The abortion issue-

[SteveB]

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Quote:

---

NO ONE HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY "I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I AM FOLLOWING GOD'S WORD AND YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING GOD'S WORD". Because the fact remains YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, the best and ONLY thing you and I can do in this life is follow our personal conviction

---

Glenn, you are correct; if you are following your "personal" understanding of the Word, then you can never hope to get more then a subjective interpretation of it. The proverbial wise man say in Proverbs 3: 5 NOT to lean on your own, “personal” understanding. One of the things I love about the Bible is that it is God Himself speaking to us and that God’s points are direct and concise and not open to 20 different subjective views. I’m sorry Glenn, but to the degree we are convinced that our own understanding has no holes in it, is to the same degree with which we do not allow God to fill the gaps in our understanding.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living,

So what do we do? We make the Bible subjective to interpretation then we can weasel our way out of virtually any and all biblical reproof, correction, etc.

From a worldly perspective your opinion is nearly universal. From a biblical perspective it is absolutely invalid!

Murder of another human being can be justified and philosophized in the worldly view from practically any angle you like, he was abused, she was raped, etc, etc, etc, etc,. Nowhere, is the bible subjective or unclear on the sanctity of life.

[glenn]

Quote:

---

Nowhere, is the bible subjective or unclear on the sanctity of life.

---

... um ... WAR ... you know... the Iraqi war you support...?

... haven't I read somewhere that someone thought that body counts were indicitive of the "blessings of God" ...?

To retain credibility one must, above all else, remain CONSISTENT!

do'h! ...

[glenn]

I am not understanding whether you are attempting to give me an answer in all of that or whether you are just ignoring me - I still do not understand how you get from you opinion to the irrifutable "Word of God"? You provide no link save your opinion which is subjective whether you wish to admit it or not.

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

To

them

, all that matters IS the fetus. There is NOTHING there telling the woman her life and her feelings matter, no appreciation whatsoever for how all-consuming motherhood is and how it drastically impacts a woman's entire being, selfhood and life in a way it can never impact a man's because fatherhood just doesn't carry all those things with it that motherhood does.

---

How wonderfully absolute, assuming, judgemental, and Self-righteous.

Ya know, for one who is constantly rebuking others for their words and opinions to you, your comments to Shane, myself and others here, don’t resemble much of a gentle and quiet spirit and if you had something to wave, I'd bet, you'd be waving it!

I would like to clarify something for you. This applies to me as well as many of my conservative friends. My views about right and wrong, black and white, absolute biblical truth as opposed to relative or subjective biblical truth, and moral law as it pertains to scriptural truth, are conservative. This concerns what I believe to be right. I don’t think everything is subjective or open to interpretation. I don’t think murderers ought to go free because they were abused or are insane. I believe in absolute truth and absolute consequences, as it pertains to right and wrong, in this way I am a conservative. I believe in loving my neighbor as myself, bearing with one another in love, helping others in times of need, listening and being sympathetic to someone who is hurting, (could be over an abortion issue), in this regard, though I may believe in absolute sanctity of life, in dealing with a human being who is or was carrying another human being, my view is not anywhere near your assumption of “THEM” from the quote above. In this circumstance, I believe a liberal portion of love is in order, because being harsh, unkind, uncaring, heartless, cold, callous and indifferent are not fair assumptions for you to pin on ANYONE, much less make a broad sweeping generalization like you did above. All mankind, no matter what they’ve done or what they believe in, has been given free access to the Cross of Jesus.

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nowhere, is the bible subjective or unclear on the sanctity of life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... um ... WAR ... you know... the Iraqi war you support...?

... haven't I read somewhere that someone thought that body counts were indicitive of the "blessings of God" ...?

To retain credibility one must, above all else, remain CONSISTENT!

do'h! ...

---

By attempting to twist things about and set a trap for me, you have only sprung it on yourself. Do you realize, that by drastic miss-use of your own logic in an attempt to take my words out of context and turn them against me, you might as well also be saying God is inconsistent? God created us to be infinite beings, and to NEVER have to die. Then Adam disobeys God and God sentences him to death. Then God says thou shall not kill. Then God tells His people to kill everyone. Then God comes and tells everyone to turn the other cheek.

C’mon Glenn…. You can do better if you try! To make a proper argument you should at least ATTEMPT to stay within context.

Life is sacred. God created it. Murder is covered in the commandment! Killing is not murder, otherwise those we send to war should be tried for murder when they return.

