Posted by: adventlife | February 14, 2012

Arguing with a Pro-choice/pro/abortion blogger, by Nic Samojluk

One of my hobbies is to argue with pro-choice Adventists who believe that there is nothing wrong with supporting all or some of the views of pro-choice individuals. Personally, I can’t see how true Adventists can do this and still continue to claim that we are the “Remnant”ChurchofGod, which—according to the book of Revelation—keep the Commandments of God. Here is the response I posted yesterday to the arguments used by a blogger named Overaged:

Overaged Wrote:

“I would add that “Spectrum” is not “Adventist” just because they make the claim”

True! Spectrum has recently departed from the trail they initially set for themselves. They used to be more conservative and more faithful to the mission of the church. I remember that a couple of decades ago they published half a dozen articles dealing with abortion, and most of them did align with my views.

“This is correct Nic. When all is said and done with your issue here, people are left with no recourse, but to go to your book and your web site. This is what I have been saying all along.”

This is wrong! People have God’s Rule about the right to life of human beings which is found in Exodus 20, and they have everything published by our official “Ministry” magazine. There is no excuse today. Everybody can search the pages of said Adventist publication with a click of the mouse.

“Your references, the ones I have looked up, regardless of source, most often do not “prove” what you say they do.”

Proof is a toll order. Even scientific theories which are respected by most scholars do not provide an absolute proof. Nobody can give me an assurance that the sun will come up tomorrow. All we have is evidence, and our job is to weigh such evidence.

That is all we have. I performed my own investigation regarding what I describe as a definite change in our Adventist attitude towards abortion. No Adventist scholar I have talked to has ever tried to deny my conclusion. If you have contrary evidence, please share it with me.

“I am still mystified why you call your work “scholarly.” Number of references, mean nothing. But even if they did, the references to sources other than your own are far out-numbered by your own personal opinions. Your private interpretations.”

Every research ends with a private interpretation, but the main conclusion of my research has never been questioned by anybody so far. Do you want to be the first one? Be my guest. If the evidence you provide is convincing, I will be happy to make the proper correction to my study.

My thesis is that the Adventist has departed from the views about abortion espoused and strongly defended by our Adventist pioneers. Do you really believe that I am wrong? If you read my book, you can ignore my personal views and stick only to the sources I refer to. Are you saying that the evidence found in the quotations I cite suggest that my conclusion is wrong?

“My concern is already stated, we really are just being maneuvered into the position where you are THE authority on this subject.”

Good point! I do not consider myself to be the single authority on this subject. I am the first one to research this topic in an extensive manner and publish my pro-life conclusions in book form, but this does not make me an authority about abortion. I believe that George Gainer is a greater authority on this matter.

I stand on the shoulders of other great pro-lifers, and this is documented in my book. I don’t want to be the lone ranger and final expert on this topic. I would be delighted if others would conduct similar investigations, and I would be deeply curious about the conclusions they would reach.

I am hoping that my work may incite others to perform additional research, and if they reach different conclusions, I would gladly study their work to determine if I had been wrong.

I hope you and others would be challenged to do this, even if the evidence you gather were to prove me wrong! You probably have what it takes to do this kind of research, since you have shown a great deal of determination and do not easily yield to evidence without careful investigation.

If you embark on such an endeavor and conclude that killing innocent unborn children is an integral part of our “Remnant’s” mission to the world; if you discover that participating in this genocide will speed up the Second Coming; if you conclude that our church guidelines are an improvement over the Sixth Commandment of God; and if the evidence you accumulate provides convincing evidence that I am in error, I will gladly join you in the mission of killing more unborn children for the Lord!

“I don’t blame leaders for not responding to your off-balanced dogma and assault on many innocent people in the church on this issue.”

I respectfully disagree with you. I know from sources close to the leadership of the church that a revision of our guidelines may be in the works even right now. There are individuals among our leadership who are interested in this, but they prefer to remain anonymous right now.

