You might have watched the recent video Submitted by Pastor Mark Finley in which he offers his expert comments regarding the Statement on Abortion approved by the General Conference Executive Committee on October 16, 2019.
He made a long list of prolife statements among which I would like to highlight the following:
A. This Statement on Abortion document blends the value of human life with compassion. Of course, I agree, provided the compassion is for both the woman and her baby.
B. Human life begins at conception. Not at birth as some leading Adventists used to teach.
C. The Sixth Commandment also applied to the killing of the unborn child.
This is an excellent prolife affirmation
D. An act of violence against a woman is not solved with another act of violence against her baby.
So far no problem! But when he got to point six of the document on abortion his hands began to shake. He seemed to be troubled by the following statements contained in it:
“Consequently, in rare and extreme cases, human conception may produce pregnancies with potentially fatal prospects and/or acute, life-threatening birth anomalies that present individuals and couples with exceptional dilemmas.”
His comments seemed to imply that if the woman decides to have her baby killed because of the presence of fatal anomalies the church is morally forced to become an accomplice to said killing.
This is a fallacy in my view. If the church wants to be true to the Biblical principles exposed in the document, all the church needs to say is:
We do not participate in abortions except when the life of the woman is in serious jeopardy. There are many other medical facilities that engage in taking the lives of innocent unborn children.
Besides, point six of the document makes reference to dilemmas. The dictionary defines a dilemma as a choice between two equally undesirable alternatives. The choice between hoping that the medical prognosis is inaccurate and killing the baby is not a true dilemma; the choice between having an abortion and giving the baby up for adoption is not a true dilemma; and the choice between the woman’s lifestyle and taking the life of her own baby is not a true dilemma either.
Reference: “Adventist Abortion Document Review by Mark Finley (GCAC19)”
If you can spare the time, watch the following video created by prolife Adventist researcher Andrew Michell:
“Refuting Pastor Mark Finley’s defense of abortion for sick children”
Mark Finley defends abortion.
Church leaders, including Wilson and Finley, now admit that the Guidelines on Abortion are not biblical.
The leaders in North America openly condemn what Adventist did in Rwanda, but do not likewise condemn the killing of innocent children in our hospitals in North America.
Regarding Point six, Finley predicted that it will not be used as a loophole, yet admitted that women will have the final word regarding abortion.
“There are times,” he said, “when the baby is in a fatal condition.”
Are we free to kill a person because he/she is going to die anyhow?
If the goal is always to save the child, then why killing those in a “fatal condition”?
Finley said hat physicians have the God-given right to determine the fate of the unborn.
Finley suggests that physicians and women may decide what to do thanks to a “biblically informed conscience,” thus implying that killing a child may be guided by the Holy Spirit.
The right of the doctor and the patient to decide difficult cases has nothing to do with the biblical view of abortion?
Guidelines will be developed that will establish the hospital protocols.
Now that the General Conference has officially approved the Biblical view of abortion, the question is: Will the LLUH accept the prolife document? If the past is prologue for the future, the answer is probably a big NO.
Back in 1970, when the Adventist Church accepted elective abortions, the leaders of the church drafted two sets of the Guidelines on Abortion: one for public consumption, and the other that was kept in secrecy for the use of our medical facilities.
Why two sets of the guidelines on killing? Because we wanted the public to believe that our church was prolife, while those connected with our medical institutions were aware that this was a mere façade. The truth was that our church embraced certain kinds of abortions for the sake of cursed profit.
The initial reaction to the Statement on Abortion approved on October 16 by the GC Executive Committee by some leading Adventist health professionals seems to be strong evidence that my prognosis might be unfortunately accurate.
Notice the reaction of Richard Hart, president of the Loma Linda University Health, at the recent Autumn Council:
“Hart, a physician, clarified that Loma Linda does not offer elective abortions, and went on to describe several critical medical conditions where termination of pregnancy may be necessary.”
First, Hart affirmed that LLUH does offer elective abortions. Is this statement accurate? It all depends on how we define the term “elective.” The context of Hart’s statement indicates that his definition excludes the so-called Therapeutic Abortions.
