(SDA Church has wandered onto Rome's enchanted ground, as she did in adopting the Trinity dogma)

INTRODUCTION

The abortion controversy involves issues of extreme complexity, and imagery which arouses strong negative emotions. It should therefore surprise no-one that Satan would choose to hide the Great Lie of the immortality of the soul within these extremely complex issues. The following inspired statements and predictions of Ellen G. White call for commensurate reliance on divine guidance through the treacherous waters of the controversy, when the spirits of devils are manifestly at work. (Rev. 16:13-14):

I have been shown that Satan has not been stupid and careless these many years, since his fall, but has been learning. He has grown more artful. His plans are laid deeper, and are more covered with a religious garment to hide their deformity. The power of Satan now to tempt and deceive is ten-fold greater than it was in the days of the apostles. His power has increased, and it will increase, until it is taken away. (2 SG, P. 277; emphasis supplied.)

It is the first and highest duty of every rational being to learn from the Scriptures what is truth, and then to walk in the light and encourage others to follow his example. We should day by day study the Bible diligently, weighing every thought and comparing scripture with scripture. With divine help we are to form our opinions for ourselves as we are to answer for ourselves before God.... (Maranatha, P. 94; emphasis supplied)

The first of these two statements emphasizes the formidable power of Satan to ensnare the human mind in these last days. The second statement underscores the role of the Bible as our protection against ensnarement by the devil, the necessity of utter reliance upon God, and the duty to follow His guidance in forming our opinions. It was Jesus Himself who promised the Holy Spirit to guide us into all Truth.

THE BIBLE AND THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY

The late John V. Stevens, Sr. was the former Director of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists' Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty. His book The Abortion Controversy, is thoroughly researched and heavily documented. He points out the following in the chapter titled "Abortion Law in the Scriptures— Accidental and Induced":

Both sides of the religious controversy over abortion generally recognize the Bible teaching that God is the Author of life and forms humanity in the womb, both fearfully (with great respect) and wonderfully. Without Him there is no life, not even for birds, fish, and animals—or for the vegetation on the face of the earth. Both sides also believe that the Scriptures are inspired, come from God, and should be followed. Many who oppose abortion believe that the sixth commandment, "You shall not murder" and Psalm 139 clearly prohibit abortions of any kind following conception. Inasmuch as most religious denominations take stands against abortion based on their understanding of the Holy Scriptures, it may come as a surprise that only two passages in the entire Bible deal with an induced miscarriage—one accidental, and the other planned. No other references deal with abortion, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. We shall do a detailed examination of those two passages. Religious adherents who favor choice cite these two passages that deal explicitly with abortion—one accidental, and one induced. They point out that biblical law mandated only a misdemeanor fine against one who accidentally caused a woman to have a miscarriage. The induced abortion performed by the priest was the result of a pregnancy that arose from infidelity, and no punishment was imposed for inducing the abortion. Rather, a command came from God to cause it to take place. Of special significance is that both references are part of the law given at Mt. Sinai by God, or Jehovah, as He is referred to oftentimes in the Old Testament. Both references are not only laws, but God spoke them directly, so it was not someone simply recording a law. The first passage is found in the book of Exodus, chapter 21, at the close of the Ten Commandments, and is a continuation of God speaking concerning His law. Those commandments are found in the previous chapter. God's laws are universal, for all time and all peoples. But purely religious laws are not to be adopted by the state and enforced. However, many social laws which the state should enforce, such as the last six commandments, protect people from people. Hence, the One who commanded that we not murder is the same One who continues His laws in the following chapters. They are repeated in Deuteronomy chapters 10-15 and also appear in parts of the book of Numbers. God, the source of all life, has established all the necessary provisions for life. He carries every developing fetus during its formation in the womb, from its conception through birth, and that fetus is dependent on borrowed life from the mother while in the womb until birth, when breath makes its life independent of its connection with the mother through the umbilical cord. . .

In Scripture God does not call for a manslaughter or murder punishment for an accidentally caused miscarriage—but only for a fine. The distinction between the fine for the miscarriage and the penalty for injuring or killing the mother is clear. The fact that God is speaking personally and directly and that the passage comes from the statutory portion of the Scripture makes it of even greater authenticity and force.' The inescapable conclusion of the most obvious meaning of Exodus 21 is that God does not recognize the fetus as a human person. Such a fetus is not given the same protection under the law as one having been born. In Jewish legal reckoning, the fetus is to be regarded as part of the pregnant woman. This is in agreement with the passage found in the book of Numbers, chapter 5. In that passage a woman, guilty of infidelity resulting in a pregnancy, was required to have an induced miscarriage, as a result of the law that God established. The Scripture refers to this miscarriage as the belly swelling and the thigh rotting—the fetus being expelled. This is also consistent with the principle that the fetus has only borrowed life from the mother, whose blood feeds the fetus oxygen, causing it to develop and grow. The position is also in harmony with Scriptures that attribute life and personhood only when one is breathing, following birth. Hence, birth marks the beginning of personhood. (The Abortion Controversy: Abortion Law in the Scriptures— Accidental and Induced (Pp. 157-162; Underscored emphasis added.)

"Only two passages in the entire Bible deal with an induced miscarriage. No other references deal with abortion, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament." This is an inescapable fact, as also the fact that neither passage condemns either the accidental or the induced miscarriage as murder. Moreover, the induced miscarriage was by express commandment of God.

These facts which cannot be denied present no problem for the Roman Catholic Church. Why?! - because Rome's ideology on abortion and birth control were never based on the Bible. (The two cannot be separated in discussing the "Pro-Life" movement, because Rome, the originator of the abortion controversy opposes both on the basis of the same dogmas.) The Seventh-day Adventist Church has in the past recognized that fact, as evidenced in a 1969 Ministry article by J. R. Spangler:-

Adventists and Birth Control

IF BIRTH CONTROL per se is a moral problem, Satan, at this point, must be about as exuberant as he was when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. What would the world, especially the Christian world, talk about if we solved the birth control problem? Protestants may sneer at Rome's dilemma, but most recently over thrown, seldom enforced, United States State laws against birth control are traceable to Protestant legislation.

Discussions on birth control and related issues range from possible immorality in creases among married and unmarried to imponderable questions such as When does a fertilized egg become a human being? Modern science has now presented the human race with two rather extreme biological and spiritual questions.

1. At what point from fertilized egg to infant does microscopic murder take place in the event of abortion?

2. At what point does death take place in the case of those whose hearts or other vital organs are used for transplant purposes?

We could mini-word these two problems by simply asking, What is the definition for life and death? How fortunate our forefathers were in escaping many a head ache during a time when such issues were nonexistent.

The magnitude of these and related questions for twentieth-century man was impressed upon my mind through a booklet given me by a good Catholic neighbor. This forty-page booklet, prepared by the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., contains thirty-eight questions and answers related to Pope Paul's historic seven-thousand-word encyclical Humenae Vitae ("Of Human Life"). Some of the questions read like this: Why can't a Catholic form his own conscience on the subject of contraception?

Won't the next pope, or the one after him, reverse what Pope Paul has done?

But suppose the condemnation of contraception isn't infallible. Then it's fallible, isn't it? And if it's fallible, couldn't it be mistaken?

The remarkable opening statement of J. R. Spangler in the article, is right in line with the warning of Ellen G. White above.

Rome, by the force of her activism and propaganda has overcome the problem of her position on contraception since 1969 when the two-part article was written by J.R. Spangler. Although the Roman Catholic Church has advocated against birth control as well  abortion, the emphasis of the Protestant churches which have joined in her activism has been on the latter. This is symptomatic of their blindness. Furthermore, unlike Rome they have had to conjure up Scriptures to support their campaign. A Roman Catholic publication has republished almost all of an article which first appeared in the Washington Post and is no longer accessible. The portion omitted is small, but significant, and was quoted in an earlier Adventistlaymen.com web page. The omitted portion is in italics below:-

Roe v. Wade anniversary: How abortion became an evangelical issue

There is more to the story of course. One often overlooked dimension of the story is the intersection of evangelical and Roman Catholic concerns in the emergence of a pro-life coalition. While most evangelicals were either on the wrong side of the issue or politically disengaged, Roman Catholic leaders were on the front lines opposing abortion as a fundamental assault on human dignity. By the late 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church was fighting demands for the legalization of abortion nationally and state by state – opposition that preceded the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.

