To perform a search, click on ==> Search  


The following is a copy of an article written by James Standish on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized the killing of the unborn, thus nullyfing a two millenia tradition of respect for human life protected by the Hippocratic Oath. My response to this milepost event is included among the responders. Untortunately, the blog was closed for some enigmatic reason. I did copy the entire document for fear that the article might be deleted from this official General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist web site. The fact that a notable GC leader evidences support for the Pro-life position is extremely important, since the official position of the church is Pro-choice, which represents a slightly milder version of the Pro-abortion option. 

*********

The Liberty Blog

January 22, 2008

35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

By James Standish

There are few words that bring such raw emotions to mind as the word “abortion.” To some it denotes a necessary medical procedure that protects a woman’s right to choose when and if to have a child. To others, the word reminds them of the almost 50 million American babies who have been killed using the abortion procedure since its legalization was mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court 35 years ago. To others, it is so sensitive it should never be discussed at all. 

Wherever we fall along this continuum, we likely have at least some sensitivity to the claims of those on the other side of this painful debate. But on this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, it is hard to ignore the reality around us. This year more than 1.2 million American babies will be aborted. Of these, approximately 92% will be healthy babies conceived consensually to healthy moms. Over 500,000 of these babies will be at or past the point of development where they have little faces, arms, legs, fingers and toes.

The enormity of ending the lives of these little babies never hit me as hard as it did during the time when our first child was born. She was born two-and-a-half months premature—a little baby, for sure, but human in every facet. She cried when she was stuck, she grasped onto us when we held her tiny body, and when I put my finger in her small hand, she grasped it. Studies show that premature babies survive at much higher rates when they are cuddled against their parents’ skin, so my wife and I sat for many hours with our little precious girl in our arms.

Those two months in the neonatal intensive care unit gave me a refreshed view of just how precious these little human beings are. And if she was precious at 29 weeks gestation, wouldn’t she be equally precious at 25 weeks, or 18 weeks? At what point would she no longer be a precious human being? Maybe there is no easy answer to this question, but it is hard to ignore that a baby with a little face, arms, legs, fingers and toes is a lot more than a piece of property that can be disposed of at will.

Freedom is a very precious thing—but all liberties have limits. Have we gone too far when we value reproductive freedom over the lives of unborn children? As we consider the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I have to ask myself some very difficult questions. What does it mean to sit silently as more than a million healthy babies in healthy pregnancies are killed in America each year? How best can we—individually, as a church and as a society—best help moms facing difficult economic, social, relational and personal pressures during pregnancy? How can we ensure that every mom in America receives excellent prenatal care?

Maybe the answers aren’t always immediately obvious, but what is obvious is that, as Christians, we have an obligation to ask the questions and then to follow through as best as we are able to make a difference. The United States is a fabulously wealthy nation, and a wonderfully capable society. There are few things we can’t do when we put our collective intellect and resources towards a national goal. On this 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it is my prayer we will collectively commit to reducing the number of abortions in the United States towards the goal of ending the killing of healthy babies carried by healthy mothers. There must be a better way forward than to repeat the tragedy of the last 35 years.


Subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 Comments

Harold — January 22, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

As a Christian I do believe that the solution to the Abortion issue lies with us as Christians ministering to the needs of those that are wanting to have an abortion so as to prevent it. I have never met a women who was not changed for the worst after an abortion. Christ never tried to change the laws of the land - It was the heart of the individual that He worked to changed. Changing hearts and minds will make the abortion industry unprofitable and eventually irrelevant.

My concern with Roe v. Wade is that nine guys in black robes created legislation. This is a very grave and serious issue. It is rarely addressed by Christians. But if these nine people can legislate without congress on this issue, can they not do the same on other issues? Like our religious freedoms.


Beverly Kirby — January 22, 2008 @ 10:58 pm

Abortion and how to reverse roe v wade. No! Abortion as ugly as it is is necessary to a lot of young girls. Why convince the unwed mother to keep the baby, however bad, abortion should not be outlawed. The shame is that the topic is never about the making laws to stop the pregnancy. More education and protection to keep from getting pregnant. “Let’s see, how do we do that?” “Well, we make laws about what goes on in the bedroom or the back seat of the car.” And who do we need to make these laws? Mostly pure, happily married men with happy little families. The men that don’t get pregnant they just want to make the laws and look down their noses of those who don’t have the privileges that they have.!
Let’s make laws to have the girls and boys surgically fixed so they cannot have any children ever! That would certainly stop the need of abortion! Oh no! that is against their rights and liberty.

The pressure is on keeping the unwanted baby. I don’t hear a lot of the fine “christian” people that are complaining about abortion and what a shame it is, I don’t hear them wanting to adopt the 1.2 million babies that would be born to pregnant girls forced to keep the baby they don’t want, babies that they can’t afford to feed or clothe and many of them poor, under age and addicted to drugs.

