Last November Loma Linda University's Center for Christian Bioethics convened a conference entitled "Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options." During three packed days the 150 to 300 of us who attended listened and responded to 35 papers representing, on the spectrum of opinions about abortion, variations that ranged from the strongly prolife to the moderately prochoice. (Probably few Adventists hold a liberal prochoice position.) While most of the presenters were from North America—several from Loma Linda University and its medical school—England, Denmark, Germany, New Zealand, Brazil, Jamaica, and Yugoslavia all had their representatives.
The first full day of the conference began with a description of the development of the fetus from conception to birth. Subsequent presentations covered such topics as biblical implications regarding abortion (the most frequently re curring topic, with representatives of both sides speaking to it), Ellen G. White and abortion, a history of the development of the church's current recommended guidelines, theological themes relevant to the question, public health perspectives, public policy and religious-liberty issues, policies in Adventist hospitals in North America, and Adventist policy elsewhere.
The presentations varied in quality as well as topic—though most evinced considerable thought and preparation — and some were more emotion-laden than others. With the number of participants, it was inevitable that some of the presentations would overlap, and they did—particularly when it came to the biblical passages, though many took differing positions on the same passages.
The conference was well balanced and fair. The two sides of the question were well represented both in numbers of presenters and in quality of papers. And all conducted themselves with Christian maturity, maintaining a positive, non-condemnatory atmosphere, even though many of the participants held strongly to deeply felt contrary positions.
The conference came to no conclusion regarding abortion. Its organizers did not intend to; they merely wanted to provide a forum for the discussion of an important issue the church faces. But though we found no final answer, we were able to discover a number of areas on which most, if not all, of us agreed.
We agreed that we regard the current wholesale practice of abortion in this country as tragic; that "preaction" is better than reaction (i. e., that we ought to teach the responsible use of one's sexuality, thus preventing many from ever being in a position where they would consider abortion); and that the question of abortion involves tensions between the matters of individuality and community.
In addition we agreed that we want our church to be a loving, compassionate, supporting community to those involved in abortion; that the laity, and not just church leaders, needs to discuss and be in on the church's decision-making regarding this issue; that the church may properly establish guidelines on abortion for its institutions; and finally, that the church needs to provide alternatives to abortion for those facing decisions regarding it. This latter category involves providing not just information about alternatives but providing the actual re sources—e.g., nonjudgmental spiritual, emotional, and financial support—that would make such alternatives feasible to the ones in trouble.
Besides these commonalities, the conference on abortion will leave one other tangible result. The papers presented are to be published in book form when the presenters have had opportunity to revise them, based on the reactions they received at the conference. (The book will be available sometime this year. To assure yourself a copy, stay in touch with the Center for Christian Bioethics, School of Religion, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92350. We also intend to announce its availability through Shop Talk.)
Commendations are in order here to those who participated in the discussion in such an honorable way, and to the Center for Christian Bioethics—and particularly its director, David Larson, who was responsible for this conference.
As Elder Warren Banfield, director of the General Conference's Office of Human Relations, pointed out during the discussion, in this age of democracy and individualism it would be unrealistic for church leadership unilaterally to reach a decision regarding abortion, formulate regulations, and expect the membership to acquiesce. Those who have not participated in the decision-making regarding such an emotive subject would be very unlikely to accept or obey directions handed down "from above."
In dealing with decisions on issues like this one, church leaders simply must bring the membership along with them. Doing so means making possible, through forums like the Loma Linda conference and the church's publications, an interchange that will eventually result in a consensus. The 1848 Sabbath conferences that established some of our major doctrines, the 1888 session in Minneapolis, and more particularly the Bible conferences and camp meetings that followed it, lend precedence to such an approach. —David C. Jarnes.