This is one of the logical things you have to deal with on an IQ test. “How can killing not be murder if murder is killing?” Can you figure it out Glenn?

Good luck.

[SteveB]

My opinion is based on the Word of God. You call it subjective if you like. I call it objective and correct. But then again, I'm not as confused about the whole issue as you are.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Ya know, for one who is constantly rebuking others for their words and opinions to you, your comments to Shane, myself and others here, don’t resemble much of a gentle and quiet spirit and if you had something to wave, I'd bet, you'd be waving it!

---

That is because, Steve, the way you are posting things is exactly the way some of us have been spiritually abused, verbally abused. And quite frankly, the new movement within the church is to take those who are abusive, and give it back to them all the while telling those abusers that it is enough.

So, since you are using the same techniques that have been abusive, I suggest that you change tactics. I suggest that you take a more questioning role, and a more concillatory role, and allow more in the way of open discussion, instead of using the same tired arguements that hold no weight with any thoughtful student of the bible.

Quote:

---

My opinion is based on the Word of God. You call it subjective if you like. I call it objective and correct. But then again, I'm not as confused about the whole issue as you are.

---

Really???? I have never seen the world in as black and white judgmental terms as you have discribed. O well, that your loss and not mine....

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

That is because, Steve, the way you are posting things is exactly the way some of us have been spiritually abused, verbally abused. And quite frankly, the new movement within the church is to take those who are abusive, and give it back to them all the while telling those abusers that it is enough.

---

Let me summarize what I understand from this statement:

1. The manner in which I post is spiritually and verbally abusive. If I have come across in this way, it was never my intent and I humbly ask for forgiveness. If what I perceive and present to be true from a biblical stand point offends you, then I make no apology whatsoever.

2. The new movement? I don’t understand.

3. “take those who are abusive” which infers to yourself, and be abusive in return which refers to me or the “new movement” while at the same time telling those who are originally abusive (you), to knock it off? I have to rephrase this to make sense out of it. You hit me, I hit you back and then tell you we’re even. OK, now I get it, so what’s your point? Who’s NOT at fault – you? Me? I certainly don’t claim to be above reproach. Do you?

Quote:

---

same tired arguements that hold no weight with any thoughtful student of the bible.

---

You and your “ilk” to quote another abusive poster, frequently go so far as to make broad, sweeping generalizations, and absolute statements to make my and my “ilk’s” view seem worthless, thoughtless, tired, un-intelligent, useless, empty and hollow.

I guess your smart and I’m stupid. OK, no problem. I don’t stand on shaky sinking sand so if you attack me, call me names, tell me my viewpoint is meaningless and “tired” I will stand steady where I am and I won’t start crying about it!

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

If what I perceive and present to be true from a biblical stand point offends you, then I make no apology whatsoever.

---

And that's the problem that you don't understand.

You are not gonnna make any appology for taking what you believe to be a 'biblical standpoint'. In fact, you are willing to be offensive in your 'biblical stance'. What you don't understand is that others have also taken the same stance. And you know what? you automatically set yourself as "the standard" Christian. So, when we see,[ and we all do this,] the hypocracy of your life, you give all Christians a bad name. And I am sorry, but when you say the above, you do set yourself up as the standard for all christian , whether you like it or not. And you ARE being offensive.

Quote:

---

2. The new movement? I don’t understand.

---

Welcome to a kinder and gentler church, Steve. You abuse someone, you are held accountable.You are told to knock it off. If you continue to be abusive, you get shunned by those who don't want to have much to do with you. At least by me, you have been warned.

Quote:

---

“take those who are abusive” which infers to yourself, and be abusive in return which refers to me or the “new movement” while at the same time telling those who are originally abusive (you), to knock it off?

---

Hey, don't make into a gordian knot! Don't try to twist things around. Take what you can to make life on this board more positive. We hold adventist's philosophies accountable here. If you post something that many of us disagree with, we will tell you and why we feel it is wrong. The idea is to make people here look at themselves and make changes that are positive.

If what I say here makes no sense to you or does not apply to you, ignore it. But you must listen to what I have said. You just don't have to take my advise....

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

Do you believe that YOUR interpretation of the scripture is the ONLY possible interpretation one can have and still be sincere in one's faith?

---

No - My own interpretation is irrelavant, I am still learning to listen to God. I don't always get it right but I'm learning. I believe in the Holy Spirit's ability to direct me into all truth. In order for this belief to be effective I must listen.

