to act crazy since in this way there is no commitment to God, much less to their neighbor. Usually, they never take the time to review the evidence, because they were told in their own church that “The Adventist Church is the church of God because it keeps his commandments of God.” And because they were told that, their church is that. And worse still, members of the Adventist Church believe that story. That “stupidity” that Jesus said about “by their fruits you will know them” It doesn't apply to them, and they don't even consider it. Ah, the snake and its occurrences!
As you can see, my conversation with that element heated up pretty quickly. But my friends, do you think it's easy to deal with the devil face to face? Well, from now on I present to you the excerpt from the study Ellen White Under the Magnifying Glass, Part 12, where Rafael Díaz—an Adventist scholar, gives us the Adventist version of what “Sola Scriptura” is. The comments have the original date of publication, and when necessary I will make updated interventions. Let's not forget that our focus for this edition is the topic of abortion, so we will skip what is not relevant to this focus.
11/2/2020 RAFAEL DÍAZ [00:39:45]
“As Catholics know that Adventists believe in scripture, The devil also says, well I'm going to quote the scriptures... And if we don't study we will fall into deception”.
11/5/2020 JOSÉ LUIS JAVIER
Well, my friend, I think it's too late for that, Adventists—including you, have already fallen for the deception. The word of God says “you will not kill“, and the Adventist church kills, and there is no one to convince Adventists otherwise, even though the same sect—and the world—say so. [5]Abortion, Guidelines
[LINK, Adventist Church] [2]If You Will Kill — Abortion, THE HYDE AMENDMENT and The Adventist Church
[STUDY, CristoVerdad] [6]Ted Wilson and The Sanctity of Life. Abortion in the Adventist Church
[VIDEO 1:43:00, Adventist Church [7]David Gates “CONDEMNS” Abortion in the Adventist Church
[VIDEO 00:24:11, Adventist Church]
[EDITION — November 4, 2022]
In those last two videos presented here, we see Ted Wilson, president of the sect, say that “You have to consider certain situations such as rape, incest, or life as a mother” to abort. That is to say, Ted Wilson gives you, wife, reasons that God did not give you to kill. (Acts 5:29). And then we see David Gates, who has been director of Adventist hospitals, repeat that Loma Linda is practically a human slaughterhouse, while telling you that “abortion is murder, unless you do it to save the mother's life.” Simply put, he echoes the words of Ted Wilson, not those of God. I hope you are already taking notes.
In the same way, we see the Loma Linda University admit that in your hospital facilities sex change surgeries are performed, in addition to all types of abortions.
Here is the translated document (p. 3-4), coming directly from the Loma Linda University Hospital website
END OF EDITION
Jesus said, “Let the children come, come to me.”, and the Adventist whore not only dismembers them in their hospitals—thus prohibiting them from reaching Jesus, but she is perverting them with all the Gomorrite practices of this time, which also kills them spiritually.
5 and on her forehead a name written, a mystery: Babylon the Great, THE MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS and from the abominations of the earth —REVELATION 14:5
Your sect is a harlot, yet you call it a church, and—worse still, you have the courage to call it God's people. It is a harlot, and the greatest of all the self-proclaimed Protestant churches.
But no, that is “the people of God”, and you have the guts to attack the “Holy Catholic Church”, yes compared to the Adventist Church, the great whore is a Saint. And I say holy, because that's what your church calls her. [10]aThe Creed That Changed the World, 2005 (Booklet)
[STUDY, CristoVerdad] [10]bThe Creed That Changed the World, 1971 (Book)
[STUDY, CristoVerdad] [10]cThe Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the “Seventh” Day
[VIDEOS, CristoVerdad]
At least in Catholic hospitals they don't go around dismembering children in their mother's womb. And there are things that have to be seen to be believed, because even FEMINISTS defend the Adventist Church for its abortion practices.
ABORTION FEMINISTS SUPPORT ADVENTIST HOSPITALS
NEWS: Maryland Catholic Hospital Targeted by Feminists
"Two Maryland hospitals, Holy Cross and AdventistHealthCare, have submitted bids to run a new facility in northern Montgomery County; the first is catholic and the second ands property of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Feminists oppose Holy Cross [CATHOLIC] because he is anti-abortion.
Catholic League President Bill Donohue jumped on this topic today:
The Feminists of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the National Organization for Women (NOW), say that if Holy Cross receives the offer, it would harm "indigent citizens." Why would this happen? Because their care is "reimbursed by state funds." However, this argument collapses when considering the evidence: Holy Cross has a mission statement that commits it to charitable work for the indigent. This is not idle talk. For example, right now, more than 70 percent of uninsured women who have children come from across the state to Holy Cross' current location in Silver Spring.
What really bothers feminists is the refusal of Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. That's why a NOW member exploded at Holy Cross, telling them to "get out of the way." Abortion advocates would rather see uninsured women suffer than say good to a Catholic hospital. Think about it this way. Why is one group of women, almost all of them rich, white, and postmenopausal, so enthusiastic about the rights of another group of women, almost all of them poor, non-white, and fertile? It would make no sense unless it was the goal of the privileged to limit the number of the dispossessed. This, of course, is exactly what motivated Margaret Sanger to found Planned Parenthood, to eliminate what she called "the undesirables." Along with their virulent anti-Catholicism, these rich feminists should be discussed in every college class on racism, classism, and bigotry." —Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, October 15, 2009
11/2/2020 RAFAEL DÍAZ [00:55:40]
“The law of God. None church in this world preaches the law of God and the Sabbath as the Adventist Church preaches.”
11/5/2020 JOSÉ LUIS JAVIER
You are right in that, I do not know of a single Catholic or Methodist hospital that slaughters children in their mother's womb, as is the case in Adventist hospitals and clinics. In fact, many of these institutions—and even non-religious organizations—have publicly condemned abortion practices in Adventist hospitals, as I have already presented to you.
What part of “thou shalt not kill” You still don't understand, Rafelito? Didn't you hear your Uncle David tell you? Look how your church is exalting God's law in the world?
[EDITION] November 12, 2022
And here is the most important part where I wanted to get to, where we cover the Abortion policies of The Adventist Corporation. In point 6 of the Loma Linda Hospital document that we presented above, we find the following clause:
6. It is recognized that illness and pain They do not know hours, sacred days or holidays. Medical staff members will be available to provide all essential services at all times. However, in accordance with the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church regarding the observation of the Sabbath as a holy day, certain services and therapies are not routinely scheduled from sundown on Friday night until sundown. on Saturday night. —Loma Linda University Medical Center, 2021-2022 Medical Staff Rules and Regulations, p.2 A-1
Here there is a direct reference to the fact that these abortions still take place on Saturday, otherwise they would have mentioned it in this same paragraph. Isn't abortion an essential service in these times? That is, there are other services that will not be provided on the Sabbath, and hence our title for today: The Seventh Day Abortionist Church. Yes, seventh day, a “holy” day in Adventism. But without further ado, let's look at the official policies on abortion of this church, and how over time they have tried to disguise them to continue deceiving the members who faithfully support this satanic sect.
[END OF EDITION]
[…]11/5/2020 JOSÉ LUIS JAVIER
Last year (2019) your sect revised its official statements on abortion. Previously, the official document said that a pregnant woman with a high risk to her life, or if she was a victim of rape or a practicing incest, God gave her the authority to murder her son or daughter in her womb. Now that document has been revised, but the same message remains intact, just in a more subliminal way. The original stay no longer appears on the official website, but rather the revised one, which suggests that abortions are no longer performed in your sect's hospitals and clinics. But it's all just another deception.
In the previous statement it said—
4. “The church does not serve as a conscience for individuals; but it should provide moral guidance. Abortion for reasons of birth control, sex selection or convenience is not supported by the church. But sometimes pregnant women may face exceptional circumstances that present moral dilemmas, as a threat to her life, serious dangers to her health, carefully diagnosed serious congenital defects in the fetus, and pregnancies as a result of acts of rape or incest. The final decision regarding the termination of a pregnancy must be made by the pregnant woman, after having made due consultations.” —Adventist Church, abortion policies, 2019 (before October 16, 2019). —Guidances on Abortion, Santa Clara Adventist Church, Cuba
5. Christians recognize that their responsibility before God is of primary importance. They seek a balance between the exercise of your individual freedom and their responsibility before the community of faith, and society in general and its laws. They make their decisions based on Scripture and God's laws, rather than society's norms. Therefore, any attempt to coerce a woman into become pregnant or terminate the pregnancy, it should be rejected as a violation of individual freedom.
Those policies, we then identify, They do not come from the Bible, but from the United States constitutional amendment, known as the Hyde Amendment (1976). That is to say, the abortion policies of the Adventist Church are 100% unbiblical. Of course, this directly violates the law of God and the essence of God Himself—
16 six things hates [HATES] Jehovah, And even seven abhors his soul
17 The haughty eyes, the lying tongue, lAS SPILLING HANDS OF BLOOD INNOCENT,
18 The heart that devises wicked thoughts, Feet quick to run to evil,
19 The false witness who speaks lies, And he who sows discord between brothers. —PROVERBS 6:16-19
I ask, can you be more innocent than a baby in the mother's womb?
11 Pound those who are led to death; Save to those in danger of death. —PROVERBS 24:11
I ask you, Rafael, are you saving those who are put to death, or are you defending, exalting and glorifying those who are responsible for the death of thousands of babies each year? And what about you, “seventh” day Adventist, who is reading—and seeing all of these things?
Do you have any idea what you are financing with your tithes, offerings, time and work for that murderous cult?
This is what is happening, and as I told you before, the church is trying to cover its tracks, without abandoning its criminal practice. Here is an excerpt from the revised policies—
“Even if I don't support abortion, the church and members are called to follow the example of Jesus, who was “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14), to (1) create an atmosphere of true and gracious love, Biblical pastoral care and loving support for those facing difficult decisions related to abortioneither; (2) enlist the help of functioning and committed families, and educate them to provide assistance to individuals, marriages, and families in difficulty; (3) encourage church members to open their homes to people in need, including single parents, children without parents, and children who are adopted or waiting to be adopted; (4) deeply care for and support in various ways pregnant women who decide to keep their unborn children; and (5) offer emotional and spiritual support to those who for various reasons aborted or were forced to abort and may be suffering physically, emotionally and/or spiritually.” —Statement on the Biblical View of Intrauterine Life and Its Implications for Abortion, Adventist World Church
If you compare the text above of the policies before they were revised last year, you will notice that the church previously authorized killing, for “exceptional” reasons that the church invented—or that it extracted from the Hyde Amendment, and that this It was a matter of freedom of conscience. Although the church's official website no longer reflects previous policies—openly, The traces are there for those who want to investigate, because in reality nothing has changed.
TAB
Note: this is the website of the Santa Clara Adventist Church, in Cuba. They generated this translation.
Declaration of Principles on Abortion
RECOMMENDED, Adopt the Seventh-day Adventist Church's Principles on Abortion, as follows:
"Seventh-day Adventist Church Statement of Principles on Abortion."
Many contemporary societies have had to face conflict over the morality of abortion (1). This conflict has also affected a large number of Christians, who wish to accept the responsibility of protecting the life of the unborn human being, and at the same time preserving the individual freedom of women. The need for guidance has become evident as the church seeks to follow the Scriptures and provide moral guidance while respecting individual conscience. The Adventist Church wants to relate to the issue of abortion in a way that allows it to reveal its faith in God as the Creator and Sustainer of all life and to reflect Christian responsibility and freedom. Although there are sincere differences among Adventists regarding abortion, the following statement represents an attempt to provide guidance on certain principles and issues. These guidelines are based on broad biblical principles that are presented for study at the end of the document. (2)
1. The prenatal life of the human being is a wonderful gift from God. God's ideal for man ratifies the sanctity of human life created in God's image, and requires respect for life before birth. However, decisions regarding life must be made in the context of a fallen world. Abortion is never an act of few moral consequences. Therefore, prenatal life should not be recklessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only when there are powerful motives.
2. Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas resulting from the failure of the human being. The church should offer the most benevolent support to those who have to face the decision of an abortion personally. Condemnatory attitudes are unbecoming of those who have accepted the gospel. As Christians, we are commissioned to be a community of faith filled with tenderness and caring, helping those in crisis as they consider alternatives.
3. In a practical and tangible way, the church, as a caring community, should make known its mission to the value of human life. This should include:
to. Strengthen family relationships.
b. Educate both sexes regarding Christian principles of human sexuality.
c. Emphasize the responsibility of both men and women in family planning.
d. Demand that both be held accountable for the consequences of conduct inconsistent with Christian principles.
and. Create a safe climate for ongoing discussions of the moral aspects associated with abortion.
F. Offer support and help to women who decide to terminate their pregnancy, and
g. Encourage and assist parents to participate responsibly in raising their children. The church should also devote itself to assisting in alleviating the unfortunate social, economic, and psychological factors that may lead to abortion and redemptive care for those who suffer the consequences of individual decisions made on this matter.
4. The church does not serve as a conscience to individuals; but it should provide moral guidance. Abortion, for reasons of birth control, sex selection, or convenience, does not have the support of the church. But sometimes pregnant women may face exceptional circumstances that present moral dilemmas, such as life-threatening, serious health hazards, serious carefully diagnosed birth defects in the fetus, and pregnancy as a result of rape or incest. The final decision regarding the termination of a pregnancy must be made by the pregnant woman, after having made the appropriate consultations. To advise her in her decision, she must have accurate information, knowledge of biblical principles, and the direction of the Holy Spirit. In addition, these decisions are best made within the context of good family relationships.
5. Christians recognize that their responsibility to God is of paramount importance. They seek the balance between the exercise of their individual freedom and their responsibility before the community of faith, and society in general and its laws. They make their decisions based on Scripture and God's laws, rather than the norms of society. Therefore, any attempt to coerce a woman to become pregnant or terminate the pregnancy should be rejected as a violation of individual liberty.
6. Church institutions should be provided with principles that enable them to develop their own institutional standards, in accordance with this statement. Persons who have religious or ethical objections to abortion should not be required to participate in the performance of abortion.
7. Church members should be encouraged to participate in ongoing considerations of their moral responsibility regarding abortion in light of the teachings of Scripture.
1. According to this document, abortion is defined as any act that has the purpose of ending an already established pregnancy. This differs from the use of contraceptive methods, the purpose of which is to prevent pregnancy. The focus of the document is on abortion.
2. The fundamental perspective of this statement is based on an in-depth study of the scriptures, as demonstrated in the following document:
"Principles on the Christian View of Human Life."
Introduction
"And this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3). In Christ we have the promise of eternal life; But human life being mortal, human beings have to face difficult matters in relation to life and death. The following principles refer to the person as a whole (body, soul, and spirit), an indivisible whole (Genesis 2:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:23).
Life: God's Precious Gift to Us
1. God is the source, Giver and Sustainer of all life (Acts 17:25,28; Job 33:4; Genesis 1:30, 2:7; Psalm 36:9; John 1:3,4).
2. Human life has a unique value, because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Romans 3:23; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 3:2; John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18, 19).
3. God values human life, not on the basis of human achievements or contributions, but because we are God's creation and the object of His redeeming love (Romans 5:6,8; Ephesians 2:2-6; 1 Timothy 1:15; Titus 3:4,5; Matthew 5:43,48; Ephesians 2:4-9; John 1:3, 10:10).
Life: Our Response to God's Gift
4. Although human life is valuable, living it is not its only supreme end. Self-denial and devotion to God and His principles must take precedence over life itself (Revelation 12:11; 1 Corinthians 13).
5. God demands protection for human life and holds humanity responsible for its destruction (Exodus 20:13; Revelation 21:8; Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 24:16; Proverbs 6:16, l7; Jeremiah 7:3-34; Micah 6 :7; Genesis 9:5,6).
6. God is especially concerned with the protection of the weak, the helpless, and the oppressed (Psalm 82:3,4; James 1:27; Micah 6:8; Acts 20:35; Proverbs 24:11, 12; Luke 1: 52-54).
7. Christian love (agape) is the precious dedication of our lives to improving the lives of others. Love also respects personal dignity and does not condone the oppression of one person to support another's abusive behavior (Matthew 16:21; Philippians 2:1-11; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:8-11; Matthew 22:39 ; John 18:22, 23; 1 John 13:34).
8. The community of believers is called to demonstrate Christian love in tangible, practical and substantial ways. God calls us to lovingly restore the broken. (Galatians 6:1, 2; 1 John 3:17,18; Matthew 1:23; Philippians 2:1-1; 1 John 8:2-11; Romans 8:1-14; Matthew 7:1,2; 12:20; Isaiah 40:42; 62:2-4).
Life: Our Responsibility and Right to Decide
9. God gives man freedom of choice, even if it leads to mistreatment and tragic consequences. His reluctance to force human obedience required the sacrifice of His Son. He requires us to use our gifts according to His will and will ultimately judge their misuse. (Deuteronomy 3:19, 20; Genesis 3; 1 Peter 2:24; Romans 3:5,6; 6:1, 2; Galatians 5:13).
10. God calls us individually to make moral choices and to investigate in Scripture the biblical principles that emphasize those decisions (John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 1 Peter 2:9; Romans 7:13, 25).
11. Decisions about human life, from beginning to end, are best made within the context of good family relationships with the support of the community of faith (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 5:6). Human decisions should always focus on seeking God's will (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 6:6; Luke 22:42)
The text above (points 4 and 5) was extracted directly from the website of the Santa Clara Adventist Church, Cuba. Apparently they have not yet updated it on their page, and I am sure that soon, after complaints like these make themselves felt, they will update it. Just in case, I already archived that web page and even captured a photo gallery.
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church reminded its Dominican parishioners that it RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT of a woman to INTERRUPT a pregnancy when her life is in danger, when the fetus has congenital malformations or when it is the result of rape or incest.
Rondón remembered, in an interview broadcast Thursday morning, that your church maintains an orientation on abortion, an issue that generates conflict and confronts “many Christians who wish to assume the responsibility of protecting human life that has not yet been born, while maintaining the individual freedom of women”.
In the context of the discussion about the controversial articles of the Penal Code on abortion observed by President Danilo Medina, The Adventists established their position through their station, Radio Amanecer, in a document read by Pastor Mario Rondón.
— 7 Days, Evangelizers of the Apostles, Dominican Republic
“Although it is not the conscience of individual believers, The church has the duty to transmit the principles and teachings of the Word of God.
In short, keep killing because we are not your conscience, when it comes to preserving life, well, to kill if we recommend it. It is notable to know that neither in the previous version nor in the revised one does the Church ever condemn the practice of abortion., but rather uses ambiguous and subtle words to justify the practice, and to hide behind its lies, while these lucrative murders continue to be committed within the confines of its “health” institutions.
