Geoscience Research Institute Calls for a “Biblically Sound Statement on Abortion”

This well-intentioned but highly-flawed Statement by Geoscience Research Institute ironically misunderstands the biblical account of creation. The unborn consisting of human tissue is not a person. The requisites of a person are the material body and the breath of life. “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7 NIV. Accordingly, personhood begins at birth.

We should not allow science to predominate over the Word of God. Science has allowed us to see pictures of the fetus, analyze the inner workings of a cell, and behold the majesty of the heavens. But scientific knowledge should not be the basis of value judgments that lie outside the domain of science. No matter how awestricken we might be as we behold the wonders of nature, we err in claiming that such wonders are endowed with the image of God and are of infinite value. To accord personhood and human rights to a fetus is essentially an exaltation of nature that is alien to the teachings of Scripture. This exaltation of nature ironically undermines rather than affirms God’s exaltation of His special creation.

Scientific knowledge has lead to the dichotomization of the pregnant woman. She is no longer regarded, as Scripture regards her, as a singular living being, but as a person whose rights are in conflict with the alleged rights of the “person” in her womb. If the woman’s rights come from God, then how can she lose them by becoming pregnant? Her rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” exist whether she is pregnant or not, (as I quote the Declaration of Independence, which is founded on biblical thinking). Accordingly, the interests of the fetus, assuming the fetus has interests, must always be subordinate to the God-given rights of the woman. Yes, God knew Jeremiah before he was born, but He also knew him before he was conceived. This biblical passage speaks to God’s foreknowledge, not to when Jeremiah became a person. Yes, John the Baptist kicked inside the womb, but this story speaks about a supernatural event and does not purport to claim that the unborn possess the consciousness of a living being. In sum, Scripture does not confer personhood upon the unborn.

Certainly, there are ethical issues that a pregnant woman should consider. The Seventh-day Adventist Church can guide, so long as it does not take the position that the unborn is a person.


Six staff members. Five males with impeccable educational achievements and a female who serves as the Administrative assistant.

No bias here. :blush:


Elmer, I don’t get it, why are those guys giving any input into an issue that has nothing to do with their area of expertise?

I wonder if the GC asked them to write this statement just to make it appear relevant and important, thus validating what the GC wants to do. You know, some fake but helpful statement… :thinking::woozy_face::grin:


The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1858, was established to find answers “to philosophical questions about our origin and destiny and about our purpose for living” according to their mission statement. This reminds me David @dcread Fulcrum7 (ala GC) where questions must match their answers filed in their corporate “vault” or risk being described as a spam.



There are some who believe only a woman should be able to make a decision to abort, however if a man is going to be expected to pay child support if the baby survives he should also be able to ask her to abort the baby unless she is willing to forego monetary support. I think we’ve all seen occassions when a man was virtually begging the woman to have an abortion and she refused and the child was born anyway leading to lengthy court battles, etc. The decision should be made by all parties who might have a future interest in the payment and a child should be wanted by both parents, right?

Men or same-sex partners all have an interest at stake in whether a child is equally wanted.

Adventists tend to unnecessarily complicate things.


1 Like

I agree with you if we were in an ideal world. However, ours is less of the ideal world. In my clinical experience the female is mostly the person left with the bucket and the shovel to follow-up. The father normally is the absent parent and the mother is left to raise the child alone. Money does not confer responsibility. Having the commitment to be actively involved in parenting should guarantee responsibility and should require parental rights but if the father had the fortitude of being a parent to begin with he would be supportive of his partner and there would likely be no abortion issues.

Just my opinion.



You are so right.

It is usually the female who is villified, disfellowshipped, ostracized, blamed, and if some people have their way, prosecuted, incarcerated or executed. Certainly she is literally damned to hell by evangelicals, who seem eager to prosecute and punish under the law. Like our “stoning-the-adultress” predecessors in Bible times. This Geoscience Research Institute’s recommended statement brings us closer and closer to a church-mandated policy for such blame.

The father? Scott free.

Perhaps our book club should re-read “The Scarlet Letter.”


Sam –
I don’t know where you live, but in my area it is the Grandmother who
lots of times is raising the grandkids. Not because they want to, but
because they would get poor care otherwise, and because the
Grandmother IS OLDER, many times the kids don’t get the encouragement
nor the supervision NEEDED to become healthy kids in school, nor
healthy adults later.


And not that it is important but your opinion comes with little value to the brass at the top.

1 Like

Which is exactly why these committees should be populated with experts and professionals and with a balance of genders.


The last thing a dictatorship wants is balance or imput.


So true.

And an open press. Many voices.


Unfortunately, with a view like you have stated, that it is only the mother carrying the child who has “ownership” of the child that a male and female have made, one can only assume that she is also solely responsible for it in every way, including accepting the sex act. But, since courts are pressed for decisions regarding custody and financial support your view falls flat on its face. It took two to make the child and it takes two to support it, but if a mother chooses to kill her baby then where does that leave the father who may have been supportive and wanted his half to live? Sorry Mr. niteguy but your statement lacks total and complete logic.

1 Like

Or Kafka’s “The Trial”…

1 Like

In all my years as a child/adolescent psychiatrist, the primary reason mothers resort to abortion is because they would be left alone to raise the child. Having sex does not mean committing to raising children and even fathers will admit to this. Far from it. If the fathers were really supportive, they would stay committed and raise the child with the mother and abortion would be less of an option.


1 Like

shshsh –
In THEORY what you said about Males not married to the FEMALES they
impregnate might be true.
In PRACTICE there are THOUSANDS of Males who do NOT provide ANY
monetary support to either the woman OR their offspring.
Apparently you have NO friends in the Court Systems, NOR in the
Government Community Services offices of your local county or state.
Most custody cases find for the Mother unless there are real problems.
Another alternative for the Courts is to put children into Foster Homes.
I personally know of 2 families who took in an infant, the other older
child. And over time were allowed to Adopt them, and are raising 2 fine
A gay family [him & him] have 3 kids, boy, 2 girls. Have known them 4
years. Wonderful kids. All 3 kids participate in church services in the
Episcopal church. Nice to see them in their vestments assisting with service.
Have known other “him and him” and “her and her” parents of kids.
Much of the time, the Government takes the place of these “dead-beat
dads” [as they are usually called] with subsidized housing, food stamps,
and AFDC money payments, and Obama phones.
Much of the time the children caught in these situations have a lot of
problems reconciling who they are, can become a problem to themselves
and others, find their “Father Figures” in older guys, many who are gang
members. Become behind in school, become dropouts, may start smoking,
drinking, on drugs, shoplifting.
Their chances for good jobs is poor. And become troubled Adults if have not
found any intervention from people and places in the community. Are usually
unchurched, so that help system is not available to them because of non-
A lot do find intervention through the court system and wise judges. Wise judges
who see drug and alcohol in their behaviors will sentence them to so many AA or
NA meetings. Give them an attendance sheet that HAS to be signed at each
meeting and turned in to the Court. A LARGE percentage [%] of these DO FIND
their Higher Power, a new focus about themselves, find the ability to become a
rescued Human Being.
By the way, AA and NA is the LARGEST Religious organization in the world and
all it asks is – meet your Higher Power. Allow your Higher Power to take you
through 12 Steps. And Un-numbered Millions owe their LIFE to these Promises.
Alcoholics Anonymous, pg 83. As God’s people we stand on our feet, We are
going to know a new freedom and a new happiness. We will not regret the past
nor wish to shut the door on it. We will comprehend the word serenity and we
will know peace. We will see how our experience can benefit others. Uselessness
and self-pity will disappear. Lose interest in selfish things and gain interest in our
fellows. Self-seeking will slip away. Attitude and outlook upon life will change. Fear
of people and economic insecurity will leave us. Will intuitively know how to handle
situations which used to baffle us. Will suddenly realize that God is doing for us
what we could not do for ourselves.
Are these extravagant promises? We think not. They will always materialize if we
work for them."

Women impregnated by Men. THIS is why I SAY, it is ONLY a WOMAN’S
PROBLEM! And so should ONLY be addressed by Women!

PS-- By the way, do you KNOW of ANY SDA churches who sponsor AA/NA
meetings in their church at least 3 times a week?
I don’t know of ANY!! For one thing AA’s and NA’s drink coffee, eat donuts.
Most of them smoke, so need a smoking area outside.
I don’t know of ANY SDA groups that would allow these on the property.


Yes, there are plenty of sperm donors out there calling themselves “fathers.”


What is wrong with current statement? Seems adequate to me!


As the church is seeking relevancy before Next years conference, it does so without a Gospel base. Climate change,Abortion, WO, A popish GC, The Message Of the Three Angels is that the Everlasting promise has become the Everlasting Gospel Of Grace. Freedom from Guilt, leads to Gratitude, and Generosity. It is not a closed system.

Here are two thoughts for the GRI, the BRI and the committee to consider as they seek biblically based principles for what constitutes a life of infinite value:

  1. Although sperm and eggs can produce potentially sentient beings, apparently so can the dust of the earth (Genesis 2), the ribs of man (Genesis 3), donkeys (Numbers 22), the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13), and rocks and stones (Matthew 3 and Luke 3), and;

  2. We are called to worship the Creator, who is obviously not limited to creating life from zygotes, and not that which is created (Romans 1).