By the time Roe was handed down, Catholic leaders had developed sophisticated arguments and growing organizations to fight for the pro-life cause. In 1967, six years before Roe, Catholics had led in the creation of the National Right to Life Committee. The Catholic tradition, drawn largely from the natural law, became the foundational intellectual contribution to the development of a united front against abortion. Nevertheless, for evangelicals to join the movement in a decisive way, arguments drawn directly from Scripture had to be formed and then preached from the pulpits of evangelical churches. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

RELIGIO-POLITICAL "PRO-LIFE" ALLIANCE MISAPPLIES PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE

The following essay reveals the true reason for the emergence of the religio-political alliance between the Roman Catholics and right-wing Evangelicals. The passages quoted are long; but essential for the perfect understanding which is essential in relation to a satanic doctrine cloaked in a garb of Christian morality:-

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism

Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”. . .

So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.

In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools. Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

On June 30, 1971, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued its ruling in the case, now Green v. Connally (John Connally had replaced David Kennedy as secretary of the Treasury). The decision upheld the new IRS policy: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, properly construed, racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the Federal tax exemption provided for charitable, educational institutions, and persons making gifts to such schools are not entitled to the deductions provided in case of gifts to charitable, educational institutions.”

Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening.

In the decades following World War II, evangelicals, especially white evangelicals in the North, had drifted toward the Republican Party—inclined in that direction by general Cold War anxieties, vestigial suspicions of Catholicism and well-known evangelist Billy Graham’s very public friendship with Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.

“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.”

But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders , especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. Falwell was furious. “In some states,” he famously complained, “It’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”

One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.

For many evangelical leaders, who had been following the issue since Green v. Connally, Bob Jones University was the final straw. As Elmer L. Rumminger, longtime administrator at Bob Jones University, told me in an interview, the IRS actions against his school “alerted the Christian school community about what could happen with government interference” in the affairs of evangelical institutions. “That was really the major issue that got us all involved.”

Weyrich saw that he had the beginnings of a conservative political movement, which is why, several years into President Jimmy Carter’s term, he and other leaders of the nascent religious right blamed the Democratic president for the IRS actions against segregated schools—even though the policy was mandated by Nixon, and Bob Jones University had lost its tax exemption a year and a day before Carter was inaugurated as president. Falwell, Weyrich and others were undeterred by the niceties of facts. In their determination to elect a conservative, they would do anything to deny a Democrat, even a fellow evangelical like Carter, another term in the White House.

Weyrich, Falwell and leaders of the emerging religious right enlisted an unlikely ally in their quest to advance abortion as a political issue: Francis A. Schaeffer—a goateed, knickers-wearing theologian who was warning about the eclipse of Christian values and the advance of something he called “secular humanism.” Schaeffer, considered by many the intellectual godfather of the religious right, was not known for his political activism, but by the late 1970s he decided that legalized abortion would lead inevitably to infanticide and euthanasia, and he was eager to sound the alarm. Schaeffer teamed with a pediatric surgeon, C. Everett Koop, to produce a series of films entitled Whatever Happened to the Human Race? In the early months of 1979, Schaeffer and Koop, targeting an evangelical audience, toured the country with these films, which depicted the scourge of abortion in graphic terms—most memorably with a scene of plastic baby dolls strewn along the shores of the Dead Sea. Schaeffer and Koop argued that any society that countenanced abortion was captive to “secular humanism” and therefore caught in a vortex of moral decay.

Between Weyrich’s machinations and Schaeffer’s jeremiad, evangelicals were slowly coming around on the abortion issue. At the conclusion of the film tour in March 1979, Schaeffer reported that Protestants, especially evangelicals, “have been so sluggish on this issue of human life, and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? is causing real waves, among church people and governmental people too.”

By 1980, even though Carter had sought, both as governor of Georgia and as president, to reduce the incidence of abortion, his refusal to seek a constitutional amendment outlawing it was viewed by politically conservative evangelicals as an unpardonable sin. Never mind the fact that his Republican opponent that year, Ronald Reagan, had signed into law, as governor of California in 1967, the most liberal abortion bill in the country. When Reagan addressed a rally of 10,000 evangelicals at Reunion Arena in Dallas in August 1980, he excoriated the “unconstitutional regulatory agenda” directed by the IRS “against independent schools,” but he made no mention of abortion. Nevertheless, leaders of the religious right hammered away at the issue, persuading many evangelicals to make support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion a litmus test for their votes. . .

This Randall Balmer exposé is so solidly based in historical fact that it is widely quoted in respected publications.

The last sentence of the italicized quotation above from the original article "Roe v. Wade anniversary: How abortion became an evangelical issue" is a candid admission by the author, who was evidently a Roman Catholic, and in any event clearly anti-abortion.

None of the following compilation of Bible texts on the Focus on the Family, website can exegetically support their anti-abortion position. The author even includes Exodus 21:22-25, which actually refutes the contention that the fetus is a life in being. Many of the texts are so clearly unrelated to the question of when life begins that even a non-theologian author should be embarrassed:-

What the Bible Says About the Beginning of Life

The quotation of Bible texts to support an erroneous position on abortion is an egregious example of "eisegesis" as distinct from "exegesis." (Cf. What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?)

Even more egregious is the fact that, on careful exegetical examination, it can be seen that the deadly dogma of the immortality of the soul is the basis of misapplication of Bible texts in  support of the "pro-life" movement. This dogma is the foundation pillar of the ideology that life begins at conception.

SPURIOUS USE OF THE BIBLE EXPOSED BY SOUND BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

The chapter titled "Puzzling Passages Made Plain" in John V. Stevens' book The Abortion Controversy exegetically demonstrates the misapplication of Bible texts to support the anti-abortion movement. It is a desecration of the Scriptures to support the dogma of the immortality of the soul:-

THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY - Puzzling Passages Made Plain

PROPAGANDA CONFIRMS THE UNDERLYING DOGMA AND STIRS UP EMOTIONS

The Roman Catholic hierarchy are masters of propaganda. The word derives from the propagation of the Catholic religion. By means of propaganda, Rome has kept the issue of abortion constant in the minds of Americans. There is one clever manipulation of language that has aroused intense strong emotions against ALL induced terminations of pregnancy. The following passage in The Abortion Controversy put it succinctly in a chapter titled "Efforts to Impose Dogma":

Those opposing abortion picked up on the choice language of the decision [Roe v. Wade] and agreed that women had a choice—a choice of whether to get pregnant or not. Once pregnancy occurred, choice ended. They also proclaimed loudly and clearly that while the members of the Court may not have known when life began, they did, and it was at conception. Language became a tool in the controversy in a most masterful manner. Scientific terms such as zygote, embryo, and fetus were readily replaced with the finished product—baby—and used at every stage of the pregnancy. Revisionism blurred distinctions and confused the public. And we can understand from personal experience that our conceived children were "babies"—at least to us. While not scientific, it satisfied our emotional needs, and it seemed natural. But to use such language when the debate on abortion raged only served to blur the white with the black and produce gray areas. (P. 3)

This propaganda has been very effective in blinding reason. This has made it very difficult for many who would otherwise have no affinity with Roman Catholic dogma to avoid being ensnared.