The policies have been “changed”, but only to cover up the practice that is still carried out in the “health” institutions of the satanic denomination. In short, nothing has changed, much less will change—for, just as God does not change, neither does the devil. (JER. 13:23)—EVEN THOUGH ELENA HAS SAID THE OPPOSITE THING. [16]Satan Repent, Ellen White
[LINK, White Center]
Now, David Gates also confirmed all this by saying “the abortion in Loma Linda is murder, unless you do it to save the mother's life.” He draws his beliefs directly from Adventist policies, which in turn come from the Hyde Amendment—not from the Bible. Amendment that also contains the excuses of rape and incest. And so that you can see that the devil always leaves a trace, here I bring you the devil himself—in person, to confirm it for you, again...
Loma Linda's website still reflects that the Adventist Church is an active morgue—very active, just as David Gates said.
2/11/2020 RAFAEL DÍAZ [00:56:30]
“The Adventist Church has a better reform principle, and it is completed. We continue in the line of prophecy, as reformers. We follow the Protestant Reformation ourselves.”
11/5/2020 JOSÉ LUIS JAVIER
I would say that the Adventist Church has a DIFFERENT principle of reform, not better. But how different? Let's continue reading...
No, I am not violating the Sola Scriptura presenting these things, but I am exalting it, and exposing those swindlers who trample it, like you Rafael, rapacious Coyote.
In a comment on your channel you asked me why I said that the Adventist Church is a satanic church. Well, after this analysis I think the question is unnecessary. But if you want a more direct answer, I'll tell you: BECAUSE YOUR CHURCH SERVE THE DEVIL! [18]OLIVER AND HIS MINIONS, The Devil and The Adventist Church [5]
[VIDEO 1:59:28, CristoVerdad]
And if the Adventist Church is a satanic institution, and you defend it and serve it, what does that make you, Rafael Díaz... a saint? I leave it to you as homework. Oh, and before I forget, God DOES NOT HAVE 28 Fundamental Beliefs, has diez—his holy law! And if something does not harmonize with your law “It's because it hasn't dawned for them.” (ISA. 8:20).
I challenge you PUBLICLY to be able to deny the evidence and refute—WITH BIBLE IN HANDS—a single one of these things that I have shown you here. With the Bible Rafael—REMEMBER—with the Bible and not with Elena. YOU ARE A THIEF, stay away from that practice. You have been warned, for your own good (1 COR. 6:10).
[EDITION, Nov 12, 2022]CLOSING—The legendary words of the deceased already say it Neal C. Wilson, former president of the Adventist Church and father of the current president, Ted Wilson, when he said: “…Adventists lean towards abortion instead of fighting it” for reasons of “family planning and appropriate efforts to control population.” That is, aborting is an appropriate effort to reduce “overpopulation.”
Dear reader, this was published in the sect's Ministry magazine in 1991, in an article written by Pastor George B. Gainer. And I still don't understand how we can still find that article on the website of this magazine, which belongs to the sect. Will it be another mockery?
Here I present the translation of the complete article into Spanish, which was translated by Andrew Michelle, an Adventist who supports his sect, but who in turn attacks its practice of abortion. This is what consumption is like in those Adventist environments.
In that same article, Gainer also tells us a timeline of the practice of abortion in the confines of Adventist hospitals, presenting the first recorded abortion in 1966 at the Glendale City Adventist Hospital, in California. 1966, and that is what is recorded, so this comes from way back, way back. And from 1966 to today, there will be millions of murders in the Adventist morgues that some call hospitals.
Andrew Michelle covers this and more in a video posted on his YouTube channel. Although we do not share the darkness of that vermin, the truth is that he did a good job in that regard. Also, this article is about presenting Adventist documentation on abortion, and he is a self-confessed Adventist. So I recommend everyone to watch it.
’]And now the last straw...
Magazine Visitor of the Columbia Union of the Adventist Church, published the following article on November 11, 2019: How Many Abortions Do Adventist Hospitals Perform?
Although they give us false figures, the reality is that here they are openly admitting the practice. They tell us that from 2015 to 2016, 188 abortions were performed in Adventist hospitals. David Gates, who was director of the Bella Vista Adventist Hospital in the 1980s in Chiapas, Mexico, said that Loma Linda is one of the hospitals that performs the most abortions in the United States. That is, one of the most pro-abortionists in the world. And if you are one of those who sacrifice the most to Moloch, saying that only 188 abortions were performed in a conglomerate of more than 200 hospitals and clinics around the world in a period of 3 years is a mockery. They are making faces at you, dear Adventist.
And why the admission? Well, this is nothing more than another case of controlled opposition. All this information is public and it is in their best interest to partially admit the practice, but control the real numbers. In this way they minimize the damage caused, while continuing to cauterize Adventist minds by sending them to “pray for the church.” In fact, the article says:
“But the levels of abortions performed in Adventist hospitals and health systems are not what they used to be.”
That is to say, “before we killed many children, but now we don't kill as much, we still continue killing.”
And since the last straw is not enough in Adventist environments, the Sierra University from that same institution honored the doctor Edward C. Allred with a building in his name. Allred is a student who graduated from that academic institution, and the main donor to the Allred Center for Financial Education, but he is also the largest abortionist in history, with more than 250,000 abortions in his arsenal, as he owns several clinics. of abortions in the United States, in addition to the Los Alamitos Casino, which also contains a racetrack, in California. [22]Allred Center for Financial Literacy
[STUDY, CristoVerdad]
The Adventist portal AdventistToday came to the defense of La Sierra, because that is why these types of popular Adventist websites were created, to cover up the uncoverable. But for them we have only one question...
14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers; because what fellowship has justice with injustice? And what communion has light with darkness?
15 And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? —2 CORINTHIANS 6:14-15
There is a saying that the monkey dances for money. Apparently Adventists are also monkeys, and this should not surprise us in an institution that also promotes evolution. [23]Passionate Marriage, Homosexuality and Evolution in the Adventist Church
[STUDY, CristoVerdad]
[END EDIT]
Retired Professor of History and Sociology, Emeritus of Queens College in New York, Ronald Llawson, published an academic essay titled:
FOR WHAT? Seventh-day Adventists and Abortion [24]PRO-WHAT? Seventh-day Adventists and Abortion.
[LINK, Ronald Lawson]
This article was originally presented at a meeting of The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, in Raleigh, North Carolina, 1993 in the United States. Llawson, like George B. Gainer, gives a detailed analysis of the criminal exploits of Adventist Babylon throughout its history. At the end of his article, he says that he traveled to 60 countries to complete this work, in a research effort that took him 30 years. So this is a long and very complete work—up to its original publication date. Gentlemen, this is a PhD, a university professor, not some crazy person on the street.
It should be noted that Llawson is also an Adventist or at least he walked among them, as he knows them very well. And the way Llawson dresses his clothes in the sun, it seems to me that he is someone who woke up, or who simply was never asleep and that is why he was able to realize what the common member of that sect does not understand: that his church is of the same devil. . So let's add his work to the list of evidence against the “church of God.”
Ronald L. Lawson Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Queens College, CUNY
Documents on Seventh-day Adventism, with some comparisons with Mormons and Witnesses
FOR WHAT? Seventh-day Adventists and Abortion.
May 2, 2018 [Internet Publication Date]
Published in Abortion
Ronald Lawson
For PDF click here: PRO WHAT? Sevneth-day Adventists and Abortion [ENGLISH]
Presented at the Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Raleigh, North Carolina, October 1993
The problem
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is conservative in its interpretation of the Bible, and typically maintains conservative standards on "family" issues: for example, it has adopted strict rules regarding divorce and remarriage and has declared that practicing homosexuals are not are acceptable as members [Manual of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, 1990: 160]. However, it avoided recommending a position on abortion to its members, despite the acuteness of the debate on the issue within American society and the relevance of the issue to both its members and its hospitals, until late 1992. In At that time, unlike many other conservative denominations, it adopted a statement that attempted to be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice at the same time.
This paper examines the evolution of the abortion issue within the Adventist Church and the dynamics and significance of its recent resolution. It highlights tensions between the conservative leanings of Adventist and majority theology among its global membership and the demand for flexibility by its extensive and influential hospital system.
Research Methods
The research reported here is part of a large study of Adventism, which has included 3,000 in-depth interviews with church administrators, teachers, hospital administrators and medical staff, pastors, students, and lay leaders in 54 countries in the eleven Adventist "divisions." of the world. It has also collected questionnaires from respondents around the world and from samples of college students and members in North America. For this document I have added 22 focused interviews with members and collaborators of the Christian Vision of Human Life Committee, hospital administrators, leaders of Adventists for Life and Adventist Adoption and Family Services, and editors. This document draws extensively on interview and survey data and a search of official and unofficial Adventist publications that address the topic of abortion.
Adventists and Abortion in the 19th Century
Abortion was widespread in the United States in the 19th century; It is estimated that 20% of pregnancies ended in abortion. Around 1860, the medical profession launched a campaign to change this, partly to help establish their profession. Abortion was outlawed in 40 states between 1860 and 1880, and its ban was universal in 1900 [Pearson, 1990: 92-4].
Although Adventists did not participate in the anti-abortion crusade, they supported its position. As he Advent Review as the Sabbath Herald, the internal newspaper, and The Health Reformer, a missionary newspaper founded in 1866, published articles warning against abortion, calling it "child murder" [Gainer, 1988: 5.6; Pearson, 1990:100]. Once he became editor of The Health Reformer and Head of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, the church's first medical institution, and its fledgling medical school, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg echoed these views. For example, he called the United States "a nation of murderers" [Pearson, 1990: 103].
Ellen White, the Adventist prophet, never addressed the issue directly, although it can be assumed that she was aware of it because of the strong position taken by her protégé, Dr. Kellogg, and because her husband included an article by a non-Adventist. , Dr. EP Miller, criticizing abortion, along with other articles related to the prophet's sex, in a book he edited [White, 1870]. There is also considerable evidence that she would have found him morally repugnant. For example, he placed great emphasis on the importance of prenatal influences, and urged mothers to "consecrate their offspring to God, both before and after their birth" [cited Pearson, 1990: 97].
Since the doctors' crusade resulted in laws banning abortions, there was little controversy on the issue during the first six decades of the 20th century. Adventists remained almost totally silent on the issue during that time.
Guidelines for Adventist Hospitals, 1970 and 1971.
Abortion came back into focus in the United States in the 1960s, with babies deformed due to the use of thalidomide, a rubella epidemic, fears of overpopulation, and a growing demand by families for efficient means of family restraint due to to their desire to maintain a high standard of living [Pearson, 1990: 107]. The American Medical Association supported the change in 1967, and states began enacting liberalized laws. In the famous Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, the Supreme Court allowed abortion without state interference during the first trimester of gestation.
The issue was raised with Adventists after Hawaii's abortion laws were repealed in February 1970, when requests were made for elective abortions at its Castle Memorial Hospital. (He had previously performed "therapeutic abortions" to save the mother's life, when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or the mother was afflicted with severe mental anxiety.) Particular pressure was brought on by one of the hospital's original funders, whose teenage daughter was pregnant. The hospital administrator sought advice from church leaders, only to be told that the church had not made any decision on the issue. Consequently, the hospital adopted a "provisional position", pending a decision from the church, to perform elective abortions during the first trimester [Gainer, 1988: 11,12].
In March 1970, the General Conference appointed a committee to consider what advice should be given to Adventist hospitals. Their plan was to prepare a position that could then be ratified by the quadrennial meeting of the General Conference in June of that year. On March 17, NC Wilson, president of the North American Division, made a statement that was carried by the Religion News Service. While expressing sympathy for a pro-choice position, he predicted that the General Conference session would lead a centrist course on abortion:
...We would not feel that it is our responsibility to promote laws to legalize abortion...or to oppose them...
Although we walk the fence, SDAs lean toward abortion rather than against it. Because we realize that we face major problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate efforts to control population [cited by Gainer, 1988: 13].
Wilson added that it would be difficult for the denomination to take a hard and fast position on abortion because of its global activity.
On May 13, 1970, General Conference officers voted to accept "suggestive guidelines for therapeutic abortions," the first formal pronouncement made by the Adventist church. The stated purpose of this document was to inform the policies of Adventist hospitals in the United States. He allowed abortions, after consultation with two colleagues, during the first trimester under the following conditions:
1. When the continuation of the pregnancy can threaten the woman's life or seriously harm her health.
2. When continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the birth of a child with severe physical deformities or mental retardation.
3. When conception has occurred as a result of rape or incest [Ministry, March 1971].
These conditions were very similar to those presented by the American Law Institute in its Model Penal Code, issued in 1959, in which suggested reforms that would update the law with what was then the practice in most hospitals [Luker: 1984, 65, 278]. However, the situation in the United States had changed dramatically since then. Consequently, when members of the Adventist medical community opposed the new guidelines on the grounds that they were inadequate, church leaders decided not to bring them to the General Conference Session for approval.
Instead, General Conference officers decided to expand the previous abortion guidelines committee "to study what advice should be given regarding elective abortions" [Minutes, July 6, 1970, cited by Gainer, 1988: 16]. In July 1970, RRBietz, vice president of the General Conference, met with Hawaii hospital leaders. In a later letter, he wrote that several of the doctors who used the hospital wanted to do more than therapeutic abortions, and whether this was not permitted.
"It is quite likely that they will also take their patients [to other hospitals] for other treatments. This could mean a loss of goodwill and also patronage for Castle Memorial... Some large contributors to Castle Memorial Hospital feel that we should be willing to work in harmony with the laws of the state. In their opinion, community, federal and state funds have made this a community hospital for all practical purposes. They reason, therefore, that the wishes of the community must be taken into consideration. .."
The situation was further complicated by the fact that several of the Adventist doctors were opposed to performing elective abortions:
"If the decision were to abort beyond what they are doing now, Adventist doctors could certainly be satisfied or at least silenced if the [hospital] administration had the support of the higher church organization." [Bietz to WJBlacker, president of the Pacific Union, July 8, 1970, cited by Gainer, 1988: 15].
In December 1970, the chief of staff at Castle Memorial Hospital wrote to the president of the General Conference to complain about the time that had passed without a decision. He added that there was "fairly reliable information" that several West Coast Adventist hospitals had "largely liberalized" their definitions of therapeutic abortion, and argued that this was a precedent for allowing Castle Memorial's application [Raymond deHay to RH Pierson , December 16, 1970, cited by Gainer, 1988: 17-18]. The abortion committee subsequently spent considerable time discussing sharp increases in the number of therapeutic abortions at certain Adventist hospitals, which had jumped from 3 to 79 between 1968 and 1970 in one case and from 4 to 34 in another [Minutes, 25 January 1971, cited by Gainer, 1988: 19-20].
The new position, titled "Statement of Principles on Termination of Pregnancy" because it covered both therapeutic and elective abortions [NC Wilson to WJ Blacker, July 13, 1971, cited by Gainer, 1988: 23], was ultimately voted on by General Conference officers on June 21, 1971. The need to consult with other physicians before performing an abortion was eliminated, and the conditions under which abortion was acceptable were greatly expanded. Two of the original conditions were liberalized: "seriously" was removed as a qualifier for a threat to "harm [the woman's] health", and "physical deformities and mental retardation" no longer had to be "serious". Two additional conditions were added:
"When the case involves an unmarried child under 15 years of age."
"When for some reason the requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lowest potential human value" [Widmer, 1986: 15, emphasis supplied].
In a letter to Wilson, who largely shaped the changes, WRBeach, Secretary of the General Conference, observed that the final condition "would cover less definitive reasons for any termination of pregnancy" [March 8, 1971, cited by Gainer , 1988: 21]. In fact, it was so vague that it seemed to pave the way for abortion on demand. Castle Memorial Hospital, finding the wording of the guidelines "broad enough to interpret any way you choose" [interview with Marvin C. Midkiff, hospital administrator, cited by Gainer, 1988: 24], allowed elective abortions up to the twentieth week of gestation, and even later when there were "compelling social or medical reasons" [Bietz to Blacker, July 8, 1970, cited by Gainer, 1988: 24].
In creating abortion guidelines for Adventist hospitals, church leaders had shown an astonishing eagerness to be in tune with the changing climate of opinion [see, for example, WR Beach to NCWilson, March 8, 1971, cited by Gainer , 1988: 22]. When they arrived at their position, they had not asked for theological or ethical studies, but rather had submitted to the judgment of their medical establishment, since "the performance of abortions" is "the business of responsible hospital personnel" [Ministry, March 1971, 10-11]. In addition, they have given hospitals a high degree of autonomy in interpreting the guidelines as they develop their own policies.
The previous 1970 guidelines were initially distributed by the General Conference to hospitals in duplicate. Finally, in March 1971, they were published in Ministry, the Adventist newspaper for clergy [10-11]. It was peculiar that this announcement contained no indication that development of a new statement was already well underway, and that the two articles attached by General Conference staff, one of whom was chair of the ongoing abortion committee, were opposed everything except therapeutic abortions [Beach, 1971: 3-6; Waddell, 1971: 7-9]. The second statement, from June 1971, was also distributed to hospitals, but its provisions were not published for 15 years [Widmer, 1986: 14-15; Ministry, 1988: 18-20]. This situation caused great confusion among Adventist clergy and laity regarding the church's position on abortion and its practice in its medical institutions. On several occasions, editorials and articles in church newspapers cited the superseded 1970 guidelines as current [Durand, 1983: 14; Wood, 1985:21; Johnsson and Widmer, 1986: 11-17]. When the editor of the Adventist Magazine HE refused to correct glaring errors in the 1986 article, Gainer concluded that the church had engaged in a policy of duplicity and deliberate obfuscation [Gainer, 1988: 27-30].
Adventist Members and Abortion
Meanwhile, Adventist members received mixed messages from their church regarding abortion. Church newspapers addressed the issue infrequently, but when they did they were "markedly more conservative than the thinking represented in the General Conference Guidelines" [Pearson, 1990: 123]. While an occasional article advocated a moderate position, allowing abortions in especially difficult situations [Londis, 1974], the vast majority adopted positions strongly opposed to abortion [Dick, 1971; Gow, 1977; Drennan, 1977; Muller, 1985; Sabbath School Quarterly,August 1982]. However, advice to women from their pastors varied considerably [Sweem, 1988: 14], and many of the pregnant girls who chose to use Adventist Adoption and Family Services reported that they had been strongly counseled by deans of women, teachers and pastors of the university and the academy to leave behind the problem of having an abortion [interview].