They do not want to become the target of criticism yet and thus destroy their personal influence too soon. I have nothing to loose and everything to gain in terms of my faith in God and my need to be faithful to moral duty as the compass is to the North Pole.

“You embellish the fact that some doctors do not have very good principles on this matter into an allegation that all Adventists must be like this.”

Sorry to disagree! If you can cite where I have expressed such a view, please quote me! This is a clear distortion of my views. You may honestly believe that what you stated is true, but this does not make it true. I don’t recall having said this. If you think that I have made such a statement, please give me the reference and I will make the pro-per correction. Is this fair?

I have always stated that some of our hospitals have engaged in elective abortions with the full knowledge and blessing of our leadership—not all Adventist medical institutions and all Adventist doctors. Please, be careful in what you say about me.

You need to avoid unfair distortions of the views of those who disagree with you on some issues. You have a chance to correct this if you so desire! It would be a fair thing to do and it would build up your credibility.

“The Church has made it clear that they do not support abortion on demand, and neither you nor Doug can prove otherwise, not even by striving at gnats with terminology over “guidelines;” because the guidelines were published for a reason, not just for decoration of a web page.”

We are in full agreement on this point; I don’t know why you bring this up. I have made this very clear on multiple occasions. It is true that our guidelines state that the church does not condone abortions on demand; the problem is that the rest of the document negates this pro-life principle and the behavior of our church towards the hospitals who have been offering elective abortions on demand contradicts the lofty pro-life statements included in the first portion of the our “Guidelines on Abortion.”

What the church has done with this document was to please the two opposing sides in this controversial issue: pro-lifers and those leaning toward the pro-choice/pro/abortion position, and this was done with profit in mind. This is clearly documented in the writings of George Gainer which were published both by “Ministry” and “Spectrum.”

We need to remember what Jesus said about profit: “You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve God and Mammon.” We need to repent of this great sin against our Creator and Savior. Public sins must be acknowledged publicly. This is the only road to forgiveness.

“Nice little smoke screen here Nic. No one here has ever said anything about grammar or punctuation; I think you know full well the issues are nothing to do with this.”

There is no smoke screen in my statement. If you think that there are factual errors in my book, I will be delighted to make the proper corrections. I have made the same challenge to other critics in the past, and I am still waiting for any solid meat coming my way from those who are opposed to my views.

No one so far has provided me with any factual errors in my work or any errors in the manner I have interpreted the evidence I discovered in my investigation.

“So your “exception” is better than any other? How should the poor doctor then decide which one to save? Under your strictures, they could still be guilty of letting the wrong one live and murdering the wrong one.”

This problem does not belong to the physician, but rather to the pregnant woman. Since the unborn child cannot be consulted, then the only option is for the woman to decide whose life should be saved.

“That is an outright lie. I hold no reservations about saying so. I personally know some church leaders, and I know they would never in a million years come close to this kind of crime.”

I have solid documentation to prove my point. The fact that you know some church leaders who would not in a million years compromise on this does not negate what I have asserted. I know the way the church has treated pro-lifers since I am one of them.

If you desire some details, let me know; and I know the leniency the church has shown towards those hospitals which have killed unborn children on en elective basis by the hundreds. So, where is the lie you accuse me of?

“Right now; I see no reason to want your book Nic. What you already have here and on your site is enough evidence for me that you hold many issues against the church;”

The fact that I disagree with the pro-choice/pro-abortion policy of the church is not evidence that I am wrong in my views. The Bible, the historical facts about elective abortions performed by our Adventist hospitals, and the historical pro-life views of our Adventist pioneers are on my side.

You are very clever and very adamant when you talk about generalities, but you have shown to be very weak in solid evidentiary facts. I challenge you to give me some solid meat for me to chew on. Show me which views of mine and which facts are in error. If you do, use the Bible and the facts of history instead of prone to err human opinion and human invented traditions.

