Proposed Seventh-day Adventist Statement on Abortion

This article is one of the best I have seen. I had some trepidation when I was first reading through it, but I approve of it. This article is THE reason why I have decided to add to the conversation at Spectrum. I hope that the BRI will continue in its efforts to guide those in the church concerning the morality of abortion.

It is because an abortion will kill the unborn baby, though it is not at fault for the rape.

Perhaps if there had been an effective Abortion skill in the time
of David, Uriah and Bathsheba would have had a happy and long
life together.
God disapproved of the infant post-birth.
The new term would be Post Birth Abortion.

1 Like

Not all of us.

And also some of even the 10 commandments.

The 4th comes to mind:

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. [which is defined as…] Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.

  • Our pastors work. It’s their biggest day of work!
  • Out doctors and nurses work.
  • We do not seek to make sure all others residing in our towns do not work.
  • We do not rest on the Sabbath. We worship.

IMO it’s a terrible practice. Paul, a devout student of the Torah, thought of the Law as the entire law as expressed in the Torah. He very, very plainly wrote that Christians are not under the law, and to put one-self under part of the law made us subject to the entire law, and removed us from Jesus:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham [before the Law was given, and who was deemed righteous because of his faith] might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised [start following one part of the Law], Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law [the entire Law, not some sub-part, but the entire Torah]. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

-Galatians 3 & 5

It is likely that all of the NT writers, who were Jews, meant the same thing when they wrote of the “Law”.


I have never advocated, written, nor supported that abortion be the realm of women only.

My point is that the official statement of the SDA Church should have been co-created by men AND woman.

1 Like

You had one inserted years ago?.. :innocent: :innocent: :innocent:

Thanks for posting all those clarifying posts. Otherwise there would be an abundance of misinformation on this issue being posted on this site.

  1. I thank Phil Brantley for helping me to understand something which I otherwise find wholly inexplicable.

  2. This Statement is not thoroughly Biblical because it does not provide any Scriptural justification for the concessions it makes.

  3. There is no reason why this could not have been brought up three years ago or be brought up three years from now. Why at this Autumn Council?

  4. The Statement appears to be primarily the work of the BRI with some lines from the 1992 Guidelines and some other sources inserted here and there. At times it is therefore at odds with itself.

  5. Sola Scriptura? No! Prima Scriptura? Yes!
    It is impossible wisely to apply what the Bible says to our lives by studying only it. At the very least, we should also study the relevant biology, psychology and sociology. We must also listen to those who have personally faced these issues and then listen to them some more.


No. At the time I was the nurse manager of our hospital surgery.
It was a one day surgical procedure on this WOMAN.

1 Like

Oh… I understand better now… Glad the issue was properly clarified… :rofl:

1 Like posted this as a column on October 14, 2019 at:



"So, love the support of life from the church or leave it."

Empty words if the church actually does nothing after the conception takes place and let’s society deal with the messy issues.


Bruce, where is the church’s responsibility after the child of rape/incest is born?


I would like if church members would adopt the child if he or she is not wanted by the mother. We do have pro-life church members who have adopted children.
While I do not believe that a rapist should force pregnancy on a mother, neither do I believe that the rape is the fault of the unborn baby, and thus should not be punished.
I hope I answered your question. You are the first Seventh-day Adventist that I have discussed this with in a comment section.

1 Like

George –
I have met several mid-age men who have had to have Female
Hormone therapy for a while.
Those “Hot Flashes” and “sweating episodes” are NOT for me.
[I hope!!]


As far as I know, the North American Division of Seventh day Adventists
DOES NOT have an Adoption Agency.


I am pleased that you get to discuss this issue(s).

I am always happy to hear when individual members take it upon themselves to solve problems. Nonetheless…I think that it is negligence on the part of the SDA church (or any church) to deny that their corporate responsibilities if they adopt stringent “anti- abortion” stances.

1 Like

No, I think mainly this has come about because of EGW’s stance that the church was not to get involved in orphanages, etc. Of course, there was not the societal issues that we face today.

1 Like

I was unaware that EGW told our church not to get involved with orphanages. Do you know where she said this? I hope the changing societal issues would allow us to have the adoption agency Steve suggested.

1 Like

If we were to take a strict pro-life stance, what corporate responsibilities should be fulfilled by our SDA church. I have seen a suggestion by Steve Mga for the NAD to have an Adoption Agency. I agree with this suggestion.
Also, what would you like to see us pro-life SDA members do in our everyday lives that could, even in some small way, lower the number of abortions.

1 Like