Some American Adventists became pro-life activists. Adventists for Life was founded in 1985 in Loma Linda, an Adventist center in Southern California, after an Adventist with a pregnant girlfriend was dissuaded from insisting that she have an abortion [interview]. When his attempt to find a pro-life Adventist group seemed to stump the General Conference spokesman, he formed it as a local organization. It later merged with a Texas group, the Adventist Abortion Education Society, and went national. It grew out of a crisis pregnancy ministry in 1991. However, AFL remains a small group, with only 81,000 people on its mailing list. Few Adventist pastors are willing to allow their leaders to speak in their churches, and their existence has never been acknowledged in an Adventist newspaper.
Several Adventists with pro-life convictions came to perceive the church as so strongly pro-choice that they resigned their membership: "We could not continue fellowship with a church that cares more about wearing a wedding ring than aborting babies." [Banks, 1990: 37; cf Wood, 1985: 21] One of them, Patti McKinney, was a co-founder of WEBA (Women Exploited by Abortion), An organization with 36,000 members and chapters in 30 states. When she tried to share her mission to help women like her in need of post-abortion healing with the General Conference, she was told, "Get off your soap box or get out of the church" [Gainer, 1988: 35-6].
The survey data indicates that while there are deep divisions among Adventists in North America regarding abortion, most lay people, in particular, express pro-life sentiments. Interviewees, who were mostly church employees, were asked to complete a post-interview questionnaire, which asked whether they agreed with "performing abortions in Adventist hospitals." Of the 485 respondents who answered the question in the United States and Canada, 185 (38.1%) agreed or strongly agreed, while 183 (37.8%) disagreed or strongly disagreed, an even split. However, the low proportion who responded "strongly agree" (6.8%) suggested a reluctance to enthusiastically endorse the proposal. In contrast, a random survey of American laypeople using the same question found them more opposed (33.8% agree, 39.5% disagree). Another survey of 1,200 members in North America conducted under the auspices of Loma Linda University asked "under what circumstances do you consider abortion acceptable?" Only 13% found it acceptable under any circumstances. However, while 84% would allow it if the pregnancy threatened the mother's life, and 70% if it were the result of rape or incest, approval then fell sharply to 38% if the fetus had physical or mental disabilities, 21% if the mother was 15 or younger, the 10% if the father cannot afford a child. and 1% for sex selection. A large majority (54.7% to 27.5%) agreed that "the church should take a stand against abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life." [1] While one survey of 894 18- to 20-year-olds from Adventist families in North America conducted by the Institute of Church Ministry at Andrews University found that 43% favors and 39% opposes "laws that restrict abortions, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger or which result from rape", 63% thought that "abortion when a pregnancy is unexpected or unwanted" was wrong and 17% was right [Dudley, 1991:10,11].
How does this North American data compare to other segments of this global church? My sample includes 1,194 respondents from 54 countries in the eleven “divisions” of the General Conference. [2] Those in Australia and New Zealand were slightly more comfortable with Adventist hospitals performing abortions (40.8% to 36.9%) than their American counterparts. However, Europeans were much less comfortable (26.9% to 53.8%), and respondents from all sections of the Third World were very strongly opposed, collectively 19.8% to 59.0%. When foreigners, who were mostly North Americans, were eliminated from this last segment, they objected even more strongly, 18.3% to 64.3%.
Given these feelings, Adventist women are unlikely to come forward when they have had an abortion. Therefore, data on the extent to which Adventist women use abortions can only be fragmentary and impressionistic. An early (1971) survey of Adventist "counselors" (pastors, doctors, school counselors) found that all but one had been approached by women contemplating abortions, an average of six per year [Hall, 1971: 38]. Charles Wittschiebe, the dean of Adventist sex counselors, concluded in 1974 that "a disturbing number of our young women" were "resorting to abortion" [133]. Turning to more recent evidence, the feeling among Adventist Adoption and Family Services staff that many more pregnant Adventist students choose to follow deans' frequent advice to choose abortion than to make the option to adopt or keep their babies is supported by reports from other respondents that most of the clients at abortion clinics near several Adventist universities are Adventist students [interviews]. An Adventist Singles Ministries official reported that "Each month, as I travel across North America, I am confronted by four to six singles who are trying to come to terms with their personal involvement in an abortion" [Day, 1986: 6-7] .
Pearson convincingly argues that because of the high priority given to education within Adventism, occupationally ambitious young people or parents concerned about providing an ecclesiastical education for the children they already have are likely to resort to abortion. This is especially likely since the procedure has been legalized, since Adventists pride themselves on being law-abiding citizens, and are inclined to equate legality with moral righteousness [1990:127,131]. Terian adds that since the Adventist church legalized abortion in its hospitals before Roe v. Wade, Adventists have a double legalization to guide them [1992:208].
Furthermore, despite occasional discussions of baby showers for single mothers in local church newspapers, single pregnancy is still widely stigmatized in North American Adventism. For example, when the head of Adventist Adoption and Family Services was asked to speak at a church service at Andrews University, the dean of women asked her to describe her work as if it were an outreach ministry to non-Adventists in place a service that serves single pregnant Adventists, so as not to offend the students' parents [interview]. Because the pregnancy cannot be hidden without an abortion, it is easier to have an abortion.
Hospital Practice
Given the 1971 General Conference guidelines, what abortion policies did Adventist hospitals develop in the years after Roe v. Wade?
Three surveys of US hospitals have been reported. All found considerable variation in policy and practice, suggesting that the vagueness of the Fifth Guideline has created uncertainty, confusion and, in some cases, cynicism.
Winslow's 1988 survey of 51 hospitals elicited 26 responses. Twenty-three of them had developed written policies on abortions. Of these, six used the 1971 guidelines, one the 1970 guidelines, the others were more independent. Six were more restrictive than the guidelines, allowing no abortion at all or only when the mother's life was threatened. All but one of the others restricted abortions to those they classified as "therapeutic." One allowed elective abortions up to the twentieth week of gestation [Winslow, 1992: 242-245].
The Ministry received 39 responses from a survey of 52 hospitals in the United States and Canada that he reported in 1988. His findings supported Winslow's: 28 performed therapeutic abortions, 6 reported few or none in recent years, and one, although he denied performing abortions electives, admitted to having performed "social" abortions, "whatever that means" [Spangler, 1988: 18] [3]
Pearson surveyed Adventist hospitals in the United States around the same time, but received responses from only 20 of 56. However, his data revealed the diversity of their practice despite their "marked reluctance" to respond to his request for "information." statistics on abortion procedures. For example, while one hospital had a ratio of one abortion for every 1,402 admissions to its obstetrics and gynecology department, another's ratio was one to nine [Pearson, 1990: 124-5; 1988: 5]. Pearson concluded that the evidence indicated that "some Adventist hospitals [had] performed a considerable number of elective abortions in the last fifteen years or so" [1990:133]. This conclusion is supported by the fact that in 1986 the American Hospital Association Guide to the Health Care Field listed 12 of the 56 Adventist hospitals in the United States as offering "abortion services" including "a program and facilities" [cited by Gainer, 1988: 31]. Furthermore, in confidential correspondence with hospital administrators, Pearson confirmed that abortions were being carried out for "trivial reasons" [1990: 126].
In contrast, surveys of Adventist hospitals in the Third World by both Pearson and the author found much stricter policies. At most, they would perform abortions only if the mother's life was threatened; some declared that they considered all abortions immoral and would not perform any [Pearson, 1990: 125]. However, my interviews in Australia and Germany found that hospitals there had fairly liberal policies.
Inconsistency and Confusion
The Adventist church's stance toward abortion was, therefore, inconsistent and confusing. While church newspapers and most members took a conservative stance against abortion, some Adventist hospitals were permissive in their policies. The latter were supported in this by the 1971 liberal guidelines of the General Conference, which were not published among church members until 1986.
In an effort to explain these discrepancies, Pearson noted that hospital policies were developed by medical staff and hospital ethics committees, but many physicians, and even heads of hospital departments, were not Adventists, and in fact this was had spread increasingly during the rapid expansion of the Adventist hospital system in the United States during the 1970s and early 1980s [1988: 5]. Both Pearson and Stirling, a sociologist at Loma Linda University, added that in those cases where Adventists operated the only hospital in a city, it was often under considerable pressure to provide abortion services regulated only by the Court's ruling. Supreme [Stirling, 1979: 119]. Although Gainer did not deny this, he found that the hospitals with the highest proportions of birth abortions were located in the Washington DC metropolitan area, near the headquarters of the General Conference [Potomac Conference Abortion Study Commission archive] . He concluded that the church had allowed the hospital policy for financial reasons and was trying to mask it from members [1988:27].
Therefore, despite the fact that in the mid-1980s the Adventist Church ran a network of more than 400 health institutions around the world and member women inevitably faced their share of crisis pregnancies, it did not have a consistent position on abortion, nor had it yet fostered any sustained discussion on the topic. Instead, it deviated according to the local culture. Given this situation, and the increasingly bitter debate in society, it is not surprising that church leaders often stated that the church had avoided taking a position:
The issues involved and the differences of opinion are so great that it was thought best not to endeavor to establish an official position. There is also the current volatile political situation surrounding the issue and the church does not wish to become entangled... [FWWernick (General Conference vice president) to GFGibson, April 7, 1977, cited by Pearson, 1990:133].
This statement was technically correct: the church had issued guidelines to its hospitals, not a statement of right and wrong that would shape the behavior of its members and place them on one side or the other of the national debate. Furthermore, both sets of guidelines had been voted on only by the powerful but at that time ad hoc committee composed of the members of the General Conference Board, rather than the official General Conference Committee, which generally sealed the recommendations of the officers. When the 1971 statement was published, the secretary of the renowned Committee on Termination of Pregnancy observed in his cover letter that "this is quasi-official without the full approval of the brothers" [CEBradford, August 19, 1971, cited by Gainer, 1988: 24].
Abortion Comes into Focus
The situation changed dramatically in October 1985, when demonstrators representing conservative Christian churches picketed the Washington Adventist Hospital, protesting its abortion program, an action that was reported in the Washington Post. In previous years, when it was difficult to obtain an abortion at any hospital in or around Washington, a very liberal obstetrics group at WAH had felt that they should provide abortions, and they had done a lot since then [interview]. The protesters claimed that hospital records showed that 1,494 abortions had been performed there between 1975 and 1982. The picketers carried a sign designed to agitate Adventists who, with their emphasis on Sabbath observance, see themselves as guardians of the Ten Commandments: "Adventists: Also remember the 6th Commandment!" [Washington Post, October 5, 1985; Ministry, January 1988:3.17] In the following period, Adventists were even more embarrassed by demonstrations at other hospitals [Spangler, 1988:17]. In 1990, Loma Linda University Medical Center was protested not only because it had performed abortions, but because it had been commended by the California Medical Association for advanced research on fetal tissue [interview].
The demonstration at WAH was especially embarrassing for church leaders because of its proximity to the General Conference and its sensitivity to the church's public image in Washington. It took place at a time, during the Reagan administration, when abortion was at the center of public debate and pro-life forces seemed to be on a political roll. Adventist leaders, whose concern about being in step with public opinion on the issue since 1970 was noted above, wondered if they were now out of step with it. A chorus of lay people asked questions and began to apply pressure from different points of view. The issue of abortion was suddenly placed under close scrutiny within Adventism in North America. This involved four main axes:
First, the church press now systematically addressed the issue. The Adventist Magazine published the core of the 1970 and 1971 declarations: the first time that any part of the 1971 guidelines appeared in print [Widmer, 1986: 14-15], and the Magazine (September 25, 1986), Insight, the youth magazine [January 1988] and the Ministry They attempted to publish articles that represented the different opinions among Adventists. However, the latter two continued to show sympathy for the pro-life position. For example, he Ministry published a series of four articles on abortion during 1988, all of which were at least implicitly critical of the 1971 hospital guidelines. 4] Two took strong pro-life positions [Fredericks, 1988: Sweem, 1988]. Another criticized the pragmatic approach the church had taken to the issue, which had been "very much in the spirit of the age" [Pearson, 1988: 6]. The fourth article argued that the decision to abort should never be taken lightly, and reasons of convenience and convenience are "morally unacceptable" [Winslow, 1988: 15]. An editorial that accompanies the first of the articles of the Ministry He asked for ""the church carefully studies this issue from theological and ethical standpoints" to "formulate a viable Adventist position on abortion, especially as it relates to the policies governing our hospital system" [Spangler, 1988: 17-20]. The Ministry reported six months later that "Our articles on abortion have struck a raw nerve. We are receiving more mail on this topic than on any other article published recently. The letters are 10 to 1 in favor of the church adopting a stricter standard." [July 1988: 3].
These issues were raised by male editors, most of the articles were written by men, and to the extent that some hospital administrators were asking the church to clear up the confusion, they too were mostly men. Publications from organizations representing Adventist women did not enter the fray. One of the editors of the latter explicitly encouraged articles or letters dealing with abortion [Ponderings, 3:2,1990:20] but received only one [Ponderings, 4:1, 1990:1]. An editor of The Adventist Woman He explained that abortion was not an issue of concern among his constituents at the time. Because of their lifestyle, they did not personally confront the problem, the prevailing 1971 guidelines provided hospitals with flexibility that some members might have thought was ideologically necessary, and they were too engrossed with the concurrent debate over whether to alter denominational policy. to allow the ordination of female pastors. However, another editor stated that they had avoided the topic because Adventist women were so polarized about it [interviews].
Second, scholars began to investigate the issue of Adventist hospitals and abortion. Gainer [1988] focused on the history of the 1970 and 1971 hospital guidelines, while both Winslow [1992] and Pearson [1990] surveyed Adventist hospitals regarding their policies and practices [see above].
Third, the constituent meeting of the Potomac Conference, whose territory contained two hospitals, Washington Adventist Hospital and Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, that had been the subject of pro-life protests, voted to form a study commission to examine abortion policies at hospitals and records of the numbers and reasons for abortions there. The requested report was brought to another constituency meeting in September 1991 [Abortion Study Commission documents]. Speeches accompanying the report's presentation explained, pointing to abortion statistics and hospital policy statements contained in the report, that hospital abortion policies "make absolutely no distinction between performing an abortion to save the life of a mother or perform an abortion to destroy the life of the fetus simply because she is a woman, the case in most gender selection abortions.
Furthermore, the ratio of abortions to live births was considerably higher at SGAH (4,438 births and 329 abortions in 1990) than at Florida Hospital, the largest of the Adventist medical institutions (4,228 births and 14 abortions), where its abortion policy declared that "...termination of pregnancy for socioeconomic reasons is prohibited" [Gainer, Abortion Study Commission documents].
After considerable debate, delegates passed a motion to appeal to the two hospitals:
Immediately adopt and implement abortion policies that institutionally prohibit abortions for social or economic reasons, including convenience, birth control, gender selection, or avoidance of shame; limit the abortion procedure to those times when a pregnancy threatens the physical life of the mother, when the fetus is seriously abnormal, and in cases of rape or incest. The appointment of a committee charged with prospective review of all abortion requests would be essential to ensure implementation of these guidelines [Weber, 1991: 25].
The motion also called on the Abortion Study Commission to continue monitoring abortion policies and numbers, and to report back to another constituency meeting. These events embarrassed church leaders, who were unwilling to pressure hospital administrators to fully comply with data requests.
Finally, the Center for Christian Bioethics at Loma Linda University planned a conference for November 1988 titled "Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options." Its stated purpose was to give an opportunity to qualified Adventists from different parts of the world church to "express different views on the morality of abortion in an atmosphere of open dialogue" [Larson, 1992: xi]. While it would not make recommendations for church leadership, organizers hoped the conference would help a denominational consensus emerge [interview].
However, the conference unexpectedly sparked action on the issue when members of the General Conference Committee, while considering a conference funding request, expressed concern that Loma Linda University was taking control of the abortion issue. . This directly resulted in the General Conference's creation of the Christian View of Human Life Committee, whose first task was to address the issue of abortion [see below]. The committee was announced in the Ministry in November 1988, the month of the conference.
President Wilson also expressed his nervousness about the conference in other ways: although the General Conference provided $ 5,000 towards the cost of the conference, he insisted that it not be identified with the General Conference [interview]; He also demanded that the conference papers not be published while the issue was resolved [Reid to Larson, August 30, 1988]. However, the conference firmly pointed the way for the new Christian View of Human Life Committee. Although the 36 articles presented represented considerable variety in their views, from pro-life to considerable choice, the predominant view was a “centrist” position that was adopted by several ethicists. One of them explicitly urged that the church develop guidelines that included both "respect for freedom of conscience" – "for historic Adventism, a person's conscience is inviolable" – and a view of human life as "precious and deserving." of protection" – a view that is outraged by the 1.5 million abortions per year in the US [Walters, 1992: 175,177]. It also turned out to be significant that, generally speaking, the authors of the articles at both extremes tended to have received less formal education than the authors of the centrist articles [interview].
The conference was ultimately well received in all quarters, including the General Conference [Reid to Larson, November 23, 1988; Spectrum, May 1989:1]. Its reputation spread so widely that it was emulated by the Presbyterian Church, which invited its organizer, David Larson, to be a consultant for a conference held in Kansas City [interview].
Making an Official Statement
The Bioethics Center's request for funds for its conference stimulated an impromptu discussion on abortion in the General Conference Committee. Many now felt that church leadership could no longer ignore the issue, but were uncomfortable with the prospect of Loma Linda University taking the lead. Dr. Albert Whiting of the Department of Health and Temperance noted those who seemed especially interested, and then called them to a meeting. His recommendation that a committee be formed to address the issue was eventually carried out, and Whiting, due to his initiative, was appointed chairman. He invited members of the General Conference Committee who had expressed interest to become members, and began drawing up a list from which others would be chosen. Although Whiting "did not ask prospective members their position on the issue, but only whether they were well informed and willing" [interview], the configuration of the committee's membership was vital to the emphasis of the statements it produced.
Whiting was “concerned about representing relevant disciplines” on the committee [interview]. The result was a highly educated group. When the committee was first appointed, church leaders were proud that seven of the 28 members were women; Never before has a General Conference subcommittee had such a proportion of women. However, at her first meeting, several members argued that she could not have credibility with the church on such a low issue with such a low proportion of women. The committee then voted that it could not move forward unless half of the members were women. Church leaders agreed to add more women, and Whiting eventually reached out to representatives of women's groups for names [interview]. Almost all of the attaches were highly educated professionals. Thereafter, there were often more women attending meetings than men [Winslow, 1991;Adventist Woman, Feb/March 1990:1]. Women's interest in the issue has been aroused.