Quote:

---

Do you believe that YOU are the end authority as to the "correct" interpretation of scripture?

---

No - My own interpretation is irrelavant, I am still learning to listen to God. I don't always get it right but I'm learning. I believe in the Holy Spirit's ability to direct me into all truth. In order for this belief to be effective I must listen.

Quote:

---

Are you willing to not only JUDGE opposing interpretations of scripture as "INCORRECT" but force those holding those views to abide by YOUR interpretation through SECULAR LEGISLATIVE COERCION?

---

No, Who said anything about coercion? Your paranoid.

Quote:

---

Does the colour "RED" look the same to YOU as to EVERYBOBY ELSE?

---

Yes & No.. lol.. this depends on whether or not one is colour blind.

I failed as far as a “simple” yes or no, but I find it remarkable; as generally liberal as your point of view is, you left no room for qualifiers. I had to give them to you anyhow.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I failed as far as a “simple” yes or no, but I find it remarkable; as generally liberal as your point of view is, you left no room for qualifiers. I had to give them to you anyhow.

---

Hmmmm. I would have said that you just don't want to be "pegged" except as a conservative and being 'right' all the time....

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

If you post something that many of us disagree with, we will tell you and why we feel it is wrong. The idea is to make people here look at themselves and make changes that are positive.

---

OK, I confess, George Bush is an utter and complete hypocrite and we should all vote for Kerry. Gay marriage is ok by me and should be a matter of choice, as well as abortion as well as any other sicknesses in our society mainly because of my erroneous belief that the bible is objective rather then subjective and if we do what is right we may inadvertently usher in the national Sunday law; hence, the bible is totally subjective and meant to be interpretated by the individual and not the Holy Spirit. I repent of my fallacious views. Pulease forgive me for having disagreed with you on objective matters of truth that should have been totally subjective according to the belief / situation / spin.

Would this be the “positive changes” you are speaking of?

Forgive me for the sarcasm, but I just don’t get your ideology. My brain does a serious double take when I read some of this stuff. That’s just me. Is that so terrible? I am on the other side of the coin and I am merely stating what and why I believe what I believe.

This thread is on the abortion issue. I am totally and 100% against taking an “innocent” human life with intent. That is my stance. If the biblical Commandment argument is a “tired argument”, it is because the bible has been around for longer then you and abortion, and the bible’s stance on murder will not change. It is not subjective to assimilation of situation, circumstances, or “personal view”. As to the human being who seeks out this method, It is not my place to judge the individual as being unworthy of Jesus’ sacrifice and forgiveness as a result of ANY faulty actions in their life. I have my own plank that buggers up my eye. And I agree with you, many Adventists are unkind and unfairly judgmental of others, so don’t miss-understand me, I am weighing in on an Issue, I am in full disagreement with much of what I read but I am in no way condemning any person, only what I see as erroneous and miss guided "beliefs".

The New Movement which you speak of is fine and wonderful. I accept you as a person whom Jesus died for and seeks to save and bring to the kingdom, and I admit that mostly everything else discussed and disagreed on in here is irrelevant to salvation.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I am sorry Shane, but your interpretation of the text doesn't support the context of the passage.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

We are discussing the Bible, Brother Neil. It is one thing to spin political issues but when spinning the Bible one is on holy ground. The NKJV seems the best translation of the verse I have seen. To place in in context, we need to compare not so much different translation but different texts. Verse 22 starts with two men that are fighting. The fight does not involve a woman. Yet it address what should happen if a pregnant woman is hit. The only reason this direction is needed is because the woman is pregnant.

Now obviously if one man kills another or kills a woman he will be put to death. This is stated in verses 12-14 and again in Lev. 24:21. The death sentence is also to be given for striking one's parents (v.15), kidnapping (v.16), cursing one's parents (v.17) and allows for vengeance to be taken if a man kills his slave (v. 20). Verses 22 and 23 now deal with the unintentional murder of what? A woman or an unborn child? Numbers 35:11 and Deut. 4:42 sentenced a manslayer to banishment not death. So if Exodus 21:23 refers to the woman and not the unborn child why is the penalty death? Yet there is no reason in the text for us to believe that it refers to exclusively only one or the other.

