The Fundamental Question
Fifteen years ago, when I was writing my doctoral dissertation on abortion,[1] my objective was to determine whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church was Pro-life or Pro-Choice. I pursue the same objective in this article. Back then I carefully examined all the Adventist sources dealing with abortion that were available at the time. I concluded that the Adventist Church was Pro-Choice.
Since then, an important event has taken place in relation to the Adventist position on abortion: the publication of a new document on abortion approved by the General Conference Executive Committee in 2019. The question is: Has the Adventist Church Become Pro-life Following the Publication of its New Document on Abortion? Some Adventists believe that the church is now Pro-life, others disagree and argue that the church is still essentially pro-choice.[2] Who is right?
Finding the Answer
Fortunately, we have no need of all the research I did when I was writing my doctoral dissertation. All we need to do is to carefully examine a single document entitled: “Statement on the Biblical View of Unborn Life and Its Implication for Abortion.” [3] This new document on abortion has six numbered paragraphs. Let’s take a look at it in order to determine whether our church has in fact become Pro-life.
From the Introduction:
“This statement affirms the sanctity of life and presents biblical principles bearing on abortion.” This statement seems to be Pro-life.
From Paragraph One:
“Thus, human life is of inestimable value. This is true for all stages of human life: the unborn, children of various ages, adolescents, adults, and seniors—independent of physical, mental, and emotional capacities.” This is another Pro-life affirmation.
From Paragraph Two:
“God considers the unborn child as human life. Prenatal life is precious in God’s sight, and the Bible describes God’s knowledge of people before they were conceived." Section Two seems to be Pro-life as well.
From Paragraph Three:
“God considers the unborn child as human life. Prenatal life is precious in God’s sight, and the Bible describes God’s knowledge of people before they were conceived.”
“Life is protected by God. It is not measured by individuals’ abilities or their usefulness, but by the value that God’s creation and sacrificial love has placed on it.”
These two affirmations reflect also the fact that the document seems to be Pro-life.
From Paragraph Four:
“Since God is the Giver and Owner of life, human beings do not have ultimate control over themselves and should seek to preserve life wherever possible.”
This statement is also Pro-life. It should be noted that the body of the unborn child, although in the mother’s womb and attached to her by an umbilical cord, is physically and genetically distinct and separate from the mother’s body from the moment of conception onward. The body of the unborn child is clearly and obviously not the mother’s body. It is not “my body, my choice.”
Even if the body of the unborn child is (wrongly) considered indistinct from the mother, however, our church’s statement makes clear that the mother does not have the right to dispose of it as she wishes. God is the giver and the owner of that life, and therefore that life is sacred and is to be preserved if possible. This statement destroys the claim of those Pro-choicers whose mantra is “My body, My choice."
From Paragraph Five:
“The Bible teaches care for the weak and the vulnerable."
“He does not hold children accountable for the sins of their fathers (Ezekiel 18:20).”
Both statements are Pro-life, and the second one makes clear that the child is not to blame for the circumstances under which it was conceived, making abortion on the basis of rape or incest a violation of the Sixth Commandment.
From Paragraph Six:
“Consequently, in rare and extreme cases, human conception may produce pregnancies with fatal prospects and/or acute, life-threatening birth anomalies that present individuals and couples with exceptional dilemmas. Decisions in such cases may be left to the conscience of the individuals involved and their families.”
Is this statement Pro-life or Pro-choice? It bears the marks of the Pro-choice position on abortion, I believe, and it mars the character of the entire document.
The phrase “fatal prospects" is hopelessly vague and unclear. Does this mean that abortion is acceptable when the mother’s life is endangered? Does it mean that the child might live or die? Is it morally correct to take the life of those babies we believe may not survive? Are we to play the role of God?
And the phrase “threatening birth anomalies” has the same problem. What is a “birth anomaly”? Does this mean that babies with congenital defects can be killed? Does this mean that children who would probably not survive to adulthood can be aborted? Can physicians predict with 100 hundred percent accuracy which babies will survive?