After more women were added, the occupations represented were listed as "lawyers, educators, General Conference staff (which included Administration, Biblical Research, Church Ministries, Education, Medicine, and Women's Commission), housewives." housekeepers, hospital administrators, nurses, pastors, doctors, psychologists, Family Life educators, marriage and family therapists" [Mazat, 1993: 18]. Most of those who were regularly active on the committee had hospital and/or medical connections (although in some cases it was through family members), "it was their problem" [interview].
Given the concentration of highly educated members, many with medical connections and half of whom were professional women, the result was that, compared to Adventism as a whole, the pro-life position was underrepresented on the committee. Although their names were suggested, better-known pro-life Adventists, such as George Gainer, who was responsible for the formation of the Potomac Conference Abortion Study Committee, and Teresa Beem, then president of Adventists for Life, were omitted from the list. committee because "they had already taken a position" [interviews]. The committee, as originally established, was left with almost no pro-life representatives, other than the editor of Ministry, whose opinions were not known beforehand. He later went to Whiting, arguing that it was unbalanced, and three others were added, but this was not until after the first draft of the statements was written [interview].
The committee was first asked to prepare drafts of a "consensus statement" on abortion and guidelines for church-related health care institutions [Dialogue, 2: 1, 1990: 32]. The first was seen as a statement of principles "directed toward a woman facing an abortion" [Update, Sept.1993: 6]. This segment of the document focuses on the configuration of that document.
The committee met twice a year for three days each time, beginning in 1989. Although the committee's membership was skewed away from pro-life activists, the views represented varied considerably, initially leading key members to the desperation of reaching a consensus [Winslow, 1991]. However, progress was made as the process became one of "finding the middle ground" [Adventist Woman, Feb./March 1990:3]. In fact, committee members often enthused about the process:
"Participating for two years as a lay member of the... Committee... has made me more hopeful about the Seventh-day Adventist Church than I have been for twenty years... Members vigorously express widely divergent opinions, "they listen carefully to each other and then find common ground within Adventism regarding the fundamental problems facing contemporary society" [McFarland, 1991: 37].
Several themes emerged in the commission's discussions. One of them was the commitment to individual freedom of conscience, a deep Protestant conviction of individuality, of standing before God. There could be no place for coercion here. This was closely related to another theme, the commitment to women's rights. A third theme was the fear of state coercion, which is the foundation of Adventist determination to protect the separation of church and state in the United States to try to guarantee freedom of religion [interviews].
Consequently, the committee early defined its task as providing guidance to women and the church in general rather than creating doctrinal statements: the interpretation of its recommendations should be left to interested persons [McFarland, 1991: 37]. This was very different from the dogmatic type of position that Adventists have often taken, for example, against tobacco [Update, Sept.1993: 8]. This stance strengthened as a series of stories of women in serious trouble with crisis pregnancies were presented at committee meetings: the obstetricians and family counselors on the committee "constantly fed us the reality, the cases that came to them." [interview].
"Some of us had worked with girls and women facing this agonizing choice, and we were strong advocates for women against some who thought that most abortions were lightly chosen and simply out of convenience, done without much selfish thought." [Mazat, Update, Sept.1993: 6].
In an effort to find common ground, several drew a parallel between abortion and the problems of military service. During the war, the Adventist Church has:
"He encouraged young men to save lives by serving as Army medics. But he did not legislate what they should do... At the very least, we should honor women's conscientious decisions [about abortion] the same way we honor women's decisions." men about military service" [Watts, 1990: 5].
During this debate, many of the committee members, especially women, realized that they were more liberal than most Adventists. The conclusion for them was that the final choice would fall to the pregnant woman. They argued this in terms of freedom of conscience, as well as women's rights. Although pro-lifers were concerned that this was freedom without responsibility, the committee decided on this early and had little debate about it afterwards [interviews].
Other aspects unexpectedly reinforced this position. Some conservative Adventists reject a pro-life position because they feel that Adventists should not align themselves with a position so strongly espoused by the Roman Catholic Church, even more so because the latter wishes to use state power to achieve its goal. For example, the Pacific Union's Religious Liberty director drew on the fears inherent in traditional Adventist eschatology to build a pro-choice case in a paper presented to the committee:
"The abortion issue is the catalyst for subjecting America, and indeed the world, to the papal 'divine right to rule' in all moral, social, and religious matters, thereby establishing their religion as the law of the land, and inflicting civil sanctions on religious dissidents.... The issue of abortion will likely serve as the needle that pulls back the thread of oppressive Sunday religious worship laws" [Stevens, 1989: 10,19].
This specter seemed more threatening because of the alliance between the moral majority and Catholics to pursue the legislation. Liberal members of the committee were able to use this theme because they feared being confused with fundamentalists [interviews].
A common background to the debate, which reinforced the dominant position, took the form of reminders of the need to protect the enormous Adventist investment in its hospital system. The presence of so many committee members with medical and hospital connections ensured that this concern was never forgotten, and that gentle reminders were all that was needed [interviews].
The pro-lifers on the committee naturally placed great emphasis on the sanctity of life. But here all the other members joined them, because life is important to Adventists because of their view of the totality of life and prenatal influence. There was no debate about when life begins: the fetus was accepted as life. However, there was some disagreement when applying the concept:
"The Committee's search for guidelines was solidly based on the conviction of the sanctity of human life...not only in the protection of the unborn fetus, but in concern for children born in painful and appalling circumstances of subhuman treatment" [Mazat, 1993: 18-19].
However, they all agreed that the life of the mother takes priority over that of the fetus. [Winslow, 1991] Pro-lifers were very cautious about creating "loopholes" that would allow abortions, fearing they could be stretched considerably. However, even they did not want their position to contribute to the government's enforcement of morality. The Adventist stance on freedom of conscience and Church-State relations was felt here. Pro-life Adventists were therefore different from those in other churches, which would likely have seen state enforcement as their goal. This made pro-life Adventists more flexible [interviews].
Loma Linda University ethicist Gerald Winslow became the dominant figure in the debate. He was determined to offer greater protection to the fetus without denying freedom of conscience. It was important to him to ensure that Adventist hospitals did not follow an indiscriminate policy. He sought to distinguish between individual integrity, institutional practice, and social policy: "calling people to make personal decisions that protect God's prenatal gift, and asking Adventist health care institutions to do the same, while at the same time urging the state to allow ample freedom for the personal conscience of pregnant women" [Winslow, 1993: 20]. Since its position was more conservative than current hospital policy and yet was attuned to the need to allow abortions in extreme situations felt by many women and medical personnel, while protecting against state coercion, it became the central position around which the committee could unite.
Underlying this process was a special strain of Adventist conservatism that made most committee members wary of taking extreme positions:
"Most Adventists oppose the extreme positions of both the pro-life and pro-choice camps. Mainline SDAs find it difficult to agree with the open options for abortion advocated by many pro-choice But then they find it equally difficult to identify with the confrontational methods often employed by the most rabid pro-lifers" [Rock, 1990: 11]. We chose a central position because of the uniqueness of Adventism: we are not fundamentalists nor are we theological liberals; We draw on both the Old and New Testaments, justice and love, individual responsibility, but we offer guidance" [interview].
The fact that when it came to abortion policy, conservative Adventists lacked the clear "thus saith the Lord" that they generally look for, whether in the Bible or in the writings of their prophet, reinforced their discomfort with taking a stand." extreme."
Winslow was given the task of writing the initial draft of the statement. This was considered and modified in the committee discussion, where the votes were always lopsided, until finally one version of the document was able to gain unanimous approval.
Drafts of both statements [see below for a discussion of hospital guidelines] were presented to General Conference officials, who authorized their distribution for broader comment. Both were widely published: in Dialogue in 1990 [2: 1, 32-34], in Spectrum in 1991 [21: 4, 40-43], and in the book containing 16 of the papers from the Loma Linda University Bioethics Conference [Larson, 1992: 258-64]; the consensus statement was published only in Ministry in July 1990 [19-20] and in liberty in 1993 [Weber, 1993]. The plan was to modify the draft document if necessary based on requested comments, and then pass it to the Annual Council, a meeting of delegates from the world church's 11 divisions, for ratification.
Since most of the committee members were Americans, and the few foreign-born members were all residents of the United States, the discussions had an American flavor. Given the much stronger negative feelings towards abortion in Europe and especially in the Third World, there was a possibility that its delegates would reject the declaration when it came to the Annual Council. The draft document was mailed to each of the world divisions, which were asked to form committees to respond to it. However, several of the divisions took little interest in the declaration, viewing it as a response to an American problem, and since the responses received were diverse, they consequently had little impact on the declaration [interviews].
The Christian View of Human Life Committee also sent copies of the draft statement to union papers, universities, women's groups, hospitals, etc. His purpose in this was to make it known, to stir up debate, to give the declaration a life of its own regardless of how the Annual Council treated it [Winslow, 1991].
The right-wing independent Adventist press was offended by the statement. For example, the editor of Pilgrim's Rest, Noting that the committee had been dominated by professional and career-oriented staff, he called the attempt to affirm both life and individual conscience "Jesuitical casuistry" and "double speak" ["Abortion Update," January 1992].
When Ministry published the draft statement in July 1990, its editor, David Newman, explained his reasoning, as a pro-lifer, for supporting it:
"As a committee, we struggle with how to balance a great concern for life with the need to consider the less than ideal condition of this fallen world... I am opposed to the taking of innocent life. But should I impose that point of view to people who see abortion as the lesser of two evils? While the church should defend the sanctity of life, should it also give some guidance to those who feel that having a living child is an impossible option? [ 19]
However, over time Newman became more negative toward the draft statement. In February 1991 he wrote that "the vast majority of the letters we received did not agree with the consensus statement," and that because some committee members felt he had neglected to provide a biblical foundation for the document, the committee had spent most of a meeting developing 12 principles that express the biblical view of the meaning of life. "We will need to take a fresh look at our abortion guidelines in light of these principles" [5]. However, the committee proved unwilling to return to the ground it had already plowed. Frustrated, Newman resigned from the committee, and the Ministry he increasingly became the voice of the pro-life position. In August 1991, in an issue titled "The Christian View of Human Life", he took "a different approach", no longer trying to be "balanced" in its content [3]. His strongly pro-life articles had the effect of questioning the draft declaration [Kis, 1991; Gainer, 1991]. A year later, as the consensus statement was about to go to the Annual Council for approval, theMinistry published a strongly pro-life topic. The strongest of these articles [Weber, 1992] provoked a stinging protest from a woman, who pointed out that all the articles had been by men:
Weber asks the rhetorical question: "If a woman voluntarily engages in sexual relations that result in conception, has she not already exercised her freedom of choice?" I doubt it. Most literature suggests that men are the primary aggressors in such relationships. Is there not some male guilt in this matter? [Watts, 1993:1].
The draft declaration, as initially published, allowed, among the "exceptional circumstances in which abortion may be considered", "significant threats to the woman's... physical or mental health" [Spectrum, August 1991:40]. Pro-lifers saw the inclusion of mental health as opening the door to anything, and wanted to limit this part to a threat to the mother's life. General Conference officers responded by insisting that the wording be changed to "grave danger to his health" [Adventist Review, December 31, 1992:12]. However, this compromise left pro-lifers dissatisfied, as they argued that the use of "health" without qualification still left room for "mental health."
These issues encouraged the only pro-life on the committee, family counselor Millie Youngberg, to resume her opposition to the statement and ultimately, along with Newman, to draft and sign a minority report. This report criticized the majority report for not being sufficiently rooted in Scripture, and for opening loopholes for many other reasons for abortion than those specified by the use of "such as" when introducing them and allowing for the "health" of the mother as a reason. He stated that since the Sabbath commemorates creation and therefore life, "keeping the Sabbath requires a deep respect for all life." Furthermore, "personal freedom cannot violate the rights of another person," such as those of the fetus. Their list of exceptional circumstances under which abortion was acceptable was much narrower: "Abortion should be performed only to save the life of the mother and possibly in cases of severe fetal anomaly." The same rules would apply to hospitals. The General Conference Committee acted in a highly unusual manner when it agreed to bring both reports to the Annual Council in October 1992. However, the minority report attracted only two vocal supporters on the floor.
Neil Wilson, now a former president of the General Conference, also tried to kill the report, urging that no statement be made on abortion so close to the US presidential election. He called the guidelines controversial and inconsistent, and urged that his 1971 hospital guidelines be retained. He was initially successful in introducing the document [Weber, 1993: 12]. However, his successor, Robert Folkenberg, after reflecting on the matter, spoke on the floor, urging the delegates to stop arguing on the issue and vote the declaration up or down. This was the first time he clearly took a stand against Wilson in public. He had to show Wilson that he was no longer in charge, and the problem was suddenly seen in those terms, which probably helped the approval of the statement [interviews]. It was approved by an overwhelming vote, with only five dissenters.
During the debate, the name of the document was changed from "Consensus Statement on Abortion" to "Guidelines on Abortion." When it was published, the Adventist Magazine he emphasized that as guidelines they were "pastoral in nature, providing help to individual members as they personally struggle with problems" [Adventist Review, December 31, 1992].
The declaration, as adopted, begins by affirming the sanctity of life:
"Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift from God. God's ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in the image of God, and requires respect for prenatal life."
While this does not necessarily exclude abortion, it means that
"Abortion is never an action of little moral importance. Therefore, prenatal life should not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons."
Point 4 considers abortion in greater detail:
"Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection or convenience are not tolerated by the church. Women... however, may face exceptional circumstances... such as serious threats to a woman's life pregnant, serious danger to her health, carefully diagnosed serious congenital defects in the fetus and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether or not to terminate the pregnancy must be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation."
Therefore, (5) because Christians are accountable to God, "any attempts to force women to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy must be rejected as violations of personal freedom"; and (2),
"The Church must offer kind support to those who are personally faced with the decision about abortion. Condemning attitudes are inappropriate."
Point (3) attempts to bridge life and choice: "In practical and tangible ways, the church as a supportive community must express its commitment to the value of human life," including:
"to educate both sexes about the Christian principles of human sexuality, emphasizing the responsibility of both men and women in family planning,... offering support and assistance to women who choose to complete crisis pregnancies... The Church "You must also commit to helping alleviate the unfortunate social, economic and psychological factors that can lead to abortion."
Since these principles are relevant to Adventist hospitals,
(6) Ecclesiastical institutions should be given guidelines to develop their own institutional policies in harmony with this declaration. People who have a religious or ethical objection to abortion should not be forced to participate in performing abortions. [5] [Adventist Magazine, December 31, 1992:11-12]
By trying to cross the fence, making the fetus significant, but allowing a woman the right to choose, to keep Adventists united, the committee created some ambiguity. Consequently, while Whiting maintained that the committee had arrived at "a modified pro-life position" [interview], Winslow described it as
"Ultimately pro-choice, since its conclusion is that the pregnant woman must decide. It emphasizes the value of life, but this is limited to persuasion" [Winslow, 1991].
A few months after presenting the draft statements on abortion to General Conference officials, the committee also sent them another statement, "Care of the Dying," which dealt with euthanasia. However, this, unlike the abortion statement, did not attempt to balance competing claims, to protect individual choice, or to draw on the Adventist understanding of death in any explicit way. That is, it leaves no room for a convicted person to actively choose to hasten their death [Adventist Review, December 31, 1992: 14-15]. The closed-mindedness displayed in this statement highlighted the openness of the statement on abortion and its exceptional status within Adventism.
Guidelines for Hospitals
While its general statement on abortion (discussed above) was relatively liberal, with the final choice about whether or not to have an abortion being left with the pregnant woman, the Committee on the Christian View of Human Life drafted a much stricter set of guidelines for Adventist hospitals. The committee was determined to change the hospitals' liberal reputation on abortion. The guidelines therefore emphasize the protection of life and precisely specify both the exceptional circumstances under which hospitals can perform an abortion and the internal controls to ensure that no abortion is performed without prior approval.
The guidelines were written by Michael Jackson, senior vice president of Adventist Health Systems West, and former CEO of two California hospitals. Because they were stricter than the general statement and therefore considered less controversial, less committee time was devoted to them. [interview]
The preamble described its purpose as "to assist the leadership of Adventist health centers in the development and implementation of institution-specific policies." The guidelines began strongly in language that was based on the general statement:
Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift from God and deserves respect and protection. It should not be destroyed thoughtlessly. Since abortion is taking life, it should be performed only for the most serious reasons.
Those reasons were listed as: "Significant threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman, carefully diagnosed serious birth defects in the fetus, [and] Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest." Explicit exclusions followed: "Abortion for social or economic reasons, including convenience, gender selection, or birth control, is institutionally prohibited."
To ensure procedural compliance with these principles, the guidelines added that a hospital should establish a committee to "prospectively review all requests" for abortions. Its members must be "qualified to address the medical, psychological and spiritual needs of patients," and there must be equal representation of women on the committee. "Abortions deemed appropriate should be performed only after the committee approves a recommendation to do so... Alternatives to intentional termination of pregnancy should be presented before the pregnant woman reaches a final decision to proceed... Should "a minimum period of twenty-four (24) hours must elapse between the advice and the decision to proceed."
Furthermore, they stated that if an abortion is medically indicated after viability, "the medical treatment of a prematurely born infant during the course of the termination of pregnancy should be the same as would be provided to any other similar living fetus." Despite this, the life and health of the woman must take priority when there is a conflict between that and the life of the fetus.
A conscience clause was unequivocal:
"Under no circumstances should a woman be forced to undergo, or a doctor, nurse or assistant staff required to participate in, an intentional termination of pregnancy if she has a religious or ethical objection to doing so. Nor should attempts to coerce "a woman to remain pregnant. Such coercion is a violation of personal freedom, which must be protected."
Finally, records of abortions must be maintained and a summary of them presented annually to the hospital board of directors.
The draft guidelines were presented to General Conference officials, who published them along with the general declaration for comment in 1990 [Dialogue, 2:1,1990:32-34]. However, during that year, new General Conference President Folkenberg surveyed hospital administrators at a meeting about their abortion practices and concluded that they were not abortion mills. Because I did not feel that the church was facing a serious hospital problem, attention was diverted from the guidelines [interview].
The Christian View of Human Life Committee intended the two documents to be "complementary and inseparable" [interview]. However, General Conference officials, on the recommendation of the Adventist Health Association Cabinet, an informal body of North American health and church leaders that meets regularly, decided not to send the hospital guidelines to the Annual Council for approval [interviews]. This left the general declaration alone, despite its clause stating that "ecclesiastical institutions should have guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this declaration."