THE GREAT LIE OF THE DEVIL PASSED DOWN FROM THE GARDEN OF EDEN

The "pro-life" movement is a particularly effective purveyor of the first great lie of Satan. Assent to this lie is deadly at any time, but especially now when the final fate of believers is being determined in the closing work of Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. There will soon be no time left for recovery. Ellen G. White has written, "Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul, and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of Spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome." (GC88 588.1). The evidence is conclusive that the dogma of the immortality of the soul is diabolically concealed in the "pro-life" movement by an almost irresistible play on the emotions of sincere Christians:-

A DECEPTIVE TERM MASKING A DEADLY THEOLOGICAL FALSEHOOD (ET AL.):-

The term "pro-life" is deceptive, conjuring up in the minds of sensitive men and women a living human being in the womb of a woman. Nevertheless, upon close examination it is also revealing. In reality the primary meaning of "life" in this context is not the cluster of living cells changing and developing in the woman's womb. It is the unbiblical dogma of an immortal soul, with the time of "ensoulment" determining when life begins. (Cf. Immortality? (SDA;) The origins of the doctrine of the “immortality of the soul” (Non-denominational. N.B. Citation does not imply support for any theology on the hyperlinked website contrary to the theology of Adventistlaymen.com) From the last citations, it is obvious that belief in the immortality of the soul is not unique to Roman Catholicism. In fact, there is "almost universal adherence to the immortality of the soul within contemporary Christendom" (The immortality of the soul: Could Christianity survive without it? (Part 1 of 2).) It has never been a part of Seventh-day Adventist theology; and happily there still remain some other Protestant denominations which have resisted this false theology.) Also, the concept of "ensoulment" is not unique to Roman Catholicism (Cf. The Breath of Life: Christian Perspectives on Conception and Ensoulment, by two Anglican essayists.) All of this emphasizes the mountain of false theology that confronts those who do not believe in the immortality of the soul. . .

THE COMPLEX PROBLEM OF ABORTION

Roman Catholic Teaching on Abortion

It seems to be almost universally assumed in public debate that the Roman Catholic position on abortion has always been clear, straightforward, and historically consistent. It is indeed true that the Roman Church has always condemned the vast majority of abortions, but this condemnation has over the years been made with greatly differing force, on the basis of a variety of reasons, and with a changing list of exceptions and qualifications. Catholic theologians have disputed at great length about the moral implications of Christianity, but many of their arguments, which have been highly influential in determining the development of the Church’s official doctrine, would probably now seem very questionable to many of those who nevertheless ascribe great authority to the current official position. This position is that the fetus is to be treated as a human person from the “first instant” of conception, and that abortion is therefore tantamount to homicide, excusable only in cases where it is an indirect effect of medical intervention whose direct intention is to save the mother’s life, as in the case of the removal of a Fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, or the removal of a cancerous uterus. We shall see that it is far from clear whether modern Roman Catholics should feel themselves committed to endorsing such a doctrine. . .

The facts stated in the two passages above [these facts are not quoted in this extract; but cf. in full A DECEPTIVE TERM MASKING A DEADLY THEOLOGICAL FALSEHOOD (ET AL.)] reveal the arbitrary setting of spurious feast dates clashing with the theory of progressive ensoulment, and leading to the promulgation of the blasphemous dogma of the Immaculate Conception, absolutely without biblical foundation (Cf. Four Great Marian Dogmas.) How easily are those ensnared who abhor blasphemous Roman Catholic dogmas and yet are either active proponents of the anti-abortion movement or even simply assent to what it advocates!

The role of dogma in Rome's opposition to abortion is brought into sharp relief in the light of Pope Pius IX's biography:

Pope Pius IX (1792-1878)

Pope Pius IX was also highly involved in reforming church doctrine. His long time devotion to Mary led to the establishment of the dogma of Immaculate Conception of Mary on 8 December 1854. On 8 December 1869, Pope Pius IX opened the Vatican Counsel in the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome. Before the Counsel ended 8 July 1870, Pope Pius IX established the dogma of "papal infallibility,” which states that when speaking in terms of Church doctrine, the Pope speaks the truth with certainty.

Pope Pius IX challenged the canonical tradition about the beginning of ensouled life set by Pope Gregory XIV in 1591. He believed that while it may not be known when ensoulment occurs, there was the possibility that it happens at conception. Believing it was morally safer to follow this conclusion, he thought all life should be protected from the start of conception. In 1869 he removed the labels of “animated” fetus and “unanimated” fetus and concluded that abortions at any point of gestation were punishable by excommunication. While excommunication was used to punish those who procured abortions, it was not extended to those who used contraception.

Pope Pius IX, commonly known as Pio Nono, died on 7 February 1878. His was the longest papacy in the history of the Catholic Church, and Pope Pius IX is often considered one of the greatest popes to have ever lived. His dogma of Immaculate Conception, Vatican I, and papal infallibility were some of his most notable accomplishments. His efforts in punishing those that procured abortions at any time of gestation prevailed within the Catholic Church; excommunication for abortion became Canon Law in 1917, and later revised in 1983. (Underscored emphasis added.)

The foregoing are the irrefutable facts. The adoption of a religio-political "pro-life" position of necessity involves assent to the dogmas of Rome, including the great lie of the immortality of the soul.

HISTORICAL FACTS FROM THE PROTESTANT WORLD

Very significant historical facts have come to light in the course of researching the divisive issue of abortions, which have always been performed, whether or not prohibited by law. While the Roman Catholic Church has been consistent since the First Vatican Council (1869–70) in unqualifiedly opposing abortion at any time of gestation, Protestant church leaders tended to distance themselves from this extreme position. Indeed, it is surprising to learn that two members of the Presbyterian clergy, Landreth and Sandon, admitted publicly that they were actually helping women in Tallahassee, Florida, to obtain abortions:-

The Surprising Role of Clergy in the Abortion Fight Before Roe v. Wade

Landreth and Sandon’s abortion referral activities at Florida State University had drawn the attention and anger of a state senator and a district attorney who in turn denounced them in the press. After twice appearing before a grand jury, the clergymen worried that they would be charged and prosecuted.

But Landreth and Sandon were not alone. Their experiences reveal how, in the half-decade before Roe v. Wade, respected religious leaders participated in a nationwide struggle to make abortion more accessible. This largely forgotten history undercuts the popular myth that religious people oppose abortion rights. Fifty years ago this month, in May of 1967, as mainline Protestants and Reform Jews called for the liberalization of abortion laws, a group of clergy in New York City founded the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (CCS), an international network of clergy that helped women obtain legal and illegal abortions from licensed medical professionals. When Landreth spoke out, it was as part of CCS, which by then counted over 2,000 other ministers across the United States and Canada as members. . .

As trusted members of their communities to whom congregants turned for counseling, clergy witnessed a medical crisis unfolding because of restrictive abortion laws. In the 1950s and 1960s, prohibitions against abortion drove anywhere between 200,000 and 1.2 million women to obtain illegal abortions. By the end of 1972, the CCS had helped between a quarter and half a million women obtain safe legal and illegal abortions from physicians.

CCS members also demanded that their state legislators repeal abortion laws, and publicly testified for that cause. In 1968, Reverend Carl Bielby spoke with Michigan lawmakers who were conducting public hearings on that state’s abortion laws. Bielby was a leader of Michigan’s CCS. At the hearing he represented the Michigan Council of Churches’ position that, “as a matter of human right, each woman be given the control of her own body and procreative function, and that she has the moral responsibility and obligation for the just and sober stewardship thereof.” Likewise, Reverend Allen Hinand of the Philadelphia CCS proclaimed at a 1972 legislative hearing that it was time for women to “rise up and take control of a situation and a choice that belongs to them as females.”

Most importantly, CCS clergy emphasized that no single religion had a right to impose its religious values upon others. For these clergy, freedom of religion had to include freedom from those religious groups that sought to place restrictions on abortions.

Caught between these opposing positions, the Seventh-day Adventist Church long avoided taking an official position. The denomination in 1992 finally adopted what has been described as a centrist position which was both pro-life and pro-choice by Ronald L. Lawson, Ph.D.

COMPLICATED HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST POSITION ON ABORTION

Dr. Lawson has published a comprehensive history on the subject of abortion in the Seventh-day Adventist Church which is an excellent means of understanding the Church's position prior to October of 2019. Hopefully Dr. Lawson's use of the term "pro-life" in describing the Church's centrist position is not synonymous with its religio-political meaning - i.e. "life begins at conception," which life is the implantation of an immortal soul:-

PRO-WHAT? Seventh-day Adventists and Abortion

Dr. Lawson's study is so lengthy and detailed that it is best summarized, with a minimum of quotations. Reading the full history is beneficial for understanding of the Church's evolution on the issue of abortion prior to October, 2019.