Here is Gleason Archer's, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, perspective:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Here is another commentary from Keil and Delitzsch (Pentateuch, vol. 2, pp. 134f.):

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by arbitrators. . . But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Here is another from George Bush [not the President] (Notes on Exodus, vol. 2, p. 19)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If the consequence were only the premature birth of the child, the aggressor was obliged to give her husband a recompense in money, according to his demand; but in order that his demand might not be unreasonable, it was subject to the final decision of the judges. On the other hand, if either the woman or her child was any way hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation at once took effect

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[darlene]

I thought I would add an article which was in one of our local newspapers yesterday. Over the last few years the writer has won several national journalism awards and just happens to be an Adventist. I think she was very brave to write this article and have it included in this paper which has a circulation of over 100,000.

Nothing liberating about abortion

By Trudy Beyak The Abbotsford & Mission News - August 7, 2004

A beautiful woman I know had an abortion about 15 years ago, because of counseling pressure from so-called professionals.

Each anniversary date of the abortion she thinks about her soft little baby girl who had all her little fingers and toes perfectly in place.

A saline solution killed her unborn child and she happened to see the little girl when she was born dead.

Every time my friend talks about her baby, she cries. I cry with her. You see, my friend was encouraged to “exercise her right to choose.”

In fact, she was under extreme duress and pressured by counselors.

If she could only relieve that day, she would make a different choice.

I read with interest the recent controversy about the Planned Parenthood organization selling T-shirts proclaiming, “I had an abortion.”

It gave me pause to think about my friend and an interview I had with Wendy Barta, the founding director of Feminists for Life, Canada.

Contrary to popular thought, not all feminists are pro-abortion.

Barta said it is ironic that abortions are touted as a progressive step for women’s rights when, in fact, abortions are especially hurtful to females.

Make no mistake about it, women know instinctively that having an abortion is an act of violence against their unborn baby, she said.

Some ethnic groups use abortion to selectively kill unborn girls, not boys. And abortion counselors don’t warn women that an abortion can cause them psychological pain for the rest of their lives, she noted.

More often than not, said Barta, a woman wakes up after an abortion knowing, “I killed my baby.”

Post-abortion syndrome is a recognized psychological disorder because women experience guilt, anxiety, depression, loss and anger after an abortion.

Wearing a cheap $15 T-shirt won’t erase the pain.

Barta said abortion is a form of “grave discrimination” against women and mothers, and women certainly don’t have abortions for the fun of it.

Most women don’t really want to victimize their child, but they often feel enormous pressure to do it, said Barta.

And that’s a huge part of the problem.

The true spirit of feminist philosophy embraces all humanity, especially anybody in a position of vulnerability – women, minority groups, children and unborn babies, she said.

I agree with Barta.

If newspapers published pictures of aborted unborn babies the way they print photos of war and accident victims, or newscasts showed footage of actual abortions, it wouldn’t take long for people to be repulsed and abortion would be illegal.

But we censor those photos and video clips, blinding our eyes, avoiding the truth.

During a “dilation and extraction” abortion, for example, an abortionist jams blunt scissors into the skull of an unborn baby, sucks the brains out with a suction catheter, then crushes the baby’s head.

That’s the reality of an abortion. It is obscene beyond description.

Abortionists dismember babies, and remove body parts, piece by piece, or slip them out by using a salt solution to kill the baby.

And, if that doesn’t turn your stomach, aborted human parts are often sold for medical research and scientific experimentation by male-dominated biomedical corporations for profit.

Human blood runs. Human bodies are broken. Human cartilage is crushed.

Women may have the legal right to allow abortionists to do this to their unborn babies, but I don’t believe for one moment that women are “liberated” by that right.

[Gail]

Go, Trudy!

[glenn]

Quote:

---

Life is sacred. God created it. Murder is covered in the commandment! Killing is not murder, otherwise those we send to war should be tried for murder when they return.

This is one of the logical things you have to deal with on an IQ test. “How can killing not be murder if murder is killing?” Can you figure it out Glenn?

Good luck.

---

Thanks for the encouragement SteveB. Let's see how I go?

You are correct in suspecting that my post was not merely what it appeared to be - I was interested in your reaction to my pointing out an apparent discrepancy between Biblical statements you were using for this argument and other stances you have taken on other issues.