Because the blanket statement referred to pregnant women facing abortion-related decisions, it caused confusion with hospital administrators concerned about implementing the policy. In fact, since the conclusion of the statement was that the woman must decide, it seemed to indicate that a hospital must perform any abortion once it determined that the woman had decided on that course. This was far from the committee's intention.
When Jackson received several bewildered calls from hospital administrators, he opted to write to the president of the North American Division, urging the need to address the guidelines for hospitals. Later, in August 1993, they were brought to the Adventist Health Association Cabinet, which endorsed them. Most hospital administrators who attended the meeting stated that they were already complying with them [interviews]. The Cabinet also changed the name of the document from "Guidelines: Intentional Termination of Pregnancy for Adventist Health Centers" to "Minimum Standards for Intentional Termination of Pregnancy for Adventist Health Centers," to avoid confusion with the new title of the general statement [letter, Whiting to Lawson, September 27, 1993]. By choosing to go this route rather than take it to the Annual Council, the guidelines did not apply to Adventist hospitals outside the United States.
Since the Cabinet is not incorporated, it has no mechanism to enforce decisions. Instead, it makes recommendations, which individual hospitals follow as they are willing. However, in light of Cabinet's earlier recommendation that the statement not be presented to the Annual Council, the significance of its approval was not immediately clear.
Hospital Compliance with Guidelines
To test compliance with the new guidelines, I interviewed staff associated with four Adventist hospitals in the United States. Three of these were the hospitals most involved in abortion controversies since 1970: Castle Medical Center (formerly known as Castle Memorial Hospital), Washington Adventist Hospital, and Shady Grove Adventist Hospital. The fourth, Kettering Medical Center in Ohio, was chosen to act as a control.
CMC has had a high abortion-to-birth ratio since 1971, close to 10%, which puts it proportionally in the same league as SGAH, although its totals are lower because it is a smaller hospital [interviews].
Michael Jackson did not know if the "Minimum Standards" statement had been publicized to hospitals in other regions of the United States. However, because of his commitment to it, he is working to have it implemented in the Western states, the area under his organization's jurisdiction. When he was named CMC board president, he tried to make abortion a board issue. The CEO defended him, due to the history of the problem at the hospital and the volatile nature of the issue, by agreeing to increase his efforts to reduce the number of abortions. He approached the obstetricians, explained that the church was increasingly focusing on the issue from a philosophical point of view, and encouraged them to perform their abortions elsewhere. The number of abortions has slowly decreased as a result of these efforts.
CMC's abortion policy is based on 1971 guidelines and has not been revised, although the CEO passed the Minimum Standards to obstetricians once Jackson made them available. However, it appears to hospital administrators that AHS West will not attempt to enforce the guidelines as long as they keep the abortion-to-birth ratio low: "If we viewed abortion as murder, we would do more to try to stop it in our institutions." .
The situation at the two hospitals in the Washington, DC area contrasts with that of CMC because they do not have anyone in the administrative structure pushing to comply with the new Minimum Standards document. In a letter to the Potomac Conference following up on the Abortion Study Commission in March 1993, the secretary of the Mid-Atlantic Adventist Health Care Corporation stated that the board had endorsed the provisions of the general statement, and that the Individual hospital boards would also vote on policies adhering to these guidelines at their meetings in April 1993: "Hospitals are generally already following these guidelines" [Peters to Evans, March 2, 1993].
Since, as explained above, it would be easy to claim compliance with the general statement, considering how it can be interpreted, I requested the abortion policies of both WAH and SGAH in October 1993. Neither hospital had changed its policy in the review time at the beginning of the year.
SGAH's abortion policy explicitly states that it complies with the new General Conference guidelines (i.e., the general statement). However, one vice president complained in an interview that the guidelines were so ambiguous and unclear that it was very difficult to know whether they were in compliance. The hospital was not aware of, nor did it comply with, the Minimum Standards document. First trimester abortions are a matter between the doctor and the patient, so no restrictions apply, nor is there a committee to pre-approve them. There is a committee to pre-approve subsequent abortions. Even then, the decision to abort a defective fetus has no rules regarding the severity of the defect; There is also no declaration governing a late-term abortion that produces a live fetus.
WAH policy leaves each abortion decision up to the doctor and patient, as long as it is in accordance with federal and state law. It hasn't been changed in several years. Therefore, it is totally out of compliance with the Minimum Standards, of which they also claim to be ignorant. In an interview with a doctor in the obstetrics department, I discovered that the number of abortions performed there had decreased in recent years, but not because of politics: cheaper abortions are now available in clinics. He said most abortions there these days are performed by doctors who come to WAH only for abortions and choose to take their other patients to the Catholic hospital. He had not heard of the "Minimum Standards" document until I informed him of it, and then he found it "very cumbersome" [interview].
The Conference Abortion Study Commission is also unlikely to help bring these hospitals into compliance, having recently allowed their teeth to be removed. The Commission's majority report to the 1993 constituency meeting did not call for updates to hospital policies. The minority thought the study was meaningless without this, and submitted their own report demanding that updates be sought. At the constituency meeting, the conference president ceded the presidency to the union president, who is also president of the hospital corporation, who conducted the debate in a very partisan manner, with the result that the minority motion failed by a wide margin [interview].
The control case, Kettering Medical Center, was also shown to be unaware of the Minimum Standards. Nor does its policy comply with that document: it does not have a committee to approve abortions, and its policy seems quite liberal. However, the CEO and obstetrics staff choose to act conservatively, with the result that only three or four abortions are performed there per year, and these are limited to when there are serious birth defects or the mother is at risk. The CEO makes speeches saying that they don't want that kind of business, which is just as good, since the local culture would not tolerate a large number of abortions [interviews].
However, one interviewee mentioned a looming problem: Hospital administrators expect that hospitals will soon be forced to form partnerships with others in order to compete for insurance contracts. Two of the flagship Adventist hospitals are already in trouble because their rivals have formed partnerships, and administrators are worried that the Adventist hospitals will not survive as independent players. In an association, a super board would be formed that would accept a contract, and once this was done, member hospitals would be obligated to provide services. A consultant for Catholic hospitals is urging them to declare their values up front so they can be part of the association. But this could lead to hospitals being rejected as partners. The hottest topic among Adventist hospital administrators is how their Sabbath restrictions would affect this process: for example, if elective surgery is off limits on Saturday, the length of stay increases and hospitals have to bear the cost. Adventist hospitals are already relaxing their rules regarding the Sabbath. A stance on abortion could also cause problems, although I hadn't heard of that. When policies are set by departments rather than the hospital board, as has sometimes been the case with regard to abortion, these would not be included in a partnership agreement, so they would be under a lot of pressure. Church leaders are aware of the pressures on hospitals to form partnerships, and the Center for Christian Bioethics at Loma Linda University has planned a seminar on the topic in February 1994 [interview].
It seems likely that this looming problem for hospitals was an additional reason why they sought to avoid the restrictions on their flexibility that would have arisen from bringing the "Minimum Standards" to the Annual Council.
In short, then, Adventist hospitals are much more independent of the church today than they were in 1970, so they are much less likely to ask the church for advice. Many hospital administrators think of their institutions as primarily community hospitals: they choose to conform to the community's standards and do not regard their standards as the business of church leaders [interviews]. Since the text of the Minimum Standards document left application to hospital boards, and the General Conference has made no attempt to encourage compliance with the guidelines, unity of practice among Adventist hospitals is unlikely. The fact that the hospitals contacted are not yet aware of the Minimum Standards suggests that the best place to classify them may be under "window dressing."
Interpretation
Due to its sectarian roots and conservative theology and view of Scripture, many would expect the Seventh-day Adventist Church to adopt an uncompromising pro-life position. However, although polls confirm that the majority of members in the United States lean in that direction and that Adventists worldwide strongly oppose abortion, Adventists have never taken the expected position. It has been shown that while the United States argued and agonized over abortion policy for more than twenty years, the Adventist Church failed to provide guidance to members struggling with personal decisions about problematic or unwanted pregnancies and allowed a permissive policy within its hospital system. When it finally addressed the issue in 1992, the church issued guidelines to its members that affirmed the value of the life of a fetus and strongly discouraged abortions for trivial reasons, but left the final decision to the pregnant woman. In the meantime, however, an attempt to issue a supplemental statement that would have had the effect of bringing unity of practice to Adventist hospitals by eliminating abortions of convenience has apparently gone astray.
What are the reasons for this confusing history and the complexity of the current situation? This section attempts to summarize the data for interpretation. Point out several key factors.
During the first decades of their history, Adventists were remarkably homogeneous: white, English-speaking, fairly poor, rural Americans. However, as evangelistic and missionary zeal transformed the former local sect into the current 7.5 million-member global denomination, its face changed. Adventism became extraordinarily diverse in terms of race, socioeconomic status, and theological stance, as well as in geographic and cultural spread. These divisions are reflected in attitudes toward abortion: data indicate that non-white race, lower status, more sectarian theology, and Third World location are correlated with greater antagonism toward abortion. However, the basic division is based on SES, which I have measured in terms of educational attainment. Education and subsequent professionalization became the drivers of upward mobility among church-born Adventists, especially in the United States. At the same time, the apocalyptic emphasis in Adventist evangelism continued to attract poor converts, in fact even poorer than before, when the introduction of the five-day week made the Sabbath less problematic for employees. This created a very wide range of SES within Adventism. In the United States, converts have increasingly come from the ranks of new immigrants in recent years, and therefore from among the poorest of racial minorities, and because they have been exposed to evangelicals rather than university religion courses, their theology tends to be much more sectarian. Meanwhile, the enormous expansion of Adventism in many parts of the Third World over the past 20 years has created churches made up of recent converts who have often been drawn from the poor. Adventist antagonism toward abortion is greatest in these countries.
Adventist involvement in medicine and hospitals, and consequently in education, resulted in considerable upward mobility among church members, especially in the United States, and the rise of an influential elite who, for both ideological and professionals, has been inclined to keep an abortion option open. Although few of the hospitals performed large numbers of abortions, administrators in this influential segment of the church sought to retain their flexibility and expand their independence while pursuing their own corporate objectives. They therefore rejected the restrictive abortion guidelines issued in 1970, demanding the right to perform elective abortions if they so desired. Later, in 1992, when General Conference officials were persuaded to omit the new set of hospital guidelines proposed by the Committee on the Christian View of Human Life from the Annual Council agenda, they again avoided ratifying restrictions on their Actions. Meanwhile, church leaders have been forced to try to hide the permissive 1971 guidelines, to deal with demonstrations by non-Adventists protesting abortion policies in Adventist hospitals, and the resulting questioning and expressions of outrage on the part of many members, and to explain the inconsistency between the value placed on the fetus by the new abortion guidelines for pregnant members and the continued permissive practice in some of the hospitals. Malcolm Bull noted that "medical work is implicitly in conflict with the specifically religious aspects of the Adventist tradition" [1988:20]. The issue of abortion has crystallized this conflict [Terian, 1992:209].
The process of electing members of the Christian View of Human Life Committee was critical to the formation of the general declaration on abortion, as opinions among American Adventists were sharply divided on the issue. Although the committee reflected the American church in race and gender, the emphasis on experience ensured that the membership was highly educated and professional, with an especially strong representation of people connected with medicine and a large number of professional women. Such a group was inevitably much more theologically liberal than average, especially since some of the most articulate pro-life spokespersons were excluded. Not surprisingly, such a committee decided early in the process that the final decision about whether or not to have an abortion should be left to the pregnant woman.
One of the members of the Christian View of Human Life Committee argued that "the new Adventist position [on abortion] is evidence that sectarian religion can foster a serious challenge to traditional religion, which may be different and distinct from Fallwell and those who have the right to life." He argued that the main reason Adventists adopted the general declaration in 1992 was their "strong commitment to freedom of conscience and religious freedom" [interview]. This paper has shown how peculiarities in the theology and evolution of Adventism led many of its members to insist that the final choice regarding abortion must be left to the individual conscience. Various currents here helped build a broad coalition, ranging from traditional Adventists to liberals, and disarm many of the pro-lifers. Therefore, many of the more sectarian Adventists, because of their fear that state coercion would affect their Sabbath observance before the apocalypse, rejected a pro-life position because it was identified with Catholics who wished to recruit the state apparatus to impose it. . Feminists, strengthened by their continued fight to secure the ordination of women pastors, embraced freedom of conscience as a means of establishing a woman's ultimate right to choose whether or not to carry her fetus to term. And many upwardly mobile Adventists, including church administrators and professionals among the laity, in their longing for social acceptance moved away from a position that could link them to fundamentalists, preferring instead to choose a stance similar to that of Protestants. conventional, with whom they were eager to identify.
It should be added that this was an American committee speaking on behalf of a world church where opinion ran much more strongly against abortion than in the United States. Although the foreign delegates could have united to defeat the declaration when it was before the Annual Council, they instead supported it because it was normal, within the Adventist system, to ratify a committee report, and because they saw it as a response to an American need and , therefore, of little relevance to them. They were especially likely to support him once the vote became a test of the world president's power in a dispute with his predecessor.
If the new position on abortion is to truly take hold, pro-life and pro-choice members will have to unite through the implementation of the third point of the 1992 declaration:
"[E]ducate both sexes regarding Christian principles of human sexuality, emphasizing the responsibility of both men and women in family planning,...offering support and assistance to women who choose to complete crisis pregnancies ...[T]he church must also commit to helping alleviate the unfortunate social, economic, and psychological factors that can lead to abortion.”
To this I would add another idea:
"If we want to condemn abortion, we must be prepared to better support a woman who chooses to have her baby. Christian schools need to change their rules and accept pregnant students and students with babies, help support them or get support if necessary. Also they need to provide good sex education" [Kruger, 1992].
However, these are the types of areas where Adventism perhaps performs most poorly.
Grades
1. These data are available from Sentinel Survey Services, 990 Redhill Valley Rd, Cleveland, TN 37323.
2. The return rate for the 2,950 interviewed was 41.5%, which is excellent considering the practical problems of language differences and asking people to use international emails.
3. The article does not take into account the four remaining cases.
4. The Ministry had originally requested five articles for what was planned as a single abortion-focused issue. One of these was by George Gainer, who, since he was asked to address the history of the Adventist position on abortion, would inevitably focus primarily on the statements of 1970 and 1971. However, he was criticized for what he found in the files on the role of Neal C. Wilson, who was now president of the General Conference, regarding the development of these statements. Wilson finally intervened and canceled the planned number. As a compromise, the other four articles were published individually during 1988, but Gainer's article was omitted [Gainer, 1988: 38-39].
5. The clause on the freedom of conscience of hospital staff to opt out of abortion procedures was included because reports of incidents in which conscientious objectors had been pressured to participate had led to bad press. [Winslow, 1991]
References
“Abortion Guidelines for Adventist Medical Institutions.” 1988 Ministry, January, 18-20. Adventists for Life
ND (1990?) What is “Adventists for Life”? Publicity brochure distributed at the Session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Indianapolis, July 1990.
Banks, Candace 1990 Letter to the Editor. Spectrum, April, pp 36-38.
Beach, W.R. 1971 “Abortion?” Ministry, March, pp 3-6.
Blake, Christopher 1988 “Abortion: A Matter of Life or Death.” Insight, January 23, pp 14-15.
Bull, Malcolm 1988 “The Medicalization of Adventism.” Spectrum, February,12-21.
|Bull, Malcolm, and Keith Lockhart 1989 Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream. New York: Harper and Row.
Day, Garland 1986 “Abortion: A Noble Protest.” Adventist Singles Ministries Bulletin, July, 6-7.
Dick, W.G. 1971 “A Look at Abortion.” Adventist Review, May 13, p.11.
Drennan, Olga 1977 “The Ending Place.” Insight, October 11, pp 9-13.
Dudley, Roger L. 1991 “A Ten-year Study of Youth Retention in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America: the Fourth Year.” Unpublished paper.
Durand, Eugene 1983 “About Abortion” (editorial). Adventist Review,September 1, 14.
Editorial 1993 “Pro-life and Pro-choice–Can the Church have it Both Ways?” Adventist Today, May/June, p.16
1993 “A Vote for the Unborn.” Liberty, January/February, p.2.
Fly, James L. 1988 “A Tale of Two Secrets.” Insight, January 23, pp 2-3
Fredericks, Richard 1988 “Less than Human?” Ministry, March, pp 12-16
Gainer, George B. 1988 “The Wisdom of Solomon? or the Politics of Pragmatism: The General Conference Abortion Decision 1970-71.” unpublished paper.
1991 “Abortion: History of Adventist Guidelines.” Ministry,August, 11-17.
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 1988 “General Conference Appoints Committee on Human Life.” Ministry, November, pp 20-21.
1990 “Two Documents on Abortion: A Proposed Statement of Consensus on Abortion; “Proposed Guidelines for Healthcare Facilities.” Dialogue, 2:1, pp 32-34.
1992 “Taking a Stand: The Church Responds to Moral Issues Confronting Christians–Statement 1: Guidelines on Abortion.” Adventist Review, December 31, pp 11-12.
Gow, Haven Bradford 1977 “The Right to Life.” Insight, October 11, pp 5-7.
Hall, Anna Lou 1971 “The Woman and Abortion.” Spectrum, 3:2, Spring, 37-42.
Johnsson, William G., and Myron Widmer 1986 “Adventist Health System–Your Questions: Review editors interview AHS/US President Donald W. Welsh.” Adventist Review, February 13, pp 11-17
Johnston. Madeline S. 1988 “Should the Church take a Stronger Stand?–No” Insight, January 23, p.13.
Kis, Miroslav M. 1991 “The Christian View of Human Life.” Ministry, August, pp 6-10.
Kruger, Joseph Patrick 1992 “What Pro-Life Really Means.” Insight, November 14, pp6-7
Larson, David R. (ed.) 1992 Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options. Loma Linda, CA:Loma Linda University Center for Christian Bioethics.
Lawson, Ronald 1991 “Church and State at Home and Abroad: The Governmental Relations of International Seventh-day Adventism.” Unpublished paper read at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Pittsburgh, November.
Londis, James J. 1974 “Abortion: What Shall Christians Do?” Insight, March 19, pp 13-17.
Luker, Kristin 1984 Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Mazat, Alberta 1993 “The Dilemma of Abortion.” Journal of Adventist Youth Ministry, Winter/Spring 1993: 17-21.
Muller, Richard 1985 “Abortion: A Moral Issue?” Ministry, January, p.20.