Quotation:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is conservative in its interpretation of the Bible, and typically upholds conservative­ standards on “family” issues: it has, for example, adopted strict rules concerning divorce and remarriage and has stated that ­practicing homosexuals are not acceptable as members [Seventh-day­ Adventist Church Manual, 1990: 160]. However, it avoided recommending a position on abortion to its members, despite the ­sharpness of the debate over the issue within American society ­ and the relevance of the question to both its members and its ­hospitals, until the end of 1992. At that time, unlike many other ­conservative denominations, it adopted a statement that attempted to be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice concurrently.

This paper examines the evolution of the abortion issue ­within the Adventist Church and the dynamics and significance of ­its recent resolution. It highlights the tensions between the conservative inclinations of Adventist theology and of the majority among its global membership and the demand for ­flexibility by its extensive and influential hospital system. . ."

Abortion was widespread in the U.S. in the nineteenth century–it is estimated that 20% of pregnancies ended in ­abortion. Around 1860 the medical profession launched a campaign ­to change this, in part to help establish their profession. Abortion was proscribed in 40 states between 1860 and 1880, and prohibition of it was universal by 1900 [Pearson, 1990:92-4].

Though Adventists were not involved in the crusade against abortion, they supported its stand. Both the Advent Review and­ Sabbath Herald, the in-house paper, and The Health Reformer, a ­missionary paper founded in 1866, carried articles warning against abortion, dubbing it “child murder” [Gainer, 1988:5,6; Pearson, 1990:100]. Once he became editor of The Health Reformer and chief of both 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 dubbed America ­”a nation of murderers” [Pearson, 1990: 103].

Ellen White, the Adventist prophet, never addressed the issue directly – though it can be assumed that she was aware of it because of the strong stand taken by her protege, Dr. Kellogg, and because her husband included an article by a non-Adventist, Dr. E.P. Miller, railing against abortion, along with other sex-related articles by the prophet, in a book which he edited [White, 1870]. There is also considerable evidence that she would have found it morally repugnant. For example, she laid great­ emphasis on the importance of prenatal influences, and urged mothers to “consecrate their offspring to God, both before and after its birth” [cited Pearson, 1990:97].

Since the doctors’ crusade resulted in laws banning abortions, there was little controversy over the issue during the first six decades of the twentieth century. Adventists remained almost totally silent on the topic during that time. . .

Though we walk the fence, SDA’s lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and over-population, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population [quoted by Gainer, 1988: 13]. . ." [Cf. Spirit of Prophecy Policy on Family Planning.]

On May 13, 1970, the 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 U.S. It permitted abortions, after ­consultation with two colleagues, during the first trimester under the following conditions:

1. When continuation of pregnancy may threaten the life of the woman or seriously impair her health.

2. When continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in ­the birth of a child with grave physical deformities or mental retardation.

3. When conception has occurred as a result of rape or incest [Ministry, March 1971].

These conditions closely paralleled those put forward by the American Law Institute in its Model Penal Code, issued in 1959, ­in which it suggested reforms that would bring the law up to date­ with what was then the practice in most hospitals [Luker: 1984,­65, 278]. However, the situation in the U.S. had changed dramatically since that time. Consequently, when members of the Adventist medical community objected to the new guidelines on the grounds that they were inadequate, church leaders decided not to take them to the General Conference Session for approval.

Instead of this, the General Conference officers decided to enlarge the earlier abortion guidelines committee “to study what counsel should be given regarding elective abortions” [Minutes,­ July 6, 1970, quoted by Gainer, 1988: 16]." . . . (Underscored emphasis added).

[Here it should be noted that the Seventh-day Adventist Church operates the "largest Protestant integrated network of hospitals and clinics worldwide." This creates complications in providing comprehensive hospital services to communities in accordance with the laws of the land as distinct from Bible-based morality or non-biblical religious dogma.]

Summary

In July 1970­, R.R.Bietz, a vice president of the General Conference, met with leaders of the Hawaii hospital and later wrote in a letter that "several of the doctors using the hospital wished to do more than therapeutic abortions." If this were not allowed “chances are fairly good that they will take their patients [to other hospitals] for other treatments as well." [This was not necessarily a mercenary consideration. It is self-evident that loss of patients could reach a level which would force the closure of a hospital.]

"The situation was further complicated by the fact that several of­ the Adventist doctors were opposed to doing elective abortions . . ." The hospital administration needed the support of "the higher Church organization" to silence these physicians.

"In December 1970 the chief of staff of Castle Memorial Hospital wrote to the president of the General Conference to complain about the length of time that had elapsed without a decision." By this time there was reliable information that "a number of Adventist west coast hospitals had in their practice 'greatly liberalized' their definitions of therapeutic abortion."

In June, 1971, a new position covering both therapeutic and elective abortions was voted by the General Conference officers.

Quotation

The new position, entitled “Interruption of Pregnancy ­Statement of Principles” because it covered both therapeutic and elective abortions [N.C. Wilson to W.J. Blacker, July 13, 1971, cited by Gainer, 1988: 23], was finally voted by the General­ Conference officers on June 21, 1971. The need to consult with other physicians before conducting an abortion was removed, and the conditions under which abortion was acceptable were broadened considerably. Two of the original conditions were liberalized: ”seriously” was removed as a qualifier of a threat to “impair­ [the woman’s] health”, and “physical deformities and mental retardation” no longer had to be “grave.” Two additional conditions were added:

“When the case involves an unwed child under 15 years of age.”

“When for some reason the requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lesser potential human value” [Widmer,­1986: 15, emphasis supplied ] (Original.) . . .

In creating abortion guidelines for Adventist hospitals, church leaders had shown an astonishing eagerness to be in step with the changing climate of opinion [see, e.g., W.R. Beach to ­N.C.Wilson, March 8, 1971, cited by Gainer, 1988: 22]. In ­arriving at their position they had called for neither theological nor ethical studies, but had deferred to the judgment of their medical establishment, since “the performing of abortions” is “the proper business of responsible staffs of hospitals” [Ministry, March 1971, 10-11]. Moreover, they had granted the hospitals a high degree of autonomy in interpreting­ the guidelines as they developed their own policies. (Underscored emphasis added.) [Failure to call for theological and ethical studies was probably fatal. The ministry and the laity should have been educated by sound biblical exegesis. In particular, the existence of the deadly dogma of the immortality of the soul in the religio-political Pro-life movement should have been exposed.] . . .

Meanwhile, Adventist members received mixed messages from their church concerning abortion. Church periodicals broached the topic infrequently, but when they did so 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 stances strongly opposing 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 young pregnant women who chose to utilize Adventist Adoption and Family Services reported that they had been strongly advised by college and academy deans of women, teachers and pastors to put the problem behind them by having an abortion [interview].

Some American Adventists became pro-life activists. . .

Survey data indicate that while there are deep divisions among Adventists in North America concerning abortion, a majority of the laity, in particular, express pro-life sentiments. . .

Thus, in spite of the fact that by the mid-1980s the Adventist church ran a network of over 400 health institutions ­globally and women members inevitably faced their share of crisis ­pregnancies, it did not have a consistent position on abortion, nor had it yet fostered any sustained discussion of the issue. Instead it drifted along according to 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 adopting a position . . .

The situation of drift changed dramatically in October 1985, when demonstrators representing conservative Christian churches picketed Washington Adventist Hospital, protesting its abortion program–an action which was reported in the Washington Post. In earlier years, when it was difficult to get an abortion at any hospital in or around Washington, a very liberal obstetrics group at WAH had felt they should provide abortions, and they had since done a lot [interview]. The demonstrators asserted that hospital records showed that 1,494 abortions had been performed there between 1975 and 1982. . .