Dr. Hart made reference to “critical medical conditions where termination of pregnancy may be necessary,” which means that the killing of unborn babies is taking place at LLUH under special circumstances.
What are those special circumstances? One of them is probably when the pregnancy was due to rape. Notice the following observation by a leading Adventist scholar:
“Jiri Moskala, dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, while praising the document for its respect for life, and biblical principles, also offered suggestions for improvement. “This Statement is strangely silent about the most painful issue in regards to abortion, namely rape.”
The other “critical medical conditions” are probably pregnancies due to malformations, incest, the health of the woman and threats to the life of the mother. With the exception of saving the life of the mother, Does the Bible allow the killing of innocent human beings under those special medical conditions?
When one of the members of the GC Executive Committee asked why the Statement of Abortion made no reference to rape, the chairman of the Autumn Council responded:
“This document reflects the Biblical view of abortion. Rape is an act of violence. Responding with another act of violence is not Biblical.”
And he was right, because the Bible condemns the killing of a son for the sins of the father, but it seems that our health practitioners believe otherwise.
“Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.” [Deuteronomy 24:16]
Another strong evidence that this new abortion document by the church is probably a mere window dressing is the lack of remorse for the past sins of the church. The statistics presented at the Autumn Council included only one year. There were no statistics for the abortions performed for the almost five decades that preceded it.
According to recent statistics performed by Adventist researchers, said number of victims of abortions by Adventists is estimated at between 300,000 and 3,000,000. The lack of remorse, confession, and sense of guilt, is evidence that no real change will likely take place once the church leaders issue the new Hospital Protocols due to replace the current Guidelines on Abortion. Let’s hope and pray that my prognosis is wrong!
If you can spare the time, please watch the following short video created by Adventist Prolifer Andrew Michell:
“Refuting Dr. Richard Hart, President of Loma Linda University”
October 31, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – “Jonathon Van Maren kicked off this week’s episode of The Van Maren Show by reminding his listeners that hundreds of babies born alive during abortions are simply left on their own to die. …”
You might have watched the comments made at the 2019 General Conference [GC] Annual Council, especially those by Pastor Doug Batchelor, president of the Amazing Facts television program and Dr. Allan Handysides, a former Director of the GC Health Department.
Perhaps you noticed how Dr. Handysides attempted to destroy and ridicule the comments made by Pastor Batchelor who cited the Bible in defense of God’s direct involvement in the creation of human life from the moment of conception.
Dr. Handysides demeaned the Biblical knowledge of theologians like Pastor Batchelor while pondering the superior practical and scientiphic knowledge, training, and experience of physicians like himself.
“What about the malformations,” Handysides asked. The implication was that God could not be involved in the creation of defective fetuses, which means that it is the duty of humans do destroy what God did not create. Humans must decide who should live and who should die.
In this Dr. Handysides was in perfect agreement with LLUH Gerald Wilson, who wrote the following: Abortion helps insure that the image of God is reproduced in human beings by eliminating the defective fetuses.
Here is evidence that Adventists did adopt the eugenics theory implemented by Hitler when the “Guidelines on Abortion” document was originally drafted. Handysides added that the 1992 guidelines were approved by the same GC authority that now is abandoning said document on abortion.
Handysides argued that said guidelines were the result of the Holy Spirit activity thus implying that it was wrong to abandon what was the result of God’s guidance. For him the new Statement on Abortion was invalid because it contradicted the guidelines on abortion adopted in 1992.
For him the authority of the Bible did not count, the murder prohibition contained in the Decalogue did not count, the Biblical prohibition of killing the son for the sins of the father did not count, and the Bible condemnation of shedding the blood of the innocents did not count. What counted was the superior intelligence and training of fallible and conflicted physicians and ethicists.
I highly recommend you watch the video prepared by the most outstanding Adventist defender of the right to life of human beings from the moment of conception.
Doug Batchelor was the first to speak at the Annual Council.
“We can’t preach about the Fourth Commandment if we compromise on the Sixth.”
Life is a miracle. It is God who created human life in the womb from the moment of conception.
A few minutes later Dr. Handysides contradicted Pastor Batchelor’s argument.
Dr. Handysides, the former director of the GC health department, produced no Scripture.
He appealed to his knowledge as a physician and financial backing.
Ted Wilson claimed that the abortion document was Biblical, but Handysides responded that science is practical regarding how to treat unborn children–not so the Bible.
Then he said that we claim that God is the Creator of human life—what about the malformations?
Thus he placed physicians above the Bible and able to decide who is entitled to live or die.
Thus Handysides agrees with Dr. Gerald Winslow who stated that abortion helps insure that the image of God is reproduced in human beings by eliminating the defective fetuses.
This is evidence that Adventists believe in eugenics, the elimination of defective human beings.
He reminded his hearers that in 1992 the GC Annual Council with the same authority invoked the guidance of the Holy Spirit that approved the “Guidelines on Abortion” that justifies abortion under special circumstances.
Could it be that the Holy Spirit never led the church to adopt those 1992 guidelines in the first place?
What Spirit guided the church to accept the guidelines on abortion? How could the H.S. guide the church to adopt the killing of innocent children?
No wonder our pastors, evangelists, and leaders dare not speak against abortion because the moment they do like Batchelor they will be attacked and ridiculed.
The Biblical Research Institute studied the abortion topic for two years.
The work went through many committees and then to the GC Executive Committee.
It is a Biblical statement about abortion.
Life is a gift of God based on the creation event.
The Adventist pioneers spoke openly against abortion.
As the hospital work developed there were instances that were not the best, especially between 1970 and 1990.
The time came to reaffirm the sanctity of life.
The Bible is the basis of our faith and practice.
This Statement on Abortion document blends the value of human life with compassion.
Human life begins at conception.
Adventists have been known as a Commandment keeping people.
The Sixth Commandment also applied to the killing of the unborn child.
Dr. Chairman T. said that an act of violence against a woman is not solved with another act of violence.
Psalm 139 strongly suggests that the child’s owner is God, the author of life.
Point number six of the document was understood by many as opening the door for abortion.
In extreme cases conception may produce pregnancies with fatal prospects or birth anomalies causing exceptional dilemmas.
Decisions should be left to the conscience of the individuals involved.
These decisions should be guided by the Holy Spirit.
These statements does not open the door to abortion of choice.
There are times when a baby is in a fatal condition
This document does not take away the choice of a medical practitioner or a pregnant woman to make a choice.
This document is a statement the Adventist respects the sanctity of human life.
“In a crowd of 6,000, people from all walks of life, all ages, and all races, I witnessed over 1,000 people respond to The Gospel by raising their hands to accept Jesus as their Lord & Savior!”
1. Removal of woman’s health exception.
2. Removal of the rape exception.
3. Acknowledgment of the unborn as a human being with a soul. This is very important because in several Adventist books –Questions on Doctrine, Seventh-day Adventist Believe, and SDA Dictionary–there is a doctrinal error affirming that a soul is implanted in the baby at birth.
4. Abortion is defined as a violation of the Sixth Commandment. This represents an incriminating statement.
5. One of the members of the GC Executive Committee submitted a motion to rescind the Guidelines on Abortion. This contrasts with previous repeated advise from GC representatives who were saying: “Go read the guidelines.”
6. The “religious liberty” argument in defense of abortion was absent from the discussion.
7. The climate regarding abortion has been changed among Adventists.
8. What was considered faked news among the leadership of the church has become biblical fact.
9. Andrew Michell: “This vindicates what I have been saying since 2017.”
Ted Wilson stated elsewhere that children with disabilities should be in school, yet Richard Hart from LLUH spoke in defense of aborting children with down syndrome.
I will highlight some comments published by Adventist News followed by my personal reaction to them:
1. “During his presentation, Landless also displayed a chart showing that the total number of abortions performed by Adventist health care institutions during the past year.”
Notice that those statistics are limited to “the past year.” Why not showing the total number of abortions since 1970—the year Adventist embraced elective abortions? The number of victims are in the millions if we include those killed by the greatest serial killer of unborn children the church ever produced.
2. “The statistics reveal that the number is very small, almost all of them relating to dramatic fetal abnormalities which would make life outside the womb impossible.”