Newman, J. David 1990 “Provisional Statement on Abortion.” Ministry, July, pp19-20.
1991 “How Sacred is Human Life?” Ministry, February, p.5.
Pearson, Michael 1988 “Abortion: the Adventist Dilemma.” Ministry, January,pp 4-6.
1990 Millennial Dreams and Moral Dilemmas: Seventh-day Adventism and contemporary ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rock, Calvin B. 1990 “Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?” Adventist Review, May 17:11.
Spangler, R. 1988 “Reflections on Adventists and Abortion.” Ministry,January, pp 17-18.
Stevens, John V., Sr. 1989 “The Abortion Controversy: Will a Free America Survive?” Unpublished paper presented to the Committee on the Christian View of Human Life, November.
1990 “Abortion Answers and Attitudes.” Pacific Union Recorder, August 20: 12-13.
Sweem, Ardyce 1988 “Abortion's Effects.” Ministry, July, 14-16.
Sweem, Ardyce, Pat Wick, and Gerald Winslow 1986 “Laura's Question: Should I have an Abortion–Three Perspectives.” Adventist Review, September 25, pp 8-13.
Terian, Sara Karkkainen 1992 “Communicating Grace: The Church's Role in the Abortion Controversy.” pp 205- 220 in David R. Larson, Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options. Loma Linda, CA: Loma Linda University Center for Christian Bioethics.
Thomsen, Ervin and Carolyn 1988 “Should the Church take a Stronger Stand?–Yes”-Insight, January 23, p.12.
Waddell, RF 1971 “Abortion is not the Answer.” Ministry, March, pp 7-9.
Walters, James W. 1992 “Adventist Guidelines on Abortion.” pp 173-185 in David R. Larson, Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options. Loma Linda, CA: Loma Linda University Center for Christian Bioethics.
Watts, Kit 1990 “Abortion and Conscience.” Adventist Review, January 25:5.
1993 Letter to the editor. Ministry, January, p.2.
Weber, Martin 1991 “Potomac Constituency Votes Abortion Appeal.” Ministry, December, p.25.
1992 “The Abortion Dilemma.” Ministry, September, pp 15-17.
1993 “The Christian View of Human Life.” liberty, January/February, p.11-12.
White, James 1870 A Solemn Appeal relative to Solitary Vice and the Abuses and Excesses of the Marriage Relation. Battle Creek, MI.: the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association.
Widmer, Myron 1986 “The Church on Abortion: Current Suggested Guidelines.” Adventist Review, September 25, pp 14-15.
Winslow, Gerald 1988 “Abortion and Christian Principles.” Ministry, May, pp12-16 1991 “The General Conference and Ethics Issues: The Christian View of Human Life Committee.” Address to the Greater New York Adventist Forum, Nov.2.|
1992 “Abortion Policies in Adventist Hospitals.” pp 237-250 in David R. Larson, Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options. Loma Linda, CA: Loma Linda University Center for Christian Bioethics.
1993 “Abortion: Consensus and Dialogue.” Adventist Today, May/June, p.20.
Wittschiebe, C.E. 1974 God Invented Sex. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association.
Wood, Miriam 1985 “Dear Miriam.” Adventist Review, September 12, p.21.
Posted by Ronald Llawson
Retired professor of history and sociology who has spent 30 years especially studying changes in the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a result of its globalization, with a clear majority of its members from the developing world. I visited 60 countries for interviews in the process. Here I make available to non-sociologists the documents that I have published and presented at academic meetings on Adventism and also comparing the growth and spread of Adventism with that of two other groups born in the United States in the same century: The Mormons ( Latter-day Saints) and Jehovah's Witnesses.
The press and other Christian groups and institutions have also echoed the baseness of the Seventh Day Abortion Church, although in reality it kills every day. The Washington Post newspaper, for example, has done several articles condemning the abortion practices of the Adventist church, presenting the irony that a Christian institution is involved in these practices. This newspaper also presents how pastors of evangelical churches have attacked the sect for such behavior. As they would say in my country, what a shame! [25]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/10/06/abortion-opponents-picket-two-hospitals/8ff8a71d-ac76-4b2d-8402-7e18fc232615/
[LINK, Washington Post]
In the article, it is presented how anti-abortion groups and religious leaders protest against the Hospital de la Washington Adventist University and the Fairfax Adventist Hospital, Virginia. The story, which was published in 1985, shows how Lon Walls, then a spokesperson for Fairfax Hospital, said that “he doubted that the boycott would stop the Hospital from continuing to perform abortions.” His words, sadly, were prophetic.
Abortion Opponents Picket Two Hospitals
By Ruth Marcus
October 6, 1985
Anti-abortion protesters picketed two Washington-area hospitals yesterday as part of a series of protests across the country aimed at persuading hospitals to stop performing abortions.
“Hospitals are traditionally considered healing institutions,” said Curtis J. Young, director executive of the Falls Church-based Christian Action Council, which organized the “Pastors protest against abortion” in 300 cities yesterday.
“When they perform abortions, they have perverted their own mission,” he said.
Young said hospitals, which perform about a third of abortions, have been “off the hook for too long” as abortion protesters focused their picketing efforts on abortion clinics.
About 50 protesters, who were joined by a parade of about 150 protesters who also picketed three Northern Virginia abortion clinics, They protested in front of Fairfax Hospital near Falls Church.
They carried signs that included slogans such as “Don't do business in a hospital that kills” and others that said “Abortion doctors really do murder.”
About 50 protesters They demonstrated in front of Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park, according to Takoma Park police.
Fairfax Hospital protesters said they are organizing a boycott of the hospital and related facilities until the hospital agrees to stop performing abortions.
“We believe that many members of the Christian community will decide not to go to hospitals that perform abortions and go to hospitals where all life is appreciated,” Young said.
Hospital spokesman Lon Walls said, however, that he doubts a boycott would prevent Fairfax Hospital from performing abortions.
“As long as abortion is considered part of our mission in providing health care, we will continue to do so,” the hospital spokesperson said.
He said there were 271 abortions, mostly in the second trimester, performed at Fairfax Hospital last year, and 7,164 births.
Chip Ward, pastor of Covenant Life Church in Wheaton, who organized the Washington Adventist Hospital protest, said that the group of abortion opponents selected that hospital because of its religious affiliation.
“We find it very inconsistent that a hospital run by a Christian church practices the murder of unborn children.”said the minister.
Hospital spokesman Reg Burgess said the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not condemn abortion, and that abortions “are not performed in any way in the hospital.”
Ruth Marcus
Ruth Marcus is deputy editorial page editor at The Post. He also writes a weekly column.
The interesting thing is that both hospitals are located in the geographical territory close to the facilities of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, in the State of Maryland, United States. And those are the “saints” who lead the Adventist Church worldwide.
In 1990 this same newspaper published another article titled: “Faith and Abortion: There they focus on the religious sphere, and as the Methodist Church, for example, said: “Our belief in the sanctity of unborn life makes us reluctant to approve abortion.” This, while pointing out that the Adventist Church is very liberal and light in this practice. [26]FAITH ABORTION
[LINK, Washington Post] In short, institutions around the world and other ecclesiastics give the Adventist Church a teaching of “Thou shalt not kill.” And this is the church “who keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus,” how they mock in those ways of constantly quoting Revelation 14:12 to refer to his church as a prophetic institution raised by the Lord. We do not doubt that the Lord has raised up the Adventist Church, but which sir?
Interestingly. I found out through this article that the Presbyterian Church has a very similar position to that of the Adventist Church:
General Assembly “has repeatedly affirmed that, although abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, the abortion decision should be left to the individual, should be made on the basis of conscience and personal religious principles and must remain free from government interference. “
ABORTION BY FAITH
By Mark Weston
January 23, 1990
Abortion.
Not since medieval musings about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin has there been a problem so challenging to faith, so seemingly impossible to solve.
When does life begin?
That is a question that science cannot answer. Not exactly, not yet.
By comparison, the ancient discussion of dancing angels on pinheads, a topic of importance to the days of Thomas Aquinas, Albert the Great, and William of Occam, seems trivial. A thousand years from now, perhaps the furor over abortion will seem just as irrelevant.
A woman's legal right to have an abortion was established by the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, 17 years ago yesterday. That day, the justices ruled by a 7-2 vote that abortions during the first three months of pregnancy are a matter between a woman and her doctor.
In the 17 years since, American women have had an estimated 23 million abortions. Whether they will continue to do so in such numbers is in doubt. Last July, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the court gave states broad powers to impose restrictions on abortions. Abortion is now the hottest issue on the agendas of legislatures in many states. And so the great moral question of the times, a problem that knots the minds of philosophers and scientists alike, is being decided by state legislators.
If the question is when does a person come into existence, why can't society be guided by theologians instead of entry-level politicians?
Can. The problem is that the answer depends on theology.
The religions of the world differ greatly on the subject. One with 926 million followers is definitive: a life begins at conception. One with 860 million believers is equally certain: a life begins 40 days after conception.
Here's a report on how, and why, the world's major religions disagree.
At the center of the dispute is the age-old question of whether an abortion is the murder of a human being or simply the removal of soulless tissue. Despite advances in prenatal medicine, this is not a question that modern science can answer. To a large extent, one's opinion of abortion is a matter of ethical and religious beliefs.
Christian positions range from that of the Unitarian Church, which supports the right to choose abortion as a legitimate part of the right to privacy, to that of the Roman Catholic Church, which under canon law automatically excommunicates any woman who has an abortion. .
In the East, the issue is less intense than in the West. Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists believe in rebirth, so most also believe that an abortion, no matter how unfortunate, will not deprive a soul of its only chance at life.
Under Islam, abortions are legal during the first 40 days of pregnancy, because the Prophet Muhammad said that a newly formed fetus is a seed that has not yet received the breath of life. Many Buddhists similarly believe that consciousness cannot arise in a fetus until it develops a brain, facial organs, and nervous system.
Here are the views of 29 major religious groups, 20 of which are Christian, including 16 of the largest or most influential of the more than 100 Protestant denominations. (Membership figures are for the United States and are taken from the 1989 World Almanac, unless otherwise noted.)
PROTESTANT
Presbyterian Church The Presbyterian Church, with more than 3 million members, It is one of the most strongly pro-abortion Protestant denominations. The church filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court last fall opposing the state of Missouri in the case of Webster v. In its writing, the church declared that its General Assembly "has repeatedly stated that, although abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, the abortion decision should remain with the individual, should be taken on the basis of conscience and personal religious principles and must remain free from government interference." The church also argued that "the morality of abortion is a matter of stewardship of life and abortion can, therefore, be considered a responsible choice...when resources are inadequate to adequately care for a child."
In June 1989, the 201st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church reaffirmed these positions.
Southern Baptist Convention
In 1982, the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination with more than 14.5 million members, resolved "that we support and will work for appropriate legislation and/or constitutional amendment prohibiting abortions except to save the lives of Mother". Southern Baptists reaffirmed this resolution in 1984 and 1989.
As is true in other Protestant denominations, the resolutions of the Southern Baptist Convention are not binding on any Baptist church or individual Baptist. However, Southern Baptists are strongly anti-abortion. Motions to allow rape and incest as exceptions that would justify an abortion were defeated by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1982, 1984, and 1989.
Richard Land, director of the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission in Nashville, estimates that two-thirds of Southern Baptists favor government action that would restrict or ban abortion, but acknowledges that perhaps one-third of Southern Baptists ( including former President Jimmy Carter) believe that even if one is personally opposed to abortion, it is not an issue in which the government should get involved.
Land argues that anti-abortion legislation is not an imposition of one group's morality on another, but rather protects an unborn child from the imposition of the mother's morality on the child.
Like other denominations, Southern Baptists base their views on various Bible verses. One is Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." Another verse, Exodus 21:22, is highly disputed. In the Revised Standard Version (and the Jewish translations are practically the same) the verse says: "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with a child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet "If no harm follows, the one who hurt her will be fined, according to what the woman's husband will impose; and he will pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you will give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." .
Many Protestants and Jews point to the relatively light penalty of a fine as biblical authority that an abortion is not murder, and that the fetus does not have the rights of a human being.
But Southern Baptists and other conservative Protestants disagree. They translate the word "spontaneous abortion" as "premature birth." If a baby is born prematurely and "there is no harm", then there is only a fine. But if there is harm, that is, if the unborn baby dies, then it is murder, and the penalty should be "life for life." So the same Bible verse is cited by clergy on both sides of the abortion issue.
Baptist Convention
The National Progressive Baptist Convention, with more than 1.7 million members by its own numbers, and 99 percent of them black, has scheduled a meeting to determine its position on the abortion issue. However, Fred C. Lofton, president of the Memphis-based denomination, says that most progressive Baptist ministers believe that an abortion is murder, and is wrong, except in cases of rape, incest or if life of the mother is in danger.
American Baptist Churches
In 1981, the General Board of the American Baptist Churches, with more than 1.5 million members, declared that "the integrity of each person's conscience must be respected; therefore, we believe that abortion should be a matter of personal decision." responsible". In 1987, however, there were concerns that the 1981 resolution was too pro-abortion rights. A new resolution in December 1987 stated: "We are divided as to the appropriate witness of the church to the state regarding abortion. Accordingly, we recognize the freedom of each individual to advocate for a public policy on abortion that reflects his or her beliefs." .
United Methodist
The General Conference of the United Methodist Church, the nation's second-largest Protestant denomination with more than 9.1 million members, resolved in 1984 and reaffirmed in April 1988, that "our belief in the sanctity of unborn life makes us reluctant to condone abortion. But we are equally obligated to respect the sacredness of life and the well-being of the mother, for whom an unacceptable pregnancy can cause devastating harm...We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under appropriate medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we reject it unconditionally as a means of gender selection."
Lutheran
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a new denomination formed by the January 1988 merger of the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America, which held directly opposing views on abortion. The church has more than 5.2 million members.
At their first national assembly in August 1989, anti-abortion forces opposed a church statement encouraging "free access" to abortion services. The convention avoided a major confrontation by adopting substitute language calling on church leaders to help "couples and individuals explore all issues."
Missouri Synod
As recently as July 13, 1989, the convention of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, with more than 2.6 million members, reaffirmed its long-held positions that the unborn "are persons in the eyes of God from the moment of conception," and that "abortion is not a moral choice, except as a tragically inevitable byproduct of the medical procedures necessary to prevent the death of another human being {such as} the mother." The convention welcomed "the Supreme Court's Webster decision as a necessary first step toward the full restoration of the right to life."
Last fall, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, along with the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Association of Evangelicals, filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of the state of Missouri in the Webster case. v. In the brief, the churches argued that "no level of inconvenience or discomfort to a human being should be a justification for ending human life, even in its earliest stages, as is now permitted in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy."
Episcopal
Many of the 2.5 million Episcopalians are active in both the abortion rights and anti-abortion movements. The General Convention in 1988 reflected this division when it opposed "abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience," but also urged "that any proposed legislation by governments National or state policies regarding abortion must take special care to ensure that individual conscience is respected, and that the responsibility of individuals to make informed decisions in this matter is recognized and honored.
African Methodist Episcopal
Bishop John H. Adams, senior bishop of the Atlanta-based African Methodist Episcopal Church, with more than 2.2 million members, says there are many different points of view within the church, and that as a body it has no official position about abortion.
Bishop Adams believes, however, that most members of the AME Church believe that "abortion is usually wrong, except when it would involve a greater evil, such as in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother Is in danger". But she also says that most AME members believe that "people have the right to control their own bodies," and that it is "a decision for the woman and her family and not the government."
Assemblies of God
In August 1985, the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God, with more than 2.1 million members, affirmed that life begins at conception. Therefore, abortion is "immoral and sinful" because it "robs the unborn person of the privilege of choosing to be an instrument of God's design." Rape, incest or certain deformity do not justify abortion, but if the mother's life is threatened, then "the diagnosis of the attending pro-life doctors will be helpful in reaching the appropriate conclusion." The presbytery concluded by urging Christians to "actively support pro-life legislation."
United Church of Christ
In 1987, the Sixteenth General Synod of the United Church of Christ, with more than 1.6 million members, "while recognizing the moral ambiguity of abortion and urging that alternatives to abortion always be fully and carefully considered," defended "the right of women to have... safe and legal abortions as one option among others." The synod also urged pastors, members and local churches "to actively oppose legislation and amendments that seek to repeal or limit access to safe and legal abortions."
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses, with more than 750,000 members, consider abortion murder, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Along with Southern Baptists and other conservative Protestant denominations, they cite Exodus 21:22 as a biblical basis for this view. They also believe that life begins at the moment of conception. The April 8, 1988 edition of "Awake!" states that "since God gave no limitations as to the age of the unborn in his law expressed in Exodus chapter 21, arguments based on the age {of the unborn} become moot."
Seventh Day Adventists
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, with more than 650,000 members, recently formed a Committee on the Christian View of Human Life, which met for the first time in April 1989. He is prioritizing the issue of abortion and hopes to have a position on the issue soon.
Unitary
In 1987, the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association with more than 170,000 members, reaffirmed "its historical position, supporting the right to choose contraception and abortion as legitimate aspects of the right to privacy" and its opposition to "all legislation, regulations and administrative actions, at any level of government, intended to undermine or circumvent the Roe v. Wade decision.”
Friends (Quakers)
Quakers, who number more than 110,000, have no priests or ministers and do not take positions as a body. They respect the individual consciences of others, and for this reason most Quakers are against government legislation that would prevent an individual from making a decision according to his or her own conscience. In a rare statement, the American Friends Service Committee in 1970 urged "the repeal of all laws limiting the circumstances under which a woman may have an abortion."
Church of Christ, Scientific
The Church of Christ, Scientist has no published membership figures. The Christian Science Publications Committee recently stated that "family planning matters are left to the individual judgment of the members of our church," but noted that "methods involving medications or surgery would not normally be considered compatible with Christian Science." ".
The Christian Science Monitor, in a July 7, 1989 editorial, stated that "a woman's decision about whether a pregnancy should be carried to term should remain hers, free from the threat of state sanctions." The newspaper added that the state's interest in protecting unborn life "should not be an open door to imposing a set of beliefs regarding the formation of human beings on everyone."
LATTER-DAY SAINTS
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), with more than 3.8 million members, has consistently opposed abortion for more than a century. As recently as June 1989, church leaders issued a statement that "abortion is an attack on the defenseless and voiceless; it is a war on the unborn" and "fundamentally contrary" to the commandment not to kill.
The statement added that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution has neither favored nor opposed specific legislative proposals... However, we continue to encourage our members as citizens to let their voices be heard ".