The demonstration at WAH was especially embarrassing to church leaders because of its proximity to the General Conference and their sensitivity to the public image of the church in Washington. It took place at a time, during the Reagan administration, when abortion was at the center of public debate and the pro-life forces seemed to be on a roll politically.[The beginning of the ascendancy of the Church of Rome in America.] Adventist leaders, whose concern to be in step with public opinion on the issue from as early as 1970 was noted above, wondered whether they were now out of step with it. A chorus of­ lay people asked questions and began to apply pressure from varying points of view. The abortion issue was suddenly placed under close scrutiny within Adventism in North America. (Underscored emphasis added.) [Note the concern to be in step with public opinion, instead of finding out what the Bible sanctions.] . . .

Summary

The scrutiny involved four main thrusts:

First, the Church press addressed the issue systematically. "The Adventist Review published the core of both the 1970 and 1971 statements–the first time that any portion of the 1971­ guidelines appeared in print [Widmer, 1986:14-15], and the Review (Sept. 25, 1986), Insight, the magazine for youth [Jan.1988], and Ministry all attempted to run articles representing the differing opinions among Adventists. However, the latter two both continued to show sympathy to the pro-life position."

Second, "scholars began to research the issue of Adventist hospitals and abortion. [Note that once again the focus was not on exegesis of the Bible.]

Third, "the constituency meeting of the Potomac Conference, whose territory contained two hospitals, Washington Adventist Hospital and Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, which had been objects of pro-life protests, voted to form a study commission to examine abortion policies at the hospitals and records of the numbers and reasons for abortions there.

Fourth, the delegates to the study commission voted an appeal to the hospitals "to immediately adopt and implement abortion policies that institutionally prohibit abortions for social or economic reasons including convenience, birth control, gender selection, or avoidance of embarrassment; limiting the abortion procedure to those times when a pregnancy threatens the mother’s physical ­life, when the fetus is gravely abnormal, and in cases of rape or ­incest."

Fifth, and finally, "the Center for Christian Bioethics at Loma Linda­ University planned a conference for November 1988." This conference was entitled "Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options." This "spawned" action by the General Conference, and a committee was formed to address the issue. It is interesting that among the contributors to the committee's deliberations was John V. Stevens, Sr., who presented a paper to the committee, from which Lawson quotes as follows:

”The abortion issue is the catalyst to subject America, and indeed the world, to the papal ‘divine right of rule’ in all moral matters, social and religious, thus establishing its religion as the law of the land, and inflicting civil penalties on religious dissenters…. The abortion issue will likely serve as the needle ­that pulls behind it the thread of oppressive Sunday religious ­worship laws”

It is a certainty that Stevens must have gone into the issue in much greater detail. However, his own exegesis of the Bible is not mentioned by Lawson.

Ultimately the committee's work resulted in an official statement in 1992, titled “Guidelines on Abortion, "which was the Church's position until October, 2019.

Since the latest position was published, it is no longer possible to find the relevant page on the official Seventh-day Adventist website. However, Lawson provides the content, which is quoted in full:

The statement, as approved, 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 God’s image, and requires respect for prenatal life.”

While this does not necessarily exclude abortion, it means that

“Abortion is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.”

Item 4 considers abortion in greater detail:

“Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the church. Women …, however, may face exceptional circumstances…such as serious threats to a pregnant woman’s life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation.”

Therefore, (5) because Christians are accountable before God, ”any attempt to coerce women either to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom;” and (2),

“the church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate.”

Item (3) attempts to bring life and choice together: “In practical, tangible ways the church as a supportive community should express its commitment to the value of human life” – including “educating both genders concerning Christian principles of human sexuality, emphasizing responsibility of both male and female for family planning,…offering support and assistance to women who choose to complete crisis pregnancies… the church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social, economic, and psychological factors that may lead to abortion.

Since these principles are relevant to Adventist hospitals, “(6) Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to abortion should not be required to participate in the performance ­of abortions."[5][Adventist­ Review, Dec.31, 1992:11-12]

By trying to straddle the fence – making the fetus significant, yet allowing a woman the right to choose - to keep Adventists together, the committee created some ambiguity. Consequently, while Whiting held that the committee had arrived at “a modified pro-life stand” [interview], Winslow described it as “ultimately pro-choice, since its bottom line is that the pregnant woman must decide. It places emphasis on the value of life, but this is limited to persuasion” [Winslow, 1991].

Under a paragraph titled "Interpretation," Lawson states:

Because of its sectarian roots and conservative theology and view of the Scriptures, many would expect the Seventh-day Adventist Church to adopt an uncompromising pro-life position. However, although surveys confirm that a majority of members in ­he U.S. do lean in that direction and that globally Adventists are strongly opposed to abortion, Adventists have never adopted the expected position. It has been shown that while America argued and anguished over abortion policy for over twenty years, the Adventist church failed to give guidance to members wrestling with personal decisions over problem 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 which affirmed the value of the life of a fetus and strongly discouraged abortions for trivial reasons, but left the ultimate decision to the pregnant woman. Meanwhile, however, an attempt to issue a companion statement which would have had the effect of bringing unity of practice to Adventist hospitals by eliminating abortions of convenience has apparently been diverted.

After his interpretation, Lawson provides an analysis of "the reasons for the complexity of the current situation," which it is not necessary to include here.

The following is a 1988 Ministry article which appears to be one of those which indicated sympathy for the "pro-life" position:

Abortion: the Adventist dilemma

Note the following passage:

The Adventists' dilemma is compounded by the fact that the major sources to which they normally turn for direction in matters of faith and practice the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen White are silent, or at least less than unequivocal about abortion. Some have argued cogently that there is an anti-abortion ethic implicit in Scripture. A recent MINISTRY article, containing a careful interpretation of Exodus 21:22, 23, was a persuasive example of this viewpoint. . .

Ellen White's writings are equally in conclusive [S/B inconclusive.] It is not difficult to select quotations from her writings to support the view that abortion violates the purpose of God, and as such is a sinful act. The following is but one example: "Life is mysterious and sacred. It is the manifestation of God Himself, the source of all life. Precious are its opportunities, and earnestly should they be improved. Once lost, they are gone forever. . . . [The author's ellipsis.]

"God looks into the tiny seed that He Himself has formed, and sees wrapped within it the beautiful flower, the shrub, or the lofty, wide-spreading tree. So does He see the possibilities in every human being."

It is safe to conjecture that Ellen White found abortion a deeply repugnant act. It is interesting, however, that she refrained from condemning it, even though it was of widespread concern in society in her day. While there are, no doubt, perfectly adequate reasons that she omitted any reference to abortion in her work, the point here is simply that at no time did Ellen White directly address the issue in a way that could supply a norm for Adventists.

Thus an editorial writer in the Adventist Review was prompted to observe that "our church leaders have noted that neither the Bible nor Ellen White say any thing definite about elective abortion. They have felt that where Inspiration is silent, we should not legislate." . . .

What elements in Adventist theology might figure in the abortion decision? The doctrine of conditional mortality is clearly relevant to the debate, though surprisingly little has been said about it in Adventist publications. The Catholic view that a soul is infused into the embryo at conception, and that it, as an inheritor of original sin, must not be allowed to perish without baptism, clearly dictates a certain course of action. In contrast, Adventists believe neither that there exists a separate entity called a soul, nor that baptism is essential to salvation. They prefer to say that man "becomes a soul" rather than that he "possesses a soul." Soul is therefore understood to mean both "life" and "individuality." This then allows them to say that "a new soul comes into existence every time a child is born." which might seem to permit some concession to the abortion option.

On the other hand, this view of humanity means that a soul cannot exist without a body. Possessing a body material entity is part of what it means to be a soul. Thus it could be argued that since a material entity with a unique genetic inheritance is formed at conception, a soul exists from that point and absolute value should be attached to it.

Adventist doctrine overlaps with the abortion issue at several other points, and we as a church can only acknowledge our delinquency in failing to chart the area more adequately.(Underscored emphasis added.)