I am open to serious criticism. I have discovered that I can learn more from my opponents than from those who are ready to say amen to what I say. My critics are the ones who can help me strengthen any weak point I may still have in my view about this controversial issue.Good point! I do not consider myself to be the single authority on this subject. I am the first one to research this topic in an extensive manner and publish my pro-life conclusions in book form, but this does not make me an authority about abortion. I believe that George Gainer is a greater authority on this matter.

I stand on the shoulders of other great pro-lifers, and this is documented in my book. I don’t want to be the lone ranger and final expert on this topic. I would be delighted if others would conduct similar investigations, and I would b deeply curious about the conclusions they would reach. I am hoping that my work may incite others to perform additional research, and if the reach different conclusions, I would gladly study their work to determine if I had been wrong.

I hope you and others would be challenged to do this, even if the evidence you gather were to prove me wrong! You probably have what it takes to do this kind of research, since you have shown a great deal of determination and do not easily yield to evidence without carful investigation.

If you embark on such an endeavor and conclude that killing innocent unborn children is an integral part of our “Remnant’s” mission to the world; if you discover that participating in this genocide will speed up the Second Coming; if you conclude that our church guidelines are an improvement over the Sixth Commandment of God; and if the evidence you accumulate provides convincing evidence that I am in error, I will gladly join you in the mission of killing more unborn children for the Lord!

“I don’t blame leaders for not responding to your off-balanced dogma and assault on many innocent people in the church on this issue.”

I respectfully disagree with you. I know from sources close to the leadership of the church that a revision of our guidelines may be in the works even right now. There are individuals among our leadership who are interested in this, but they prefer to remain anonymous right now. They do not want to become the target of criticism yet and thus destroy their personal influence too soon. I have nothing to loose and everything to gain in terms of my faith in God and my need to be faithful to moral duty as the compass is to the North Pole.

“You embellish the fact that some doctors do not have very good principles on this matter into an allegation that all Adventists must be like this.”

Sorry to disagree! If you can cite where I have expressed such a view, please quote me! This is a clear distortion of my views. You may honestly believe that what you stated is true, but this does not make it true. I don’t recall having said this. If you think that I have made such a statement, please give me the reference and I will make the pro-per correction. Is this fair?

I have always stated that some of our hospitals have engaged in elective abortions with the full knowledge and blessing of our leadership—not all Adventist medical institutions and all Adventist doctors. Please, be careful in what you say about me. You need to avoid unfair distortions of the views of those who disagree with you on some issues. You have a chance to correct this if you so desire! It would a fair thing to do and it would build up your credibility.

 “The Church has made it clear that they do not support abortion on demand, and neither you nor Doug can prove otherwise, not even by striving at gnats with terminology over “guidelines;” because the guidelines were published for a reason, not just for decoration of a web page.”

We are in full agreement on this point; I don’t know why you bring this up. I have made this very clear on multiple occasions. It is true that our guidelines state that the church does not condone abortions on demand; the problem is that the rest of the document negates this pro-life principle and the behavior of our church towards the hospitals who have been offering elective abortions on demand contradicts the lofty pro-life statements included in the first portion of the document.

What the church has done with this document was to please the two opposing sidess in this controversial issue: pro-lifers and those leaning toward the pro-choice/pro/abortion position, and this was done with profit in mind. This is clearly documented in the writings of George Gainer which were published both by “Ministry” and “Spectrum.

We need to remember what Jesus said about profit: “You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve God and Mammon.” We need to repent of this great sin against our Creator and Savior. Public sins must be acknowledged publicly. This is the only road to forgiveness.

“Nice little smoke screen here Nic. No one here has ever said anything about grammar or punctuation; I think you know full well the issues are nothing to do with this.”