CATHOLIC
Roman Catholic Church The position of the Roman Catholic Church, with more than 52 million members in the United States and more than 900 million worldwide, is long-standing and well-known: that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is murder.
It is based on biblical verses, on church law since 80 AD, on the pronouncements of Pope Sixtus V in 1588 and Pope Pius IX in 1869, and more recently on Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical, "Humanae Vitae". In the encyclical, Pope Paul VI declared that "abortion directly desired and sought, even if for therapeutic reasons, must be absolutely excluded as a licit means of regulating birth."
A woman who obtains a complete abortion is automatically excommunicated under Canon 1398 of the Code of Canon Law, regardless of the stage of pregnancy at the time of her abortion.
According to Father Kevin Hart, Director of Family Life and Worship for the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, cases of rape, incest, or certain deformity cannot justify the murder of a fetus. There are only two exceptions under Catholic law to the abortion ban. First, if the mother's life is at stake, then her family can choose which of two equal lives should be saved. Second, if a pregnant woman needs surgery, for example, if she has cancer and needs to have her uterus removed, and if the intention behind the surgery is to restore the mother's health and not kill the fetus, then an abortion is justified.
EASTERN ORTHODOX
Greek Orthodox Church Followers of the Greek Orthodox Church, numbering more than 1.9 million, believe that life begins at the moment of conception. According to Bishop Isaiah, chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, which is based in New York, the best example of the biblical basis for this belief is the Annunciation (Luke 1:31), when the angel Gabriel said to Mary, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you will call his name Jesus."
As early as 375 AD, Saint Basil said that "those who give potions for the destruction of the child conceived in the womb are murderers; as are those who take poisons that kill the child." Today, Greek Orthodox canons prohibit abortion as the unjust murder of a human being, permissible only when necessary to save the life of the mother. But if a woman has an abortion and later sincerely repents of her sin, she can be forgiven and welcomed back into the church.
To those who argue that the fetus in the first weeks of pregnancy is not a complete human being, a Greek Orthodox Christian priest will respond that no one is fully human, but rather everyone, from the embryo to the elderly, has the potential to become fully human. and achieve union with God.
Russian Orthodox Church
The position of the Russian Orthodox Church, with about 1 million members, is identical to that of the Greek Orthodox Church, according to Eric Weaver, secretary of the Metropolitan Church of the Syosset, New York-based Church. Followers of the Russian Orthodox Church believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and that abortion is never justified, except to save the life of the mother.
JEWS
Reform Judaism
Reform Jews, who number 1.3 million, allow abortion when the life or health of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. But for Reform Jews this exception is so broad that an abortion is permissible even when it is the "spiritual or psychological life" of the mother that is threatened, according to Rabbi Joseph Weinberg of the Washington Hebrew Congregation. The decision about abortion is the mother's, and she has the right to terminate her pregnancy if she considers it appropriate. Rabbi Weinberg believes that "a mother who does not love her child should not have to give him life." He adds that under traditional Jewish law, a life is not considered separated from the mother until its head is outside the womb.
In 1981, the Biennial Convention of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations reaffirmed its "strong support for a woman's right to obtain a legal abortion on the constitutional grounds enunciated by the Supreme Court in its 1973 decision," and opposed "the "Attempts to restrict the right to abortion through constitutional amendments. Establishing in the Constitution the views of certain religious groups on the beginning of life... would undermine the constitutional freedoms that protect all Americans."
Conservative Judaism
The conservative Jewish view of abortion is much closer to that of Reform Judaism than to Orthodox Judaism. Although many of the more than 1.2 million Conservative Jews are against abortion, many more are in favor of abortion rights, according to Rabbi Jack Moline of the Agudas Achim Synagogue in Alexandria. Rabbi Moline says he opposes government restrictions on a woman's right to have an abortion because he doesn't want "a conflict between good citizenship and an interpretation of God's will."
In general, Rabbi Moline says, Conservative Jews interpret Halacha (the body of Jewish law that begins with the Talmud) a little more strictly than Reform Jews. For example, Rabbi Moline does not favor abortions in cases of rape, incest, or certain fetal deformity unless the mother's health is endangered by the pregnancy. But like Reform Jews, Rabbi Moline interprets the mother's "health" to include her mental health and well-being. So, if the birth of a child as a result of rape were to harm a mother's psychological health, then an abortion would be permissible.
Orthodox Judaism
According to Rabbi Hillel Klaven of the Ohev Sholom in Washington, Orthodox Jews, who number about 1 million, are against abortion except in cases where the life or health of the mother is in danger. Rape, incest, or the certainty of a child's deformity are not permissible exceptions to the abortion ban, and cases involving the physical health of the mother are generally interpreted strictly. However, circumstances can sometimes justify an abortion. For example, if a woman is at risk of serious, permanent disability if her pregnancy continues, then many Orthodox rabbis will allow her to have an abortion. Although the majority of Orthodox Jews oppose abortion, a considerable number are also against any government interference in what they see as a religious matter.
MUSLIM
Islamic
Muslims, with more than 2.6 million followers in North America and 860 million worldwide, allow abortion for any reason in the first 40 days of pregnancy, but do not allow any afterward, according to Muhammad Aglan, a professor of Quranic jurisprudence at the Imam Muhammad ibn-Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The only exception is when it is necessary to save the mother's life. A doctor must certify that an abortion is indeed the only way to save life, according to Aglan. Rape and incest are not exceptions, he said, but the case of fetal deformity is a new issue for Muslim scholars to examine.
The biblical basis for the 40-day choice comes not from the Quran, which Muslims believe is the word of God, but from the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad, which were collected by a scholar named al-Bukhari in the 9th century. Muhammad described the fetus as "40 days in seed form, then it is a blood clot for a similar period, then a morsel of flesh for a similar period, then {at 120 days} the angel who blows the breath is sent to it of life in it".
Some Muslims believe abortions can be performed up to 120 days into pregnancy, Aglin said, but they are a small minority. Most Muslim scholars agree on 40 days as a dividing line between legal and illegal abortions, since the actual number of days after the start of a pregnancy is difficult to determine. (About 50.3 percent of abortions in the United States are performed within six weeks, or 42 days, of conception, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which studies and promotes birth and population control ).
ORIENTAL
Hinduism
There are more than 735 million Hindus worldwide. It is the view of all sects of Hinduism that the soul enters the fetus at the moment of conception, said Seshagir Rao, a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia. Therefore, traditional Hinduism does not allow abortion except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.
In modern practice, however, abortion in India today is legal and widely accepted. Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, abortion in India is available to women even "in cases of contraceptive failure." Despite Hindu anti-abortion doctrine, there is no opposition to legalized abortion from any major political party or group of Hindu priests.
There are two main reasons for this widespread acquiescence to abortion. Firstly, India's population has tripled since World War II and now exceeds 800 million. Second, as is true in Buddhist nations, abortion is not an inflammatory issue in India because Hindus, like Buddhists, believe in rebirth, so an abortion does not deprive a conscious entity of its only chance of life.
Sikhism
Sikhs, with more than 16.6 million followers worldwide, are divided on the issue of abortion, but the problem is not the burning controversy among Sikhs that it is among Westerners. Although Sikhs are monotheists, they also believe in rebirth, so an abortion is not necessarily the end of a soul's life.
Scholars agree that the Sikh holy scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, is silent on abortion and miscarriage. However, the scripture says that "God sees man from the abyss of the womb," and also states that the purpose of human life is to have the opportunity to meet God. Some Sikhs, like Gurpal Bhuller, a doctor in Hopewell, Virginia, conclude from this that abortion is wrong. Because "to deny someone a human existence is to deny them the opportunity to discover God."
However, Bhuller allows exceptions in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger.
Other Sikhs, especially younger Sikhs, draw on their religion's ancient tradition of women's rights, and agree with Inderjit S. Sekhon, a priest at the Guru Nanak Foundation of America in Silver Spring, who says that the decision to have an abortion "is the choice of the family involved."
Buddhism
Buddhists, with more than 100,000 followers in the United States and more than 300 million worldwide, are as divided as Christians on the issue of abortion. But it is not the hot topic in Buddhism that it is in Christianity because of the Buddhist belief in rebirth. A Buddhist does not believe that an abortion robs an unborn being of its only chance at life. Rather, an abortion is more like a match, which by not lighting one candle, can light another.
However, many Buddhists, like Bhante Gunaratana, a priest at the Bhavana Society in Highview, W.Va., believe that consciousness arises at the moment of conception, and that abortion is murder and wrong. Gunaratana favors government laws that prohibit abortion and allow no exceptions, except possibly the life of the mother.
Other Buddhists, like Kenryu T. Tsuji, a priest at Ekoji Buddhist Temple in Springfield, believe the decision is one a woman must decide for herself. While Tsuji acknowledges that all killing is bad, including the killing of insects and flowers, he emphasizes that the situation surrounding each pregnancy is different and that there can be no rigid rules.
In Japan, a nation that is Buddhist and Shinto, abortion is extremely common, available on request, and not opposed by any of the major political parties. Additionally, over the past 20 years, Buddhist clergy in Japan have created a new rite for aborted fetuses called "Mizuko Kuyo," to ease the anxiety of women who have had abortions, according to Gary Ebersole, director of religious studies at the University Ohio State.
Zen Buddhism
According to Jiro Sensei, a Zen master at the Kashain Zendo in Washington, a decision about abortion cannot be dictated by others. The actual decision is not as important to a Zen follower as the decision-making process itself. "A decision must be made with full awareness of its consequences, and it must be made by the individual with a clear head, fully awake to the whole problem. Because if it is done by a person who is awake, he or she can live with the decision" .
Shinto The Shinto religion, with more than 100 million followers, does not have a position on abortion, according to Ohio State's Ebersole, and most Japanese believe that the abortion decision is a personal rather than a government matter.
Masato Kawahatsu, a Shinto priest of the Konkoyo sect at Konkoyo Shrine in San Francisco, agrees that the decision is personal rather than a government matter. He believes that a pregnant woman and her priest should make the decision together, with the priest acting as a mediator between her personal concerns and the Divine Will.
Mark Weston is a freelance writer in Armonk, New York.
FAITH ABORTION
By Mark Weston
January 23, 1990
Abortion.
Not since medieval ponderings about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin has there been an issue so challenging to faith, so seemingly impossible to resolve.
When does life begin?
That is a question that science cannot answer. Not exactly, not yet.
By comparison, the ancient argument over dancing angels on pinheads -- a topic of importance to the days of Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus and William of Occam -- looks trivial. A thousand years from now, maybe the furor over abortion will appear just as irrelevant.
A woman's legal right to have an abortion was established by the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, 17 years ago yesterday. On that day, the justices ruled by a vote of 7 to 2 that abortions during the first three months of a pregnancy are a matter between a woman and her doctor.
In the 17 years since, American women have had an estimated 23 million abortions.
Whether they will continue doing so in such numbers is in doubt. Last July, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the court gave states broad powers to impose restrictions on abortions. Abortion is now the hottest issue on the agendas of legislatures in many states.
And so it is that the great moral question of the times -- a problem that knots the minds of philosophers and scientists alike -- is being decided by state legislators.
If the question is when does a person begin to exist, why can't society be guided by theologists rather than entry-level politicians?
It can. The problem is, the answer depends on the theology.
The world's religions differ vastly on the issue. One with 926 million followers is definite: A life starts with conception. One with 860 million believers is equally sure: a life begins 40 days after conception.
Here is a report of how, and why, the world's major faiths disagree.
At the heart of the dispute is the ancient question of whether an abortion is the murder of a human being or merely the removal of soulless tissue. Despite advances in prenatal medicine, this is not a question that modern science can answer. To a large extent, one's view of abortion is a matter of ethical and religious belief.
Christian positions range from that of the Unitarian Church, which supports the right to choose abortion as a legitimate part of the right to privacy, to that of the Roman Catholic Church, which under canon law automatically excommunicates any woman who has an abortion.
In the Orient, the issue has less intensity than it does in the West. Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists believe in rebirth, so most also believe that an abortion, however regrettable, will not deprive a soul of its one and only chance at life.
Under Islam, abortions are legal during the first 40 days of pregnancy, because the prophet Muhammad said that a newly-formed fetus is a seed that has not yet received the breath of life. Many Buddhists similarly believe that consciousness cannot arise in a fetus until it develops a brain, facial organs and a nervous system.
Here are the views of 29 major religious groups, 20 of whom are Christian, including 16 of the largest or most influential of the more than 100 Protestant denominations. (Membership figures are for the United States, and are taken from the 1989 World Almanac, unless otherwise noted.)
PROTESTANT
Presbyterian Church
The Presbyterian Church, with more than 3 million members, is one of the most strongly pro-abortion rights Protestant denominations. The church filed an amicus curiae brief with the US Supreme Court last ruled opposing the state of Missouri in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.
In its brief, the church declared that its General Assembly "has repeatedly affirmed that, although abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, the abortion decision must remain with the individual, must be made on the basis of conscience and personal religious principles and must remain free of governmental interference." The church also argued that "the morality of abortion is a question of stewardship of life and abortion can, therefore, be considered a responsible choice . . . when resources are inadequate to care for a child appropriately."
In June 1989, the 201st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church reaffirmed these positions.
Southern Baptist Convention
In 1982, the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination with more than 14.5 million members, resolved "that we support and will work for appropriate legislation and/or constitutional amendment which will prohibit abortions except to save the life of the mother." The Southern Baptists reaffirmed this resolution in 1984 and 1989.
As is true in other Protestant denominations, resolutions of the Southern Baptist Convention are not binding upon any individual Baptist or Baptist church. However, the Southern Baptists are strongly anti-abortion. Motions to allow rape and incest as exceptions that would justify an abortion were defeated by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1982, 1984 and 1989.
Richard Land, director of the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission in Nashville, estimates that two-thirds of Southern Baptists favor government action that would restrict or outlaw abortion, but acknowledges that perhaps one-third of Southern Baptists (including former president Jimmy Carter) believe that even if one is personally opposed to abortion, it is not an issue in which the government should involve itself.
Land argues that antiabortion legislation is not an imposition of one group's morality on another, but protects an unborn child from the mother's imposition of her morality on the child.
Like other denominations, Southern Baptists base their views on several Bible verses. One is Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." Another verse, Exodus 21:22, is much in dispute. In the Revised Standard Version (and Jewish translations are virtually the same) the verse reads, "When men strive {fight} together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth."
Many Protestants and Jews point to the relatively light penalty of a fine as biblical authority that an abortion is not a murder, and that the fetus does not have the rights of a human being.
But Southern Baptists and other conservative Protestants disagree. They translate the word "miscarriage" as "premature birth." If a baby is born prematurely and "no harm follows," then there is only a fine. But if there is harm -- that is -- if the unborn baby dies, then it is a murder, and the penalty must be "life for life." So the same Bible verse is cited by clergy on both sides of the abortion question.
Baptist Convention
The Progressive National Baptist Convention, with more than 1.7 million members according to their own figures, and 99 percent of them black, has scheduled a meeting to determine its position on the abortion issue. However, Fred C. Lofton, president of the Memphis-based denomination, says that most Progressive Baptist ministers believe that an abortion is a killing, and is wrong except in the cases of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger .
American Baptist Churches
In 1981, the General Board of the American Baptist Churches, with more than 1.5 million members, stated that "the integrity of each person's conscience must be respected; therefore, we believe that abortion must be a matter of responsible personal decision." By 1987, however, there was concern that the 1981 resolution was too pro-abortion rights. A new resolution in December 1987 declared, "We are divided as to the proper witness of the church to the state regarding abortion. Consequently, we recognize the freedom of each individual to advocate for a public policy on abortion that reflects his or her beliefs. "
United Methodist
The General Conference of the United Methodist Church, the nation's second largest Protestant denomination with more than 9.1 million members, resolved in 1984 and reaffirmed in April 1988, that "our belief in the sanctity of unborn life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy... we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection."
Lutheran
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a new denomination formed by the January 1988 merger of the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America, which had directly opposing views on abortion. The church has more than 5.2 million members.
In its first national assembly in August 1989 antiabortion forces objected to a church statement that encouraged "free access" to abortion services. The convention prevented a major confrontation by adopting substitute wording that calls on church leaders to help "couples and individuals explore all issues."
Missouri Synod
As recently as July 13, 1989, the convention of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, with more than 2.6 million members, reaffirmed its longstanding positions that the unborn "are persons in the sight of God from the time of conception," and that " "Abortion is not a moral option except as a tragically unavoidable byproduct of medical procedures necessary to prevent the death of another human being {such as} the mother." The convention welcomed "the Supreme Court's Webster decision as a necessary first step toward the full restoration of the right to life."
Last fall, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, along with the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Association of Evangelicals, filed an amicus curiae brief with the US Supreme Court in support of the state of Missouri in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. In the brief, the churches argued that "no level of inconvenience or discomfort of a human being should be a justification for terminating human life, even at its earliest stages, as is now permitted in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy."
Episcopal
Many of the 2.5 million Episcopalians are active in both the abortion rights and the antiabortion movements. The General Convention in 1988 reflected this division when it opposed "abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience," but also urged "that any proposed legislation on the part of national or state governments Regarding abortions must take special care to see that individual conscience is respected, and that the responsibility of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter is recognized and honored."
African Methodist Episcopal
Bishop John H. Adams, senior bishop of the Atlanta-based African Methodist Episcopal Church, with more than 2.2 million members, says that there are many different points of view within the church, and that as a body it has no official position on abortion .
Bishop Adams believes, however, that most members of the AME Church believe that "abortion is usually wrong except where a greater wrong would be involved, such as the cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in jeopardy." But he also says that most AME members believe that "people have the right to control their own bodies," and that it is "a decision of the woman and her family and not of the government."
Assemblies of God
In August 1985, the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God, with more than 2.1 million members, affirmed that life begins at conception. Abortion is therefore "immoral and sinful" because "it robs the unborn person of the privilege of choosing to be an instrument of God's design." Rape, incest or the certainty of deformity do not justify abortion, but if the life of the mother is threatened, then "the diagnosis of attending pro-life physicians will be helpful in arriving at the proper conclusion." The Presbytery concluded by urging Christians to "actively support pro-life legislation."
United Church of Christ
In 1987, the Sixteenth General Synod of the United Church of Christ, with more than 1.6 million members, "while recognizing {abortion's} moral ambiguity and urging that alternatives to abortion always be fully and carefully considered," upheld "the right of women to have . . . safe, legal abortions as one option among others." The synod also urged pastors, members and local churches "to actively oppose legislation and amendments which seek to revoke or limit access to safe and legal abortions."