On October 14, 2019, when the members of the General Conference Executive committee were debating the advisability of approving this new document on abortion, Richard Hart, the Loma Linda University Health CEO argued that Section Six of the document was needed because of exceptional cases like the "Trisomy 21," the scientific name for Down Syndrome malformations. [4]
Hart stated that “Trisomy 21” babies are “incompatible with life.” Is this statement correct? The thousands of Down Syndrome babies, infants, and even adults who have survived in spite of the physicians' prognosis makes Hart's affirmation incorrect. He also claimed that “Trisomy 21” babies “may die.” Is this a good reason to abort them in spite of the fact that doctor’s prognosis are on many occasions incorrect?
Hart’s appeal for the abortion of unborn babies with these types of malformations carried the day; the GC Executive Committee approved the document with the language that Hart interprets as justifying the abortion of Down Syndrome unborn babies.
A Reasonable Conclusion
What conclusion can we reach after examining the document on abortion approved by the church in 2019? Can we conclude that the church has become Pro-Life? What do you think?
I do not think we can. The first five numbered paragraphs are definitely Pro-Life, but Paragraph Six is unquestionably pro-choice.
God Rejects Partial Obedience
By allowing the abortion of Down Syndrome unborn babies the church justifies partial obedience. The Lord rejected the partial obedience of King Saul, the first king of Israel, and he forfeited the kingdom of Israel.
The Need to Avoid Deception
If it is true that our church teaches that abortion is needed in special cases, then our church could be faulted for engaging in deception. This is illustrated by the following anecdote:
An Adventist pastor was preparing a group of candidates for baptism and he overheard a conversation between his church members about abortion. He reprimanded them saying: “Don’t you realize that if these baptismal candidates hear what you are saying they might lose their interest in joining our church?”
Here, the problem is not that church members are discussing, and trying to ascertain, the church’s position on abortion. The problem is that the church is of two minds about abortion.
When I was being trained as a Realtor, the first lesson I learned was the need for full disclosure. You cannot be an ethical Realtor and hide facts about property that your client needs to be made aware of. I worked selling homes for nearly four decades, and I lost thousands of dollars for following said ethical standard.
On one occasion, a man from New York, where homes were more expensive, became interested in a two-story home and was willing to pay full price. A market analysis revealed that the home was overpriced by 25 percent.
I shared this information with the man and he lost interest in the purchase. By being silent, I could have pocketed a sizable amount of money. Should we allow our evangelists the use of a lower ethical standard than Realtors and used car salesmen?
Our evangelists advertise our church as the only denomination teaching the validity and permanence of the Ten Commandments of the Decalogue. If we teach that abortion is needed for the sake of Down Syndrome babies, then our evangelists are engaging in deception.[5]
We should stop all baptisms and implement the practice of full disclosure as required in real estate, informing baptismal candidates that what our church teaches about abortion in the case of Down Syndrome babies and other babies with “birth anomalies” might violate the Sixth Commandment . [6]
If we can’t see that Down Syndrome babies should be allowed to live might, we might need the eye salve offered to the members of the church of Laodicea in the book of Revelation.[7]
And it is a fact that a blind individual may not be the best candidate to become the leader of other blind people. Both may fall into the ditch. [8]
References and Comments
[1] Nic Samojluk, From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Attitudes. [Loma Linda, CA, Publisher Nic Samojluk, 2007] 314.
[2] Among those who strongly disagree is a young man, Pro-Life Andrew, who has produced over 200 videos in which he forcefully state the biblical reasons for his conviction.
[3] “Statement on the Biblical View of Unborn Life and Its Implication for Abortion.” [https://www.adventist.org/official-statements/statement-on-the-biblical-view-of-unborn-life-and-its-implications-for-abortion/]
[4] “019 Annual Council: October 14, 2019 – Monday” https://youtu.be/VfQeurP2X0oPM [3:36:56]
[5] Nic Samojluk, Do Down Syndrome Babies Belong in a Trash Bin?
[6] Nic Samojluk , A Call to Stop all Baptisms!
[7] Nic Samojluk, Our Adventist Blind Spot
[8] Nic Samojluk, Can the Blind Lead the Blind?