You naturally took me to task for not exploring the issues deeply and not taking the time to understand the unique intricacies of each separate issue. In other words you objected to my taking the words as "ABSOLUTE" without any applied "INTERPRETATION". This action, of course, makes my new understanding of the issue "SUBJECTIVE". My first point is this: by processing anything to gain an insight/understanding etc any ideas subsequent to the action of mental processing are to some extent "SUBJECTIVE". This phenomenom is related in the scientific comunity to ideas such as "the observer changing the result of an experiment through the action of observation" and the idea that "nothing exists until measured". Whether we are comfortable with it or not - without external devices of verification the Human condition is completely SUBJECTIVE. Thus, what I know of as "RED" may not in fact bear ANY resemblance to ANYONE ELSE"S experience of "RED". I WILL NEVER KNOW! Think about how that may impact my/your/them/us ideas of "TRUTH".

So, next point:

In your defence of the discrepancies in the "Sanctity of Life" issue you make the statement "Killing is not murder" and use one of the philosophical conundrums that you do find in IQ tests to illustrate my error.(were you having a go at my apparent lack of intelligence? Shall we get together later behind the lunch - shed and compare IQ scores? I have a couple to chose from ...) The assumption you make is that I must agree with the statement "Killing is not murder" or your argument doesn't hold.

Let me point out two things about the way I have represented myself on this site so far:1. I have NOT stated my PERSONAL view of ABORTION and 2.I have not revealed my PERSONAL philosophy regarding LEGAL KILLING vrs MURDER.

So, time to out myself as regards number 2. I have for many years now lived my life according to what the Buddhists and Hindus term "ahimsa" which essentially is to recognise the sacredness of all life and avoid doing harm or violence. My personal philosophy does not distinguish between "killing" and "murder" - I do not believe in either. I do not believe in War. I do not believe in self - defense. I do not believe in the use of violence. I do not believe in the western "logic" you speak of embeded in culturally specific forms of SUBJECTIVE intelligence measuring. You ask "how can Killing not be murder if murder is killing?" and for me the answer is simple: IT CAN NOT.

Having said that - I do believe in the ever continuing need for us to evolve our forms of Govt. and to protect what we have already achieved in this area. I do not believe that ANY of my PERSONALLY held views should be embeded in LEGISLATION as these are PERSONAL CHOICES I have made for myself. Of course I will argue certain subjects from the view point of my beliefs but I recognise that many of my choices are very radical for Westerners.(In certain Asian communities they are not so far from the "mainstream".) So I confine my sharing of my beliefs to discussions such as this, and by general example in my own behaviour. I do not seek to codeify my beliefs in the Law of the Land.

My point is still this: LEGISLATION BASED ON VIEWS HELD FOR RELIGIOUS or PERSONAL CHOICE REASONS IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO ONE OF THE BASIC TENENTS UPON WHICH ALL OUR WESTERN DEMOCRACIES ARE BASED - THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Are you following this SteveB? I am NOT conducting a MORAL debate here - this issue is really a debate about the validity of your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

I believe in your right to hold your views. I also believe in Nico's right to hold hers and still remain INSIDE the LAW.

and No I am not suggesting that God is inconsistent but I am suggesting that there certainly are inconsistencies in scipture - more troubling to those who wish to use examples of behaviour from the Old Testament rather than embracing the simplicity of the message of the Gospel and the example of behaviour set out therein.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

My point is still this: LEGISLATION BASED ON VIEWS HELD FOR RELIGIOUS or PERSONAL CHOICE REASONS IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO ONE OF THE BASIC TENENTS UPON WHICH ALL OUR WESTERN DEMOCRACIES ARE BASED - THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This reflects a faulty understanding of seperation of church and state. Seperation of church and state simply means the church does not play an official role in the civil governemnt. That does not mean the church (any church) cannot advise the civil governments. It means that the church doesn't have a vote. This is because history shows us every time a church is given an official role in government that persecution results. Religious liberty allows citizens to choose which church (if any) they will belong to.

Seperation of church and state can be summed up like this:

• No official state church is established
• No requirement of church membership to hold office
• Free exercise of religion is allowed

If one reads the logs of the US Congress they will discover the Bible has been quoted in Congress since the nation's beginning and still is. Chaplins offer a prayer at the beginning of each day.

A liberal position has been that the civil government is establishing a religion when it posts the Ten Commandments in a government building or displays a nativity scene in front of a court house. While in one respect that could be construed as establishing a religion, many just see that as respecting religion - there is a difference.

Laws are morals and there is no getting away from that. The reason we have speed limits is because speeding makes accidents more likely and deadly. The speed limits are established due to the value society places on human life. Tax laws are based on what society believes is fair. Poor people pay very little tax while the rich carry the largest portion of the tax burden. That is clearly a moral issue. Society believes those who have been blessed have a greater responsibility to give back. Obviously the prohibitions on murder, rape and stealing come right out of the Ten Commandments. Laws against child abuse are based on morality. Laws are legislated morality.