Can we rely on the accuracy of the medical diagnosis performed by physicians? Are they 100 percent reliable? If not, this means that in certain cases we run the risk of killing innocent unborn babies.
3. “While acknowledging that “we do not have a wonderful history in our health institutions” regarding abortion, Landless reported a dramatic decrease in abortions since the 1992 Guidelines were voted.”
This is an understatement. We abandoned the Prolife position on abortion manifested by our Adventist pioneers, profited from the killing of innocent unborn children, shared a sizable portion of ill-gotten blood money from the greatest abortionist the church did produce, and honored him at a GC World Session. Doesn’t this abhorrent behavior by our church merit a public admission of guilt followed by repentance and contrition?
4. “It should be clearly stated: the aim is to approach as close to zero abortions as is safely possible.”
This is a lofty aim, but given the strong influence of our health institutions, is this feasible? Will the Hospital Protocols being considered today accurately reflect the Biblical view of abortion?
When one of the members of the GC Executive Committee asked why abortion was not included in the Statement on Abortion, the chairman’s answer was: “Abortion is an act of violence; responding with another violent act is not Biblical.”
5. “We must, at least by the new year, start coming out with meaningful processes and protocols that will be useful to those who work at the cold face of health management.”
I hope the church will not repeat the mistake made decades ago when the leaders of the church chose healthcare professionals for the creations of the Guidelines on Abortion. This was akin to asking the tobacco industry to create the policies controlling the consumption of tobacco products.
6. “Doug Batchelor, speaker and director for Amazing Facts Ministries, an independent supporting ministry located in North America, was the first to speak in favor of the Statement.”
Pastor Doug Batchelor also stated that many prospective baptismal candidates, upon learning that the Adventist Church allows abortion, refuse to be baptized.
7. “Richard Hart, president of Loma Linda University Health, … clarified that Loma Linda does not offer elective abortions, and went on to describe several critical medical conditions where termination of pregnancy may be necessary.”
He cited one of those circumstances: trisomy cases. Isn’t an abortion due to malformation of the fetus elective? Do Down Syndrome individuals have a right to life? If yes, why do we kill them before they are born?
BTW, perhaps things have changed at LLUH, but some decades ago LLU was listed as one of the Adventist medical facilities offering elective abortions. If you need hard evidence, let me know!
8. “Jiri Moskala, dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, while praising the document for its respect for life, and biblical principles, also offered suggestions for improvement. “This Statement is strangely silent about the most painful issue in regards to abortion, namely rape.”
Here you go again! Is this an indication of what will be included in the Hospital Protocols being considered right now? Will the church seek to find ways to continue ignoring the Sixth Commandment of the Lord?
Richard Hart: Elective abortion we do not do and have never done.
It all depends on how we define the term elective.”
Physicians usually define elective as abortions performed for the sake of lifestyle.
They exclude those abortions done to save the life of the woman, abortions done due to rape, incest, malformations, and the health of the pregnant woman.
These type of abortions are usually labeled as therapeutic.
The Bible does not authorize therapeutic abortions, except to save the life of the woman.
Statistics generally ignore abortion as a cause of children’s death.
Hart ignores the fact that Loma Linda has a program for the harvesting of human organs from anencephalic children.
He also ignores the fact that LLU honors the work of Dr. Edward Allred, who admitted having done at least 250,000 abortions in his numerous abortion clinics.
The Washington Post published the fact that Adventists practice elective abortion. Andrew Michell and asked the author of the article and was told that no one from the church requested a retraction.
Hart attempted to explain that sometimes the unborn is “incompatible with life.”
If the baby is dead, this is not abortion. There is nothing wrong with removing a dead baby from its mother’s womb!
Hart argues that it is acceptable to kill Down Syndrome babies because they may die.
This is why we need section 6 of the Statement on Abortion, he argued.
We don’t kill children just because they may die!
“Among the grisly details revealed about the abortion industry in the ongoing Center for Medical Progress (CMP) trial in San Francisco is the fact that abortionists intentionally rip out hearts from babies while they’re still beating. …”