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses, with more than 750,000 members, regard abortion as murder except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Along with Southern Baptists and other conservative Protestant denominations, they cite Exodus 21:22 as a biblical basis for this view. They also believe that life begins at the moment of conception. The April 8, 1988 issue of "Awake!" states that "since God gave no limitations as to the age of the unborn in his law expressed at Exodus chapter 21, arguments based on age {of the unborn} become moot."
Seventh-Day Adventists
The General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventists, with more than 650,000 members, recently formed a Christian View of Human Life Committee, which met for the first time in April 1989. It is giving priority to the question of abortion and hopes to have a position on the issue soon.
Unitarian
In 1987, the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association with more than 170,000 members, reaffirmed "its historical position, supporting the right to choose contraception and abortion as legitimate aspects of the right to privacy" and its opposition to "all legislation, regulations and action, at any level of government, intended to undermine or circumvent administrative the Roe v. Wade decision."
Friends (Quakers)
Quakers, numbering more than 110,000, do not have priests or ministers and do not take stands as a body. They respect each other's individual consciences, and for this reason most Quakers are against government legislation that would prevent an individual from making a decision according to his or her own conscience. In a rare statement, the American Friends Service Committee in 1970 urged "the repeal of all laws limiting the circumstances under which a woman may have an abortion."
Church of Christ, Scientist
The Church of Christ, Scientist has no published membership figures. The Christian Science Committee on Publication recently stated that "matters of family planning are left to the individual judgment of members of our church," but noted that "methods which involve drugs or surgery would not normally be considered compatible with Christian Science."
The Christian Science Monitor, in an editorial on July 7, 1989, declared that "a woman's decision on whether a pregnancy should be brought to term should remain hers to make, free of the threat of state sanctions." The newspaper added that the state's interest in protecting unborn life "shouldn't be an open door to impose one set of beliefs regarding the formation of human beings on everyone."
LATTER-DAY SAINTS
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), with more than 3.8 million members, has consistently opposed abortion for more than a century. As recently as June 1989, church leaders issued a statement that "abortion is an attack on the defenseless and voiceless; it is a war on the unborn," and "fundamentally contrary" to the commandment not to kill.
The statement added that "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as an institution has not favored or opposed specific legislative proposals . . . however, we continue to encourage our members as citizens to let their voices be heard."
CATHOLIC
Roman Catholic Church
The position of the Roman Catholic Church, with more than 52 million members in the United States and more than 900 million worldwide, is longstanding and well-known: that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is murder.
It is based on biblical verses, on church law from as early as 80 AD, on the pronouncements of Pope Sixtus V in 1588 and Pope Pius IX in 1869, and most recently on the 1968 encyclical of Pope Paul VI, "Humanae Vitae." In the encyclical, Pope Paul VI declared that "directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, {is} to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth."
A woman who secures a completed abortion is automatically excommunicated under Canon 1398 of the Code of Canon Law, regardless of the stage of pregnancy at the time of her abortion.
According to Father Kevin Hart, Director of Family Life and Worship at the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, cases of rape, incest or the certainty of deformity cannot justify the killing of a fetus. Only two exceptions exist under Catholic law to the prohibition of abortion. First, if the life of the mother is at stake, then her family may choose which of two equal lives should be saved. Second, if a pregnant woman needs surgery, for example, if she has cancer and needs to have her uterus removed, and if the intention behind the surgery is to restore the health of the mother and not to kill the fetus, then an abortion is justified.
EASTERN ORTHODOX
Greek Orthodox Church
Followers of the Greek Orthodox Church, who number more than 1.9 million, believe that life begins at the moment of conception. According to Bishop Isaiah, Chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, which has its headquarters in New York, the best example of the biblical basis for this belief is the Annunciation (Luke 1:31), when the angel Gabriel said to Mary, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus."
As early as 375 AD, Saint Basil said "those who give potions for the destruction of the child conceived in the womb are murderers; as are they who take the poisons which kill the child." Today, Greek Orthodox canons prohibit abortion as the unjust killing of a human being, permissible only when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. But if a woman has an abortion and later sincerely regrets her sin, she can be forgiven and welcomed back into the church.
To those who argue that the fetus in the first few weeks of pregnancy is not a full human being, a Greek Orthodox Christian priest will reply that no one is fully human, but that everyone, from embryo to old man, has the potential to become fully human and achieve union with God.
Russian Orthodox Church
The position of the Russian Orthodox Church, with about 1 million members, is identical to that of the Greek Orthodox Church, according to Eric Weaver, secretary to the Metropolitan of the Syosset, NY-based church. Followers of the Russian Orthodox Church believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and that abortion is never justified except to save the life of the mother.
JEWISH
Reform Judaism
Reform Jews, who number 1.3 million, permitted abortion when the life or health of the mother is threatened by pregnancy. But for Reform Jews this exception is so wide that an abortion is permissible even when it is the "spiritual or psychological life" of the mother that is threatened, according to Rabbi Joseph Weinberg of the Washington Hebrew Congregation. The decision on abortion is the mother's, and she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy if she feels that it is the appropriate. Rabbi Weinberg believes that, "A mother who does not want her child should not have to bring it to life." He adds that under traditional Jewish law, a life is not considered separate from the mother until her head is out of the womb.
In 1981, the Biennial Convention of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations reaffirmed its "strong support for the right of a woman to obtain a legal abortion on the constitutional grounds enunciated by the Supreme Court in its 1973 decision," and opposed "attempts to restrict the right to abortion through constitutional amendments. To establish in the Constitution the view of certain religious groups on the beginning of life... would undermine constitutional liberties which protect all Americans."
Conservative Judaism
The Conservative Jewish view of abortion is far closer to that of Reform Judaism than it is to Orthodox Judaism. Although many of the more than 1.2 million Conservative Jews are anti-abortion, many more are pro-abortion rights, according to Rabbi Jack Moline of the Agudas Achim Synagogue in Alexandria. Rabbi Moline says that he opposes government restrictions on a woman's right to have an abortion because he does not want "a conflict between good citizenship and an interpretation of God's will."
In general, Rabbi Moline says, Conservative Jews interpret the Halakha (the body of Jewish law that begins with the Talmud) a little bit more strictly than Reform Jews do. For example, Rabbi Moline does not favor abortions in the cases of rape, incest or the certainty of fetal deformity unless the health of the mother is jeopardized by the pregnancy. But like Reform Jews, Rabbi Moline interprets the "health" of the mother to include her mental health and well-being. So if the carrying of a child resulting from a rape were going to harm the psychological health of a mother, then an abortion would be permissible.
Orthodox Judaism
According to Rabbi Hillel Klaven of the Ohev Sholom in Washington, Orthodox Jews, who number about 1 million, are against abortion except in cases where the life or health of the mother is in question. Rape, incest or the certainty of a child's deformity are not permissible exceptions to the prohibition against abortion, and cases concerning the physical health of the mother are usually interpreted strictly. Still, circumstances can sometimes justify an abortion. For example, if a woman runs a risk of a permanent and serious disability should her pregnancy continue, then many Orthodox rabbis will allow her to have an abortion.
Although most Orthodox Jews oppose abortion, a sizeable number are also against any government interference in what they see as a religious matter.
MOSLEM
Islam
Moslems, with more than 2.6 million followers in North America and 860 million worldwide, allow abortion for any reason in the first 40 days of pregnancy, but do not allow any afterwards, according to Muhammad Aglan, a professor of Koranic jurisprudence at Imam Muhammad ibn -Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The one exception is when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. A doctor must certify that an abortion is indeed the only way to save life, according to Aglan. Rape and incest are not exceptions, he said, but the case of deformity in the fetus is a new issue for Moslem scholars to examine.
The scriptural basis for the choice of 40 days comes not from the Koran, which Moslems believe to be the word of God, but from the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad, which were collected by a scholar named al-Bukhari in the ninth century. Muhammad described the fetus as being "40 days in the form of seed, then he is a clot of blood for a like period, then a morsel of flesh for a like period, then {at 120 days} there is sent to him the angel who blows the breath of life into him."
Some Moslems believe that abortions can be performed as late as 120 days into pregnancy, Aglan said, but they are a small minority. Most Moslem scholars agree on 40 days as a dividing line between legal and illegal abortions, since the actual number of days after the beginning of a pregnancy is difficult to determine. (About 50.3 percent of US abortions are performed within six weeks, or 42 days, of conception, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which studies and promotes birth and population control.)
EASTERN
Hinduism
There are more than 735 million Hindus worldwide. It is the view of every sect of Hinduism that the soul enters the fetus at the moment of conception, said Seshagir Rao, a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia. Therefore, traditional Hinduism does not allow abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.
In modern practice, however, abortion in India today is legal and widely accepted. Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971, abortion in India is available to women even "in cases of contraceptive failure." Despite the Hindu doctrine against abortion, there is no opposition to legalized abortion from any major political party or group of Hindu priests.
There are two main reasons for this widespread acquiescence to abortion. First, India's population has tripled since World War II and is now well over 800 million. Second, as is true in Buddhist nations, abortion is not an inflammatory issue in India because Hindus, like Buddhists, believe in rebirth, so an abortion does not deprive a conscious entity of its only chance at life.
Sikhism
Sikhs, with more than 16.6 million followers worldwide, are divided on the question of abortion, but the issue is not the burning controversy among Sikhs that it is among Westerners. Although Sikhs are monotheistic, they also believe in rebirth, so an abortion is not necessarily the end of life for a soul.
Scholars agree that the Sikh holy scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, is silent on abortion and miscarriage. However, the scripture does say that "God sees man from the pit of the womb," and it also states that the purpose of human life is to have the chance to meet God. Some Sikhs, such as Gurpal Bhuller, a physician in Hopewell, Va., conclude from this that abortion is wrong. For "to deny someone a human existence is to deny him a chance to discover God."
However, Bhuller allows for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Other Sikhs, especially younger Sikhs, drew upon their religion's ancient tradition of women's rights, and agreed with Inderjit S. Sekhon, a priest at the Guru Nanak Foundation of America in Silver Spring, who says that the decision to have an abortion "is the choice of the family involved."
Buddhism
Buddhists, with more than 100,000 followers in the United States and more than 300 million worldwide, are as divided as Christians on the subject of abortion. But it is not the burning issue in Buddhism that it is in Christianity because of the Buddhist belief in rebirth. A Buddhist does not believe that an abortion steals an unborn being of its one and only chance at life. Rather an abortion is more akin to a match, which having failed to light a candle, may yet light another.
However, many Buddhists, such as Bhante Gunaratana, a priest at the Bhavana Society in Highview, W.Va., believe that consciousness arises at the moment of conception, and that abortion is a killing and is wrong. Gunaratana favors government laws that prohibit abortion and allow no exceptions except possibly the life of the mother.
Other Buddhists, such as Kenryu T. Tsuji, a priest at the Ekoji Buddhist Temple in Springfield, believe that the decision is one that a woman must decide for herself. While Tsuji acknowledges that all killing is evil, including the killing of insects and flowers, he emphasizes that the situation surrounding each pregnancy is different, and that there can be no rigid rules.
In Japan, a nation that is both Buddhist and Shinto, abortion is extremely common, available on demand and not opposed by any major political parties. Furthermore, in the last 20 years, the Buddhist clergy in Japan has created a new rite for aborted fetuses called "Mizuko Kuyo," to relieve the anxiety of women who have had abortions, according to Gary Ebersole, director of religious studies at Ohio State University.
Zen Buddhism
According to Jiro Sensei, a Zen teacher at the Kashain Zendo in Washington, a decision on abortion cannot be dictated by others. The actual decision is not as important to a follower of Zen as the process of the decision-making itself. "A decision should be made in full awareness of its consequences, and should be made by the individual with a clear head, fully wide awake to the whole issue. Because if it is made by a person who is awake, he or she can live with the decision."
Shintoism
The Shinto religion, with more than 100 million followers, has no position on abortion, according to Ohio State's Ebersole, and most Japanese believe that the abortion decision is a personal rather than a governmental matter.
Masato Kawahatsu, a Shinto priest of the Konkoyo sect at the Konkoyo Shrine in San Francisco, agrees that the decision is personal rather than a governmental matter. He believes a pregnant woman and her priest should make the decision together, with the priest acting as a mediator between her personal concerns and the Divine Will.
Mark Weston is a freelance writer in Armonk, NY
XXX IN DEVELOPMENT
Well, since that rabbit hole is too deep for me to fall back into, that's the end of this presentation. We promised documentation, and we gave them documentation. Until next time, but not before quoting the word of God, once again:
9 The appearance of their faces testifies against them; because like Sodom they publish their sin, they do not hide it. Poor souls of them! because they accumulated evil for themselves. —ISAIAS 3:9
—JOSÉ LUIS JAVIER
“Come out of her, my people…“ (REV. 18:4)
Share
———————————-
Join CristoVerdad. Subscribe to our new channel Vimeo Subscribe to Our Vimeo Channel. Share this invitation, and be part of our group of WhatsApp Subscribe to Our WhatsApp Group. When you subscribe, don't forget to leave us your name. Obscenities prohibited. Share and be part of the blessing.
———————————-
And you will know the truth...
—ChristTruth | http:/www.cristo Verdad.com Go to front page
NOTE: Numbers in blue brackets [ ] link to Supplementary Material.
Photos, if any, also expand the content: videos, news, links, etc.
SOURCES AND LINKS
[r] 1517: The Reformation, “Sola Scriptura”, by Rafel Díaz [LINK, Adventist Apology]
[m]1 Luetro's Garden, List of Trees [LINK, LutherGarten]
[m]2 Luetro's Garden, Background [LINK, LutherGarten]
[m]3 Ecumenism of Blood—The Garden of Luetro, 8 It is the New 7 [VIDEO 2:32:55, CristoVerdad]
[3] Adventist Church, An Honest Church [ARTICLE, CristoVerdad]/a>
[4] Martin Luther and the 94 Theses That Should Never Be [VIDEO 1:37:46, CristoVerdad]
[5]b TMinutes from General Conference Meeting 1974 [DOCUMENT, Adventist Church]
[6] The Church Approves the Ordination of Elders [LINK, Biblical Resources]
[8] Adventist Homosexual Guide, a Gift for You” [BOOK, Adventist Church]
[9] Adventist Church Asks Forgiveness to Homosexuals, Opens “Space for All” [STUDIO, CristoVerdad]
[10]c ENGLISH: Two Adventist Pastors Make a Difference in Cuba [LINK, Adventist Church]
[11] The Creed That Changed the World, 1971 by Bert Beach [BOOK, Adventist Church]
[12]a The Creed That Changed the World, 2005, Northern Mexican Union BOOKLET, Adventist Church]
[12]b The Catholic Creed That Changed a People, The Adventist Church STUDY, CristoVerdad]
[13]c Beyond the stigmata [LINK5, AppDevocionMatutina]
[14] Jewish Calendar of 1844, Diaspora [LINK, HebCal]
[15] The Great Wedding Between Adam, Stephen, and the Adventist Church [STUDY, CristoVerdad
[16] Abortion, Guidelines [LINK, Adventist Church]
[17] If You Will Kill — Abortion, THE HYDE AMENDMENT and The Adventist Church [STUDY, CristoVerdad]
[20] David Gates “CONDEMNS” Abortion in the Adventist Church [VIDEO 00:24:11, Adventist Church]
[22] Tithe, Money Death — Will Man Steal From God? [VIDEO 3:22:56, CristoVerdad]
[23] Millionaire smuggling of the Adventist Church: how was the maneuver [NEWS, Infobae]
[24]b Over objections, state will lease land to Catholic Hospital [NEWS, Baltimore Sun]
[25] Adventist Pastors Dialogue with Father Luis Toro [VIDEO 2:20:06, YouTube]
[26] Questions About Doctrine [STUDY, CristoVerdad]
[27] Being Gay Is Not a Sin [STUDY, CristoVerdad]
[29]a Adventist World Church Votes on Transgenderism [DOCUMENT, Adventist Church]
[29]b Seventh-day Adventist World Church vote statement on Transgenderism [LINK, Adventist Church]
[30] The Dream of Ellen White, Consult the Dead [LINK, White Center]
[31] Lethal Deception, HALLOWEEN & the Prophecies [VIDEO 1:26:40, White Center]
[32]a What About Halloween? —And what about Halloween? [LINK, Adventist Church]
[32]b Leave Your Lights on for Halloween —Keep Your Lights on for Halloween [LINK Link]
[32]d Primary Treasure, Clarsissa L Learns About Halloween [LINK, Adventist Church]
[33] The 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Adventist Church [LINK, Adventist Church]
[34] The Holy Trinity, Catholic Doctrine [LINK, The Vatican]
[35] Divinity vs. Trinidad — Do You Know The Difference? (Part 1) [STUDY, CristoVerdad]
[36] The History of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Adventist Church [LINK, Wikipedia]
[37]b The Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Seventh Day, Part 2 [VIDEO 1:59:54, Wikipedia]
[38] The Way of Life, Adventist Review [LINK, Adventist Church]
[39] Season of the Church Year [LINK, Adventist Church]
[40] Season of the Church Year [LINK, Adventist Church]
[41] Ellen White's Plagiarisms on Health [DOCUMENT, CristoVerdad]
[43] ABORTION, An Adventist Attitude [ARTICLE, CristoVerdad]
[49] Mexican Adventist Pastors Denounce the Great Whore [DOCUMENT, Adventist Church]
[50] Catholic-Adventist Missionary Bible, The Vatican Effect [BIBLE, Adventist Church]
[51]a Covenant of Love, Adventist Church and the Catholic Church [BIBLE, Adventist Church]
[52] Pablo Los Coyotes, the $PRECE of Heaven [BIBLE, Adventist Church]
[53] Oliver and His Minions, Part 5: Walking with the Rats [VIDEO 1:59:29]
[L] Legal Section, “Copyright disclaimer” on copyright and fair use [LINK, CristoVerdad]
EXTRA MATERIAL
If any of these links do not work or are incorrect, please let us know so we can correct them. If you would like to write to us, please do so using the form below; Your comment will be published. If you want to write to us privately, do so through the information section, and select contact. Thank you so much!
God bless you!
EN 
ES 
AF 
AR 
AM 
AS 
EU 
BN 
BE 
BS 
BG 
CA 
CEB 
ZH 
CS 
DA 
ET 
FI 
FR 
FY 
GL 
DE 
EL 
GU 
HE 
JA 
KO 
ARY 
FA 
FA_AF 
PT 
PT_BR 
RU 
GD 
AZ 
CY