Note what the author states about Exodus 21:22-23: "Some have argued cogently that there is an anti-abortion ethic implicit in Scripture. A recent MINISTRY article, containing a careful interpretation of Exodus 21:22, 23, was a persuasive example of this viewpoint." Compare this with the exegesis of John V. Stevens above. Moreover the case in the Bible of expressly authorized abortion of a fetus is completely ignored.

To the author's credit, he acknowledges that "at no time did Ellen White directly address the issue in a way that could supply a norm for Adventists."

Exceptionally, the author has something to say about the issue of mortality and immortality; and he acknowledges that "The doctrine of conditional mortality is clearly relevant to the debate, though surprisingly little has been said about it in Adventist publications." This has been a fatal deficiency in the Church's consideration of the status of a fetus.

In spite of their much vaunted reliance on the writings of Ellen G. White for guidance, it is clear that they are ignoring her warning. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has not taken the deadly peril of the Immortality of the Soul dogma seriously. That this dogma is the central underpinning of the "Pro-life" movement is irrefutably established:

THE SEVENTH-DAY CHURCH BENDS TO THE PREVAILING WINDS

Seventh-day Adventists are not immune to diabolical propaganda. Our only protection is in the Word of God. The following warning of Ellen G. White fits the circumstances of the abortion controversy, in which the propaganda plays upon valid moral convictions and reactive emotions:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20. The people of God are directed to the Scriptures as their safeguard against the influence of false teachers and the delusive power of spirits of darkness. Satan employs every possible device to prevent men from obtaining a knowledge of the Bible; for its plain utterances reveal his deceptions. At every revival of God's work the prince of evil is aroused to more intense activity; he is now putting forth his utmost efforts for a final struggle against Christ and His followers. The last great delusion is soon to open before us. Antichrist is to perform his marvelous works in our sight. So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures. . . (Great Controversy, p. 593.)

The tragic reality for too many of both lay members and the ministry of the world community of Seventh-day Adventists is that the propaganda has prevailed to obscure the distinction between the counterfeit and the true. They have not delved deeply enough into the Holy Scriptures to perceive the distinction. Superficial reading of the Bible will not provide the answer to the abortion controversy. Fifty years of progressive departure from the fundamental doctrines of the Advent Movement have come to this pass - that 2 Thess. 2:10-12 applies.

Bible texts are now being misapplied to bolster preconceived notions derived from the propaganda - the great lie. This is reflected in the agitation which culminated in the Annual Council meeting of the Executive Committee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in October, 2019:-

Amidst Growing Criticism, SDA Church Is Revisiting Abortion Position (update)

When it comes to abortion, Seventh-day Adventists range from providers to prominent pro-life advocates. Now the 21-million-member denomination is revisiting its position on the controversial issue.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has announced that it is considering revisiting its pro-choice stance on the topic of abortion. According to a press release issued on August 29, the denomination's Biblical Research Institute (BRI) has been studying the issue from a theological perspective for the last two years.

BRI has prepared a statement that "reflects Scriptural principles bearing on the discussion of abortion." The issue has been intensely debated in the church as some institutions have recognized the contributions of Adventist physicians who operate abortion clinics while other high-profile physicians have taken a strong stance against abortion. . .

The debate over the church's affiliation with the abortion industry became intense in 2013 when Christianity Today reported that La Sierra University, a 2,400-student Adventist liberal arts college in Riverside, California, had named its Center for Financial Literacy after Dr. Edward C. Allred Allred was the founder of Family Planning Associates, one of the largest abortion chains in the United States with 23 locations in California. According to the La Sierra University website, Allred, an active member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is "both the principal sponsor of the center and the inspiration behind its economic philosophy." According to the Family Planning Associates website Allred's business partner, Dr. Kenneth Wright, "pioneered the use of saline amniocentesis, a technique for terminating pregnancy safely in the second trimester." . . .

In contrast, Dr. Ben Carson, who currently serves as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, spent his career before politics performing life-saving procedures on babies in the womb. As the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland from 1984 to 2013, he performed the first successful neurosurgical procedure on a fetus inside the womb. Dr. Carson is also an outspoken pro-life advocate.

Pro-life Adventist Ben Carson Pioneered Neurosurgery Inside the Womb

Earlier this year, Carson gave an interview at CPAC 2019 about the subject of abortion,

"God has orchestrated an incredible situation where the egg and the sperm come together, and within a matter of 10 to 12 weeks, you can see the little fingers and the little toes, and the little nose, and the face, the heart is starting to beat," Carson said. "It's absolutely amazing."
"And then (the brain) goes on to develop very rapidly from there. Hundreds of thousands of neurons every single day… I've had the privilege of being able to operate on little babies that were 25, 26, 27, 28 weeks' gestation. I can guarantee you, they can feel, they can react… You have to give them anesthesia if you're going to cut them. They can also respond to comfort and to warmth."

"For somebody to say that's a meaningless bunch of cells," Carson said, "honestly is just totally ignorant.". . .

In 1985, protesters from a local megachurch gathered outside two Adventist hospitals in the Washington, DC area to protest abortion, according to the Washington Post. . .

While the church's official publications have avoided discussion of the abortion issue, pro-life Adventists have taken to the Internet to call on the church to revisit its position.

Jamey Houghton, the pastor of the Franktown Adventist Church in Colorado, wrote,

"With the evidence in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy, as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I have no choice but to be in favor of supporting the lives of the unborn if I am to stay faithful to God's word."

Adventist pastor and WhiteHorse Media director Steve Wolhberg released a 13-part television series entitled "The Abortion Controversy: Two Women Tell Their Stories of Hope and Healing." He has recently made the series available on YouTube.

Last month, Scott Ritsema, director of Belt of Truth Ministries, released a video, "Abortion: Are Seventh-day Adventists Pro-Life?" (YouTube), featuring prominent church leaders, including It is Written speaker John Bradshaw, General Conference President Ted Wilson, Pastor Doug Batchelor, and other key evangelists discussing their support of a pro-life position. . .

Last year, Adventist author Martin Weber, D.Min., and former associate editor of Ministry Magazine gave several reasons why he believes the denomination should revisit its guidelines in the North Pacific Union Gleaner . . .

Here it is worthy of note who Dr. Ben Carson really is! Consider Carson's opposition to separation of church and state and his support of the Religious Right claim that America was founded as a "Christian" nation, which is a historical falsehood. Ben Carson is a theocrat. It is noteworthy that he offers no scriptural basis for his position. Indeed, as The Abortion Controversy establishes by objective exegesis of the Bible, the issue cannot be safely resolved by passages of Scripture which only establish general principles of life. This is so especially since there are two specific references to aborting the fetus in the Bible. Ben Carson's description of the development of a fetus is an example of the persuasive power of imagery in the abortion controversy. It is worthy of note that those who support freedom of choice do not claim that at all stages of development the fetus is just "a meaningless bunch of cells."

As to the Biblical Research Institute, the motivation of this "think-tank" of the Seventh-day Adventist Church can be deduced from their engaging in dialogue with theologians of the Church of Rome as long ago as 2002. Notwithstanding the reason offered for the dialogue, it was a compromise of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's fundamental Bible-based antipathy towards the papacy. Of great significance is BRIs position on ecumenism, which is antithetical to the foundation principles of the Advent Movement:

Adventists and Ecumenical Conversation

The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not exist in isolation from other Christian communities. Social and religious trends in the Christian world impact us; they force us to decide how we should relate to those trends and changes. The Christian concern about the unity of the church, voiced particularly through the World Council of Churches, forces us to define where we stand on this important subject. Certainly, “no Adventist can be opposed to the unity Christ Himself prayed for.”

This article looks at the nature of Seventh-day Adventist involvement in the search for unity among Christians, as well as the doctrinal and theological parameters within which we operate in that search. It also briefly discusses the risks and benefits present in the conversations with other Christian bodies. . .

There is much debate in the ecumenical movement about church unity. Traditionally that unity has been understood as “agreement in the confession of the faith and mutuality in the sacraments and in the ecclesiastical office (ministry), common worship life in prayer, common witness and common service to all human beings, the ability to act and speak together in view of the concrete tasks and challenges, the local as well as the universal dimension of the ecclesiastical unity, unity as well as diversity.”

This far-reaching understanding of unity is incompatible with Adventist self-understanding, especially as Adventists see themselves called into being to be a reformation movement based on a particular prophetic role. The kind of unity expressed in the above statement ignores the damage that apostasy has inflicted on Christianity and, consequently, does not attempt to remedy it.

Hence Adventists are reluctant to be officially involved in the organized ecumenical movement.

Three specific models for unity have been proposed in ecumenical circles.

The first one, the Cooperative-Federal Model, is considered the most elemental type in that it does not address topics like communion of faith, worship, sacraments, and ministry. These are issues of great concern in the ecumenical movement (which is why some people refuse to call it a model of Christian unity).

This “model "consists in the development of a confederation or alliance of churches in order to work together on common interests. The identity and autonomy of each church is preserved and respected. Adventists have remained open to possible involvement in such a federation because it does not threaten the church’s message and mission. This is particularly the case in France, with our participation in the French Protestant Federation. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Risks

The Adventist involvement in interfaith conversations has never had the purpose of seeking unity with other ecclesiastical bodies. We have used such conversations as a means of sharing our true identity and mission with others, and as a way of eliminating misunderstanding and prejudices against us.

In that task the Council on Interchurch/Faith Relations of the General Conference has performed a significant role; it has been of great service to the Adventist Church and has represented it with dignity and respect. . .

Benefits

Despite the potential dangers, meetings with other Christians also come with potential benefits. Therefore we should not discourage, formally or informally, approaching other Christians and even non-Christian religions. . .

At such meetings we come to know each other much better and occasionally sensitive questions are asked behind the scenes, on the basis of the developing friendship. It is safe to say that these important questions would almost certainly not be asked in the more formal setting of the main meetings. Here witnessing takes a personal dimension at a moment when confrontation is at its lowest point. . .

Conclusion

Adventists have not isolated themselves from the Christian world and its search for unity. We have been selectively involved in conversations with other religious communities, not because we want to pursue unity on their terms, but because we want to make ourselves known and, at the same time, eliminate misconception. (Underscored emphasis supplied.)

What a self-deception it is to think that dialogue with apostates to gain their favor could be pleasing in the sight of God! Ellen G. White predicted the result:-

The heavenly Teacher inquired: "What stronger delusion can beguile the mind than the pretense that you are building on the right foundation and that God accepts your works, when in reality you are working out many things according to worldly policy and are sinning against Jehovah? Oh, it is a great deception, a fascinating delusion, that takes possession of minds when men who have once known the truth, mistake the form of godliness for the spirit and power thereof; when they suppose that they are rich and increased with goods and in need of nothing, while in reality they are in need of everything." . . .

Who can truthfully say: "Our gold is tried in the fire; our garments are unspotted by the world"? I saw our Instructor pointing to the garments of so-called righteousness. Stripping them off, He laid bare the defilement beneath. Then He said to me: "Can you not see how they have pretentiously covered up their defilement and rottenness of character? 'How is the faithful city become an harlot!' My Father's house is made a house of merchandise, a place whence the divine presence and glory have departed! For this cause there is weakness, and strength is lacking." . . . (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 8, Pp. 249-250)

We have seen this come to pass. If "the divine presence and glory have departed," how in the world can the deluded leaders of the Church withstand the guiles of Satan, whose power "now to tempt and deceive is ten-fold greater than it was in the days of the apostles?" The point cannot be over-emphasized that it is the Holy Spirit alone Who guides us into all Truth! The opposite is happening in the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

There will be seducing spirits and doctrines of devils in the midst of the church, and these evil influences will increase; but hold fast the beginning of your confidence firm unto the end.--Ms 61, 1906, p. 2. ("Hold Fast the Beginning of Your Confidence," June 29, 1906.) (8MR 345.2)

How many Seventh-day Adventists take this warning seriously? It requires acute alertness at a time when the condition of the laity is one of careless indifference to sound exegesis of the Bible.

ENSNARED BY THE ARCHDECEIVER

Before proceeding to consideration of the October 16, 2019, Statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Executive Committee, here is a brief look at three subsequent reports, all non-Adventist:-

BREAKING: Adventist Church approves pro-life position on abortion

On October 16, 2019, the Executive Committee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church voted at its Annual Council meeting [see Video] to adopt the position that "[t]he Seventh-day Adventist Church considers abortion out of harmony with God's plan for human life." The newly adopted position statement affirms that "God considers the unborn child as human life" and that "the principle to preserve life enshrined in the sixth commandment places abortion within its scope."
The document also states that "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. Personhood, human value, and salvation are not earned or merited but graciously granted by God." . . .

The adoption of a pro-life position does not imply that the denomination will become active in civil legislation on abortion-related issues but does provide internal guidance for church members and institutions. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Ironically, this report appears on a "Religious Liberty" website; but harmonizes with the Religious Right's activism for their brand of "Religious Freedom," which denies that of those who do not agree with them. Grotesquely, the website belongs to "Founders First Freedom," an atheist organization. This brings to mind Ellen G. White's warning that the "great error" of the immortality of the soul "lays the foundation of Spiritualism."

Seventh-Day Adventist Church Adopts Pro-Life Position: Abortion is “Out of Harmony With God’s Plan”

The Seventh-Day Adventist Church confirmed its solidly pro-life position in a vote Wednesday during its annual council meeting in Maryland.

The Christian denomination declared abortion to be “out of harmony with God’s plan for human life” in a new position statement approved by its executive committee, Religious Liberty TV reports.

The statement of belief affirms the value of babies in the womb and condemns abortion as murder under the sixth commandment. It states that “God considers the unborn child as human life,” and “the principle to preserve life enshrined in the sixth commandment places abortion within its scope.”

Some mainline Protestant denominations have abandoned Christian teachings on the sanctity of human life, but others, including the Catholic Church and Seventh-Day Adventists, hold strong to the core belief that every human life is valuable because he/she is created in the image of God. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Seventh-day Adventist Church Releases Official Statement: “Abortion is out of harmony with God’s plan”

In a statement released by its executive committee, the Seventh-day Adventist Church took a strong pro-life stance during its Annual Council in Maryland.

The four-page document states “human beings are created in the image of God” and “abortion is out of harmony with God’s plan.” No previous statement on the sanctity of preborn life had been written before this, according to the Adventist News Network. The last time guidelines on abortion had been established by the church was in 1992. Adventist World Church President, Ted N.C. Wilson said the 1992 guidelines gave a “far more limited approach in terms of a comprehensive view of the Biblical approach to this precious subject.”

The statement released by the Seventh-day Adventist Church takes the position that every child should be “loved, valued and nurtured even before birth.” Quoting from the biblical books of Genesis, John, Psalms, and Jeremiah, the statement outlines “life is a gift from God,” sacred and important. It goes on to give biblical proof that God considers the “unborn child as a human life.” (Underscored emphasis added.)

These non-Adventist websites are telling us that they understand perfectly the Seventh-day Adventist Church's unequivocal commitment to their ideology and all that it necessitates, although the first one cited does not expect the Church to become activist. Clearly assent to the ideology in which the immortality of the soul is central and indispensable is all that is required for their approbation.

The new statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on abortion follows precisely in the path of the Evangelicals, who for religio-political reasons decided to adopt the Roman Catholic position, which is entirely based on tradition. The Evangelicals then sought to find biblical justification for this decision. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has done the same, with the embellishment of numerous Bible texts on the general principles of life, quoted on the presupposition that the fetus is a life in being at all stages of development:-

STATEMENT ON THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF UNBORN LIFE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ABORTION

Statement on the Biblical View of Unborn Life and Its Implications for Abortion . . .

This statement affirms the sanctity of life and presents biblical principles bearing on abortion. As used in this statement, abortion is defined as any action aimed at the termination of a pregnancy and does not include the spontaneous termination of a pregnancy, known also as a miscarriage. . .