I am also a christian - I am not for abortion, but I also am not for babies in dumpsters, or arresting the mothers who abandon their babies.The orphanages are full of children waiting for adoption. Nobody rushes to adopt them. Where are the Christian complainers of “Childrens rights”? There is more to the story than just having an abortion. There is deep hurt, fear, lack of money, lack of understanding and a lack of Christianity towards the young girls who don’t have much of a long term choice.


Gasry Venden — January 23, 2008 @ 12:46 am

Thank you, James Standish, for your comments on Abortion. It seems that few people with a high concern for religious freedom issues even dare to speak as you did on the subject. When I have brought it up, ever so lightly, I have immediately been accused of “obviously not carring about the separation of church and state.”

I don’t know what the solution is. I hear different statistics on adoption - and my understanding is that there are more people wanting to adopt than there are babies available (though Beverly, in her comment above, suggested just the opposite - and I don’t have statistics to quote, and am open to information on that). But it seems that killing millions of defenceless human beings cannot be right, and as Christians we can’t just sit by and do nothing in the name of “religious freedom.”

James, you spoke from personal experience and deep conviction - and compassion - and at considerable risk. I will be watching to see what grief you might come to for your comments. I just wanted to put in a good word for your clarity and bravery.

We must do more - and do it as Christ would.

Gary Venden
Pastor, Glendale Seventh-day Adventist Church - Phoenix, AZ


Beresford Nicholson — January 24, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

I say Amen to Beverly Kirby. She may or may not be statistically correct, but, for whatever reason, the unwanted babies are not being adequately adopted.
As for assisting those mothers, Dr. Standish, you ask:
“How best can we—individually, as a church and as a society—best help moms facing difficult economic, social, relational and personal pressures during pregnancy? How can we ensure that every mom in America receives excellent prenatal care?”
Our typical mistake is in pretending that the needs are limited to the pregnancy and prenatal care. What about all the other infrastructural issues like shelter, food and family stability for mother and child in the years after birth? In effect, our attitude is, let’s ensure the baby is born, then both it and its mother can go straight to hell.
The gospel of Jesus, like it or not, is a social gospel that goes far beyond that. James 1:27 (NRSV) tells us, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress…” Orphans and widows as in fatherless children and abandoned mothers. And to that the Saviour says, “Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”–Matthew 25:45


Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. — January 29, 2008 @ 12:57 am

I just finished reading James Standish article and the comments from Harold, Beverly, Gasry, and Beresford; and I must confess that I am greatly delighted to hear two Seventh-day Adventist leaders coming to the defense of the unborn. I have been waiting for something like this for the last twenty years. Ten years ago the editor of a now defunct Loma Linda University newsletter wrote a critical editorial of the activity of pro-lifers. I asked for the privilege of responding in defense of the unborn. The answer I got was that the issue was rather controversial.

A few years ago the Pacific Union Recorder published the pro-abortion views of John Stevens Jr., a former SDA religious liberty leader, arguing that the unborn do not acquire any right to life until they take their first breath. Again I requested the chance to respond. My request was denied. It took me fifteen years of efforts to get a pro-life article published by Adventist Today. This is why I can hardly believe that NARLA is allowing the opinions on non-persons like me the chance of speaking on behalf of those who can’t speak for themselves.

This kind of personal experience connected with the abortion issue prompted me ten years ago to sign up for a distant learning doctoral program in religion. It took me ten years to complete the program and write the dissertation, on a part-time basis, while taking care of by business. My topic was: “From Pro-life to Pro-Choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes Towards Abortion.” I discovered many things which disturbed me a great deal. I learned that the original SDA pioneers, including James White, Ellen White, and others were pro-life, and they condemned the practice of abortion in the strongest possible terms. To read my dissertation, click on the following Internet link: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html.

To my dismay, I learned that back in 1970 the then North American Division president, under pressure from our Castle Memorial Hospital, where non-Adventist physicians were threatening to take their abortion clients to other medical institutions, publicly declared that the SDA church was leaning towards abortion because there was too much hunger and overpopulation in the world. Can you believe this: The leader of the SDA church in North America, the richest country of the world, arguing that it was morally acceptable to engage in the mass killing of the unborn because there were too many people and too much hunger in the world?

The result was that the church approved a very liberal document, “Guidelines on Abortion,” which contains lofty pro-life statements, but justifies the destruction of human life under many circumstances like rape, incest, when the pregnant female is a minor, and even when the pregnancy is affecting the mental condition of the woman. All a pregnant woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy needs to do is to find a physician certifying that her mental condition is being affected and bingo, the life of another innocent human being is extinguished.

The same church abortion document states in fine print that Jesus died to restore our “freedom of choice.” My question is: perhaps we should also conclude that Jesus died to restore our freedom to rape, steal, and abuse little children! The net result of said guidelines, which were optional for all SDA hospitals, is that a few years later a survey revealed that five of our SDA medical institutions were providing elective abortion services. This prompted some non-Adventists to ask: “What about the Sixth Commandment.” Contrast this with Catholic hospitals which refuse to provide abortion services.

To Beverly, I would say: There is no need to arrest women who seek abortion services. All we need to do is put in jail those physicians who have set aside the Hippocratic Oath which forbids doing “harm” to their patients, and specifically forbids the practice of abortion. This Oath served humanity well for two millennia. Adventists, God’s “Remnant’ people on earth should remember that their identity is tied up with keeping God’s commandments. I would add that there are plenty of sterile couples desperate to adopt a just born baby, and some of them spend between 20 and 30 thousand dollars for said privilege. Adoption of just-born babies is in high demand.

To Gasry I would say: Type the phrase “abortion statistics” on your Internet browser, and read the statistics published by Planned Parenthood, the main provider of abortion in the U.S. They will not lie. All statistics agree that we are reaching the fifty million abortions mark since nine unelected justices of the highest court in America legalized the imposition of the death penalty on the innocent. And to Harold I would say: The highest ethical law during Jesus time was the Law of Moses, and the Lord did change it when he said: “Moses told you, but I say …”


H. D. Schmidt — January 29, 2008 @ 8:59 am

While my salute goes to Standish, yet I wish he would truly zero in on our own Adventist Church, rather than address himself to the Nation at large. There is absolutely no chance whatsoevee, that this Nation will ever repent of any of its waywardness overall, operating ever more in complete contradiction to all the Founding Fathers had sacrifized their all for, to bring forth this nation, and also now most certainly, a direct attack on God Himself. Yes, the Adventist Church is presently wealthy in material things as never ever before, and yet, as a Church who claims to be the Remant Church, preaching its heart out into all the world, out of evermore elaborate Church/Studios, I label Taj Majals, about the beauty of eternal life, while the unborn, what is that anyway? Yes, a true and direct insult to the unborn Jesus himself; which, in my book, disqualifies our Church to preach about eternal life, period. Evidently the unborn Jesus plays absolutely no roll within the Church when speaking about Jesus humility, while the manger birth, yes, it is always mentioned. “Spending” 9 month in a human mother’s womb, is not showing humility to the utmost? It is my personal conviction that fathers and mothers who participated in abortion, unless they repented and asked God’s forgiveness, may find themselves out of God’s Eternal Kingdom, while their uborn is inside!


H. D. Schmidt — January 31, 2008 @ 12:42 pm

Yes Berverly, as long as the idea is sort of “promoted” that abortion is “necessary” for young girls, etc., nothing will nor can change, simply and because, the underlying training youngster get today even within the Adventist Church, is that one is not really dealing with what is truly a human being from conception and that abortion is the murdering of a human being, no less sacred as Jesus himself was from conception in the womb in that young girl Mary. In today’s Adventist culture she would be a candidate for such procedure or so it seems!

Besides, yes, a young girl has an abortion, but how does this lady later in life feel about that baby she killed in her womb, as one hears stories as to how this never leaves such a lady in complete peace, plus affecting her later reproductive life, etc.? Of course if I suggest, killing an unborn in the womb, might even be more murderous than killing a born one with all kinds of physical problems spending at times month and month in hospital spending millions while never ever having a healthy individual, period anyway. Or in general put this way: Why not kill an unwanted child right after birth knowing what the baby is like rather than most certainly killing at random millions of perfect humans beings while in the womb and not knowing what really that unborn is like?

Yes, if all babies were allowed to be born I doubt very many would be killed! Yes, as long as abortion is considered a “good” aption, there cannot and will never be a national nor Adventist Church conscience to help otherwise, like adoption, nor will there be a proper training even comming from fathers and mothers about the whole issue of procreation etc., neither will our educational system doing likewise. Yes, I say this about our educational system with sadness, when one hears some intelligent people refer to what “is” in the womb at anyone time!

Evidently, the Adventist Church leaders have no interest in the article Mr. Standish wrote, which says it all about the Adventist Church; loud and clear or so it seems to me! Yes, I am familiar with a godly Bible teacher from Loma Linda who told me that abortion is murder and that the Church should speak out, while he himself never ever says a word about it while busy writing books plus preaching besides teaching.

How God will deal with such an individual, one can only wonder while millions are going to the American mass grave of over 50 millions already? Sort of like the Chrsitians in Germany who saw train loads of Jews going to the gas chambers?


Dorothy E. Craig — February 4, 2008 @ 2:48 am

I also am a Seventh Day Adventist and for years I have been a Pro-choice zealot,since we don;t legislate morality. In the past I was so gratefful to God for sending me to a doctor who gave me shots to trigger an abortion. I was the victim of a scam. I never have had regrets concerning those shots. Those were the same times that women were rushed to hospitals with part of hangers in them.We were not allowed legally for anything else. Although I have no regrets, upon reading James’blog I have changed my answer. I am now “pro-life”. Thanks….Dottie


Subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 

 


Free Mailing List Club!

 

If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.

Sign Up Today!

* required

Email Address: *

Name:



Email Marketing by VerticalResponse


Back to the Top? Click Here ==>