The Seventh-day Adventist church has no problem with governments legislating morality as long as the laws are restricted to regulating man's behavior in regard to his fellow man. The Seventh-day Adventist church believes civil government does not have the right to pass laws that regulate man's behavior between him and God.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Would this be the “positive changes” you are speaking of?

---

In keeping with the context of this discussion, the answer is "No."

Quote:

---

Forgive me for the sarcasm, but I just don’t get your ideology. My brain does a serious double take when I read some of this stuff. That’s just me. Is that so terrible? I am on the other side of the coin and I am merely stating what and why I believe what I believe.

---

I have no problem with stating what you believe. I have no problem disagreeing with you. What I do have a problem is with the following-

Quote:

---

My opinion is based on the Word of God. You call it subjective if you like. I call it objective and correct. But then again, I'm not as confused about the whole issue as you are.

---

Here, you set yourself up to be the absolute authority for explaining the bible. To me, this is a bit "popish" of you.

Quote:

---

This thread is on the abortion issue. I am totally and 100% against taking an “innocent” human life with intent. That is my stance. If the biblical Commandment argument is a “tired argument”, it is because the bible has been around for longer then you and abortion, and the bible’s stance on murder will not change.

---

You see, I don't think it is murder, per sae. You see, the biblical text says that if a woman "miscarries", that is, aborts the child, then the worth of the miscarried child is a fine. See the NIV version, or the Amplified version of this text. You say that you can not argue with the truth. Well, here is truth. How do you see this?

Quote:

---

I am in full disagreement with much of what I read but I am in no way condemning any person, only what I see as erroneous and miss guided "beliefs".

---

Well, I am sorry, but I think that I have shown that you have done a bit more than be in " full disagreement" with someone.

So, give me texts that will change my values...Yes, I know about murder, and I know about premeditated thinking of aborting is tantamount to murder. But I also know that God can make a lot of wrongs right. And if a woman makes a bad choice regarding the new life within her, and she feels that she needs to abort it, that God can, if she claims Jesus aas her Lord, recieve that aborted child in heaven to raise...as all aborted children should be raised in a perfect place. This give the aborted child and thier mothers a chance to really bond in perfection. So, what's wrong with this belief system? Change my values for one's that are better....

My values regarding choice does mean that a person can make the wrong choice. A woman can make a wrong choice. But a woman can make a right choice as well. Concider if a woman, who believes that she is living in a good situation, conciders to have children. She chooses to have children. She is a fully functional being who excercises her right to procreate. Tell me that a woman who is not given rights to choose is fully functionally a woman. How do you know? How do you know that she is nothing more than a baby making machine for the pleasure of a man? I submit to you that to reduce a woman to the level of 'baby making machine' is to remove a large chunk of God given humanity to mankind. God gave to mankind the choice to become fully human or to become a percieved God. To obey God or to obey the devil. To remove that choice was to remove mankind ability to become human. To remove that choice from women, is to condemn all mankind as nothing better than beasts....

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The NKJV seems [:"red"] the best [/] translation of the verse I have seen.

---

The best???? For whom? Your interpretation, Shane???? Come on, Shane, to completely endose only the NKJV is to repudiate the princple of the Adventist church that states that to best understand the texts of the bible, you need to use refer to many versions so as to get a better understanding of the full meaning to the text. While I like the MSG, the Amplified bible and the NIV all say the same thing. They use the word "miscarry", which any English dictionary says that the context means "abort", or -

[:"blue"] #

1. To cause to terminate (a pregnancy) prematurely, especially before the fetus is viable.

2. To cause the expulsion of (an embryo or fetus) before it is viable.

3. To give premature birth to (an embryo or fetus).

[/]

When the fetus is terminated, the punishment was a fine. Not a life for a life, because life was not in the child because the child was not fully developed yet. Therefore, the "mischief" that is refered to is to the WOMAN, ie continous bleeding unto death, crippling, ect.

Now, I usually have no problem with people taking commentarys and using them within discussion. But you make such a big deal out of "Adventists are people of the Word" that I have trouble reconciling your useage of [ahem] non-adventist commentators.

And speaking of Adventist commentators, the SDA commentary shows that the word "michief" 'denotes death'. So, the KJV says [:"blue"]so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: [/], the question come to mind as to how a woman can abort her child, and yet no death follow? To abort a child is the