There is no smoke screen in my statement. If you think that there are factual errors in my book, I will be delighted to make the proper corrections. I have made the same challenge to other critics in the past, and I am still waiting for any solid meat coming my way from those who are opposed to my views. No one so far has provided me with any factual error in my work or any errors in the manner I have interpreted the evidence I discovered in my investigation.

“So your “exception” is better than any other? How should the poor doctor then decide which one to save? Under your strictures, they could still be guilty of letting the wrong one live and murdering the wrong one.”

This problem does not belong to the physician, but rather to the pregnant woman. Since the unborn child cannot be consulted, then the only option is for the woman to decide whose life should be saved.

“That is an outright lie. I hold no reservations about saying so. I personally know some church leaders, and I know they would never in a million years come close to this kind of crime.”

I have solid documentation to prove my point. The fact that you know some church leaders who would not in a million yeas compromise on this does not negate what I have asserted. I know the way the church has treated pro-lifers since I am one of them. If you desire some details, let me know; and I know the leniency the church has shown towards those hospitals which have killed unborn children on en elective basis by the hundreds. So, where is the lie you accuse me of?

“Right now; I see no reason to want your book Nic. What you already have here and on your site is enough evidence for me that you hold many issues against the church;”

The fact that I disagree with the pro-choice/pro-abortion policy of the church is not evidence that I am wrong in my views. The Bible, the historical facts about elective abortions performed by our Adventist hospitals, and the historical pro-life views of our Adventist pioneers are on my side.

You are very clever and very adamant when you talk about generalities, but you have shown to be very weak in solid evidentiary facts. I challenge you to give me some solid meat for me to chew on. Show me which views of mine and which facts are in error. If you do, use the Bible and the facts of history instead of prone to err human opinion and human invented traditions.

I am open to serious criticism. I have discovered that I can learn more from my opponents than from those who are ready to say amen to what I say. My critics are the ones who can help me strengthen any weak point I may still have in my view about this controversial issue.

More: ===> http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/523017.html#Post523017

More:===> If this topic is of interest to you, I suggest you secure a copy of the book I recently published entitled: From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventists’ Attitudes Towards Abortion from the printer. Here is the link: http://lulu.com. You will need to type my name, Nic Samojluk, in the blank “Search” space to access my book’s web page.


Responses

  1. Dear Mr. Samojluk

    You remind me of another freedom fighter whom I have quoted below. Many want to ‘discuss’ the issue of abortion as though this horrific act is an event of the past and warrants a retrospective casual sort of composure and subdued civility which shamelessly waters down this despicable act, yet, this is not some past happening from centuries ago – this is taking place in the ‘now’ and that calls for boldness, forthrightness and ‘state of emergency’ course of action: They’re butchering kids for crying out loud! Christians should not defend such barbarism let alone take part in this bloodthirsty evil disguised as a form of human rights practice. I will even go as far as saying that the opposite of Pro-Life is NOT Pro-Choice but rather – Pro-Death or even more closer to home: Pro-Murder.

    “On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD. [William Lloyd Garrison, publisher of The Liberator]”

    God Bless

    Trevor Hammond

  2. Trevor,

    Thanks for these brilliant comments. You sound like the type of leaders we desperately need in this hour of history when the forces of evil have infiltrated the ranks of the church called to proclaim the last message of warning to a perishing world. There is a need for revival and reformation in our Adventist Church.

    The task is enormous and the pro-life workers are few; nevertheless the Lord can save with a legion or just a few. Whether we succeed or fail is irrelevant. We need to perform our duty of warning our leaders that we need to repent of this great evil and then leave the results to the Lord.

    In this, we need to emulate what Mother Teresa said when asked whether her work was successful: “The Lord does not require of me that I be successful, but rather that I be faithful to my mission.”

    May the Lord bless you, and me, and all those who will be joining us in this, the most urgent mission of our time.

    Nic Samojluk


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Advent Life News

A service provided by adventlife.wordpress.com

adventlife

A News Service with a Focus on Life.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers

%d bloggers like this: