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

A great statement about this situation.

No one can dictate to everyone else if and when an abortion may be an option. All Christians oppose the principle. None the less, in this world of sin, the ideal is not always possible nor demanded.

A raped woman has the option to decide if she will bear a “bastard” child or opt out and get on with her Christian life.

The same for a 14 year old girl that her parents decide the same thing. And there are other situations that are also negotiable.

To call it “murder” with no qualification so you can impose your will on others and then try to heap guilt on those you deem murderers is despicable.

If you carry their bogus theory to its logical end, a woman who takes a “morning after pill” just murdered a human being. If it is murder at the end just before birth, then it is murder at the beginning.

It is rightly called “abortion” because it is aborting the process of pro-creation and not murder.

This does not detract from the seriousness of aborting the process unless there is a careful evaluation of the reason. And to practice abortion for simple convenience in the later stage of the process is not a viable reason.

None the less, God will judge and the church rightly understands the impossibility of defining exactly if and when an abortion may be an option. But the main point is that it is not murder as the hyper-conservatives would claim it is so they can heap guilt on anyone who does not follow their mandate.


I am sure it’s all part of TW impressing his world church base passing to them the impression that he is working hard, so hard that he deserves to be re-elected. It may end up working well for him!

I am sure you recall that it IS President Wilson’s dream to hand the
“Keys to the General Conference Building [the SDA church]” to
Like the next Pope, he wishes to be the last SDA church president.


Well Steve, this dream may come through for him. If he is allowed a 3rd mandate (God forbid!) he may as well finally cause a big rupture in the Church, thus destroying the SDAC. In this sense, he is (will be) the last president of the GC.

By the way, he is the GC President. This is the title. He called himself President of the SDA Church a few times, but this is a corruption of his real title/position in the Denomination.


President of Both. I don’t believe that is a slip of the tongue.
It is the position he has taken, and that is why so much energy
to get Unions “dissolved” and to control the minds of Theology
and Science Teachers and teaching in our schools, elementary
to Post Graduate. The energy exhibited to keep women from
standing in front of the churches, and to keep the church “pure”
from “undesirables” sitting in the pews, and certainly NOT
baptized as members in good and regular standing.
Past GC presidents didn’t seem to get into these areas so much.

1 Like

To the Editor’s of Geosciences Research Institute,

I concur with your assertions that we should use the bible as a means of determining a sound basis on how to handle the issue of Abortion. May I suggest some verses.

But, as your name suggests, I think you need to do a bit “more research” into this before you go jumping into this fire.

Here are some texts you might want to consider:

Exodus 1 - God kills off all the first born male children in Egypt. Exodus 21:22-25 An pregnanted women who is injured and looses the baby, the perpetrator must “pay the father of that unborn a fee”. But he is not considered murderer. Numbers 5 The entire chapter is about how the Priest, or God (take your pick) destroys a fetus of a woman who cheats on her husband. Numbers 25 is about a total disregard for life. Deuteronomy 2 The total annihilation of Hebron including children. Deuteronomy 7 The total annihilation of the inhabitance of Canaan including women and children. Deuteronomy 21 Mandates stoning to death rebellious children. Deuteronomy 22 Kill the women who cannot prove they were virgins on their wedding night. Deuteronomy 25 The total annihilation of the Malikites including women and children. Joshua 11 Every man woman and child in Canaan were killed including even the animals. Judges 11 Jephthah, because of a vow he made kills his own daughter. Judges 19 A sick story about a Levite who’s concubine was raped by the Benjiminites while the Israelites of the town try to sodomize the Levite much the same as what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. He cuts her into pieces and sends them to the 12 tribes of Israel. 1Samuel 15 Where Samuel commands the slaughter of all the Amalekites including women and even little children. Then king Saul does not kill the women and children…this makes God angry. 2Kings 1 Elisha calls down bears from the woods to maul and kill 42 youth who mocked him. Psalms 137 Revenge against Babylon and expresses a desire to dash their infants against the rocks. 2Kings 8:12 Elisha prophecies God will crush the heads of their babies and rip open their wombs. 2Kings 15:16 Israel destroys Tiphsah and kills all while ripping open pregnant woman with a sward. Isaiah 13:18 of Babylon, They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb. Jeremiah 44:7-8 They will kill all, even the baby’s in arms. Hosea 9:10-16 God will punish Israel by destroying their unborn children, at birth, or in the womb, or never conceived. Hosea 13:16 God’s warning…their babies will be dashed to death against the ground; they will open their pregnant women with a sward.

These texts don’t bode well for the sanctify of life. There are probably many more but…who would need more? But I am not even going to touch on the fact that there are a dozen versus that say the beginning of life is breath.

You just enjoy telling that young 13 year old who was raped by her uncle that she must drop out of school go to that unwed mothers home. Or that mother who has just been told by her physician that she may very well loose her life if she carries that unborn to term, so get her will in order. Or the women who has been shown the ultrasound of a horribly deformed fetus within her belly that has virtually no chance of survival but she must carry it to term. These are all circumstances I have personally had to deal with so yes…they do happen.


Classic opening. Love your post.

Right. Which isn’t very scientific, but represents the biblical view of life, which we should discount no more than the biblical view of any other teaching. If the church chooses to take creation and the flood literally (both of which are hugely dubious when using a bit of science) then why discount the bible’s books in this case, on the scriptural nature of life? I can’t think if a logical reason to do so.


Does it take only women to interpret the bible

After the WOMEN develop THEIR statement,
Men could be allowed to make theirs regarding the statement.
BUT women have more invested in this issue than ANY MAN.
We have MANY intelligent Women Theologians in the SDA
Denomination who can interpret the Bible just as well as
some Man on the Committee.
So REALLY, the Man on the Committee is Unnecessary!!


If we were all spiritual people this topic of abortion would not come into our mind. If it is treated through mundane eye it is another issue. Jesus was caught up with this issue when they brought him this woman in adultery. If he had said woman you are guilty this would have depicted a Saviour without compassion and love. On the other side Jesus didn’t tell her go on with adultery. He told her do not sin anymore. I do not condemn you. Through spiritual eyes, abortion is not allowed. Whatever means or ways this woman got pregnant in the eyes of God she is still his beloved daughter. There is still a room and hope of making things better. God in his infinite wisdom is not limited to help this poor woman and forthcoming adorable baby. To some extreme side if she committed abortion she has still a room of salvation. No condemnation at all. Church should not give black and white opinion or policy on abortion. This is personal decision. Christians or children of God should instead find a way of helping any victim in this word of the devil instead of condemning her. Every burden will fall away from our shoulders when we let God rule the universe. Using our limited knowledge it is not possible to solve all social problems under the influence of the dark forces. But through God’s wisdom everything is easy to find a solution.

Reply to Lindy

But since you did sort of touch it, I’ll add some observations:
If this link works it will list even more than the dozen that you mentioned were there.

The important one of course is Gen 2:7
“God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul”
I believe this to be an accurate description of the way the first man came into being.
I, myself, have a different story about my first breath. Unlike Adam who started as a lump of clay, I was born alive even before my first breath. I was very much alive, and fully human. It would have been very easy Immediately after my birth to deprive me of my first breath, but I would have been fully alive and human until my untimely demise had that been the case.
I tell that story just to illustrate that Adventists are wrong to apply the story of Adam’s creation to the embryogenesis of human babies and say that they somehow possess no soul or are not fully human, or whatever. Human embryos get their “breath” by cellular respiration at the cellular level and are alive and respiring even as the germ cells unite. To say or imply otherwise is to read more into Adam’s story than is medically and textually reasonable. Life’s beginning does not depend on a breath of air, it depends on the power of the Creator. Even a human can survive for a while without breathing air through the technology of ECMO.
Although I’ve heard Seventh Day Adventists use that verse as an argument, I rather doubt that it’s official SDA doctrine, seeing that the SDA Church is split on the issue.
Before his birth, John the Baptist in addition to his soul, possessed awareness and cognition. In fact he apparently even had intrauterine perception of extrauterine activity that was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit and his mother.
I appreciated your long list of OT atrocities that quite well demonstrated that the OT Israelites had very little respect for human life, especially Gentile life. It is a good list which I shall preserve. I will add to it their permissive rules on slavery which most Christians rightly oppose. They could and still do believe it is OK to enslave Gentiles and keep them forever.

Leviticus 25:44
“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.”
Leviticus 25:45
“Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.”
Leviticus 25:46
“And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.

New Testament Christians are Called to a higher standard of ethics. Christ gave us a new commandment; that we love one another. Most Christians rightly oppose slavery despite Leviticus. Many Christians also oppose elective abortion.

This is not a male female question. It is a human question of ethics and morality. And it does have every bit as much potential to split the denomination as does ordination, homosexuality, and questions of gender. Perhaps if the SDA Church can not agree on the treatment of unborn humans the denomination will be split by God Almighty.

1 Like

So where do we draw the line on what scriptures we except and what are we willing to ignore?

How about using some common sense reasoning in the case of this issue since there are obvious times when a woman and her doctor should be the only people making a DECISION on whether to carry a fetus to term or not. I have stated 3 instances I have personally observed…I am quite sure you and every other reader can site many more. The one size fits all approach is not only inhumane but downright barbaric. I think our currently stated position is a correct one. It doesn’t support the use of abortion as a means of birth control, but it does take a reasonable and humane approach to this sensitive subject. And it put’s the decision in the hands of the woman and her doctor.

I guess I should modify my original statement that we should use the bible to bring clarity to this subject…I was, obviously, being facetious, because the bible is anything but sympathetic to the sanctity of life, at least in the Old Testament.

The churches current statement, 1990’s version, is a very good statement. Let’s leave it alone.


Lynden-- not so much “split”
Just an AWFUL LOT of GUILT that the Unpardonable Sin was engaged
This is what this NEW Abortion statement is leading up to.


Reply to Lindy:

Well said Lindy!
I say that with all sincerity, and I actually agree with you on a lot of it.
Specifically, I agree with you that rape, life threatening pregnancy, and badly deformed fetus are all conditions that are well treated with abortion. In fact I have on more than one occasion provided anesthesia in a Catholic hospital for your case number 2, the life threatening pregnancy. So even in a Catholic Hospital, people will agree with you on that much.
I’m sorry for your patients who had to face these terrible things and I’m thankful for the comfort you offered them. It must be one of the harder parts of your job.
Also, I agree that the Bible, especially the OT, is not friendly to the sanctity of life. I think most SDAs believe that Prophet White teaches that Divine Revelation is progressive. She was adamantly against slavery, even though the Bible appears to condone slavery (as I pointed out in my earlier statement with the observation on Leviticus). Possibly abortion is like slavery in that we won’t find a clear guideline in scripture. I myself took an oath to do no harm. The ancient version of the Hippocratic Oath included a promise not to give a potion causing abortion. (Sometimes omitted today.)
Since the 3 unpleasant cases with which you described dealing would be easily approved in most SDA hospitals in most jurisdictions, I’m going to hope that your ladies got their surgery, unpleasant though it was.
NOW I must disagree:
The current SDA statement on abortion is fatally flawed in one point:
Although it renders lip service to the the high and noble concept of sanctity of life, and offers many excellent suggestions on how to approach the unpleasant problem of how to deal with the conflict between what a woman sometimes would choose and what the potential abortee would probably choose; it leaves the actual policy up to the local hospital boards (read Corporate hospital boards with money as a concern). This actually means the current policy is not actually a policy at all, but a mere suggestion. It’s local option.
Here is the political genius in the crafting of that document. It for a time made both corporate boards and the SDA laity happy until the SDA laity began to realize that SDA hospitals were doing as many elective abortions as any other hospital and occasionally more.
It is my belief (I hope I’m wrong) that the document may have been intentionally crafted to obfuscate the issue. It was political genius, but misleading. It led the fundamentalist laity to continue thinking that SDA hospitals don’t do elective abortions, but it allowed the hospitals to go on making money by recruiting physicians who demand the privilege to abort at their discretion.


Please allow me to clarify a point that I talked about above. I have never assisted in any kind of elective abortion. Although I have great sympathy with victims of rape and woman pregnant with massively malformed fetus, I was never involved with either sort of condition. Mine was a hospital practice that never did require my service for that. I have however helped save the life of several women with ectopic pregnancy. Nobody ever inquired whether the fetus was still alive because it was doomed anyway. Our concern was to save the life of the unfortunate women. Once the condition was diagnosed we were usually in a hurry to get to surgery before it bled a lot.

The primary issue that the GC must deal with is the question of elective abortion and whether there is any circumstance in which an SDA hospital can ethically terminate the life of a healthy fetus. The medical nuances will follow that.

By the way, I’m surprised that the SDA Church doesn’t have a similar debate about whether it is ethical for church members to join the military and kill people (quite often non-combatants) just because Uncle Sam has identified them as the enemy. I don’t believe our government always gets it right about who should be killed. What about Dresden? Hiroshima? Syria? Afghanistan? wedding parties? etc. etc? My greatest war hero is Desmond Doss.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.