2. 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. “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:16) [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] In certain cases, God directly guided prenatal life. Samson was to “be a Nazirite to God from the womb” (Judges 13:5). [Cf. Stevens' reference.] The servant of God is “called from the womb” (Isaiah 49:1, 5). [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] Jeremiah was already chosen as a prophet before his birth (Jeremiah 1:5), [Cf. Stevens' exegesis,] as was Paul (Galatians 1:15), [Cf. Commentaries; (Bible Hub Commentaries)] and John the Baptist was to “be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15). [Cf. SDA Bible Commentary and Stevens Exegesis.] Of Jesus the angel Gabriel explained to Mary: “therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] In His Incarnation Jesus Himself experienced the human prenatal period and was recognized as the Messiah and Son of God soon after His conception (Luke 1:40-  45). The Bible already attributes to the unborn child joy (Luke 1:44) [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] and even rivalry (Genesis 25:21-23). Those not-yet-born have a firm place with God (Job 10:8-12; 31:13-15). [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] Biblical law shows a strong regard for protecting human life and considers harm to or the loss of a baby or mother as a result of a violent act a serious issue (Exodus 21:22-23) [Exaggerated interpretation which distorts the true meaning of the text; Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] . . .

4. God is the Owner of life, and human beings are His stewards. Scripture teaches 2 that God owns everything (Psalm 50:10-12). God has a dual claim on humans. They are His 3 because He is their Creator and therefore He owns them (Psalm 139:13-16). They are also His because He is their Redeemer and has bought them with the highest possible price—His own life (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). This means that all human beings are stewards of whatever God has entrusted to them, including their own lives, the lives of their children, and the unborn. . .

5. The Bible teaches care for the weak and the vulnerable. God Himself cares for those who are disadvantaged and oppressed and protects them. He “shows no partiality nor takes 1 a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving  him food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:17-18, cf. Psalm 82:3-4; James 1:27). He does not hold children accountable for the sins of their fathers (Ezekiel 18:20). God expects the same of His children. They are called to help vulnerable people and ease their lot (Psalm 41:1; 82:3-4; Acts 20 20:35). Jesus speaks of the least of His brothers (Matthew 25:40), for whom His followers are responsible, and of the little ones who should not be despised or lost (Matthew 18:10-14). The very youngest, namely the unborn, should be counted among them. . .

Implications

The Seventh-day Adventist Church considers abortion out of harmony with God’s plan for human life. It affects the unborn, the mother, the father, immediate and extended family members, the church family, and society with long-term consequences for all. Believers aim to  trust God and follow His will for them, knowing He has their best interests in mind.

While not condoning abortion, the Church and its members are called to follow the example of Jesus, being “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14), to (1) create an atmosphere of true love and provide grace-filled, biblical pastoral care and loving support to those facing difficult decisions regarding abortion; (2) enlist the help of well-functioning and committed families and educate them to provide care for struggling individuals, couples, and families; (3) encourage church members to open their homes to those in need, including single parents, parentless children, and adoptive or foster care children; (4) care deeply for and support in various ways pregnant women who decide to keep their unborn children; and (5) provide emotional and  spiritual support to those who have aborted a child for various reasons or were forced to have an  abortion and may be hurting physically, emotionally, and/or spiritually.

The issue of abortion presents enormous challenges, but it gives individuals and the Church the opportunity to be what they aspire to be, the fellowship of brothers and sisters, the community of believers, the family of God, revealing His immeasurable and unfailing love. . .

Only paragraphs in which the pro-lifers' catch phrases could be found have been quoted above. All of the paragraphs of the Statement except "2. God considers the unborn child as human life" are  general biblical principles with no specific application to abortion. Paragraph "2. God considers the unborn child as human life" is the one which follows the path of the Evangelicals in eisegetical application of certain passages of Scripture to the abortion controversy. (Ref. John V. Stevens' exegeses inserted within Paragraph 2 above.) The Bible texts which are not analyzed by Stevens do not support the findings of the BRI.

On Judges 13:5 - "from the womb" is not defined by the Bible Commentaries.

On Isaiah 49:1, 5 - "from the womb" is similarly not defined. However, some apply verse 5 as a Messianic prophecy, and Jesus is unique because of Christ's pre-existence.

On Galatians 1:15, - respected Bible Commentaries expressly contradict the application made by the BRI. On the expository side, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers states:

From my mother’s womb.—A comparison of other passages where this phrase is used seems to make it clear that the sense is rather “from the moment of my birth” than “from before my birth.” (See Psalm 22:10; Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5; Matthew 19:12; Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8.) From the moment that he became a living and conscious human being he was marked out in the purpose of God for his future mission.

Meyer's NT Commentary states:

ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου] who separated me, that is, in His counsel set me apart from other men for a special destination, from my mother’s womb; that is, not in the womb (Wieseler); nor, from the time when I was in the womb (Hofmann, comp. Möller); nor, ere I was born (Rückert); but, as soon as I had issued from the womb, from my birth. Comp. Psalm 22:11; Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5; Matthew 19:12; Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8 (in Luke 1:15, where ἔτι is added, the thought is different). ἐκ γενετῆς, John 9:1, has the same meaning. Comp. the Greek ἐκ γαστρός, and the like. We must not assume a reference to Jeremiah 1:5 (Grotius, Semler, Reithmayr, and others), for in that passage there is an essentially different definition of time (πρὸ τοῦ με πλάσαι σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ κ.τ.λ.).

Expositor's Greek Testament states:

Galatians 1:15. ἀφορίσας. Paul looks back on his parentage and early years as a providential preparation for his future ministry: this view is justified by his antecedents. By birth at once a Hebrew, a Greek and Roman citizen, educated in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Greek learning, he combined in his own person the most essential requisites for an Apostle to the Gentiles. He was further moulded by the spiritual discipline of an intense, though mistaken, zeal for the Law of his God, which issued in bitter remorse. By this career he was fitted to become a chosen vessel to bear the name of Christ before the Gentile world. He did not hesitate accordingly to regard himself, like Hebrew prophets of old (Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5, Jeremiah 1:5), as dedicated from his birth to the service of God.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states:

separated me … womb] ‘Set me apart from my birth,’ comp. Jeremiah 1:5. The good pleasure was from all eternity, the setting apart was at birth, the call was on the road to Damascus, the revelation, then and subsequently.

Other commentaries such as Barnes' Notes on the Bible, and Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible similarly explain the meaning of the term "from my mother's womb" to mean from birth. Note the linkage to Jeremiah 1:5 in the passages quoted above.

On Luke 1:15, - It is noteworthy that the BRI ignored the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (1956,) which states:

From his mother's womb. John's very existence was due to the will and power of God, and not of man. He came into the world with his assigned lifework, and was to be dedicated to God from the very first. It was possible for the Holy Spirit to "fill" John from birth because the Spirit had first been able to fill John's mother Elisabeth, directing and controlling her life. (Underscored emphasis supplied; cf. "John the Baptist . .")

As John V. Stevens pointed out, "since God predicted the birth and life of some persons, it is automatically assumed that they already exist somewhere other than on the earth." In other words, the assumption is clearly based on the idea of an immortal soul. The BRI has followed the Evangelicals by quoting Bible texts that make such predictions in support of the "pro-life" position. By so doing, they have endorsed the dogma of the immortality of the soul even before joining in the egregious error of attributing personhood to the fetus.

Having laid a very lengthy foundation, it is unnecessary to go into further examination of the October 16, 2019, statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's Executive Committee. "Res ipsa loquitur" ("the thing speaks for itself." It is clear that the Church has capitulated to Rome and all of her dogmas related to abortion. The document is spotted with the terminology of Rome and the Religious Right, as demonstrated by the underscored text above.

"It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy." Ellen G. White, The Signs of the Times, Feb. 19, 1894.

One thing it is certain is soon to be realized,--the great apostasy, which is developing and increasing and waxing stronger, and will continue to do so until the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout. (NYI, February 7, 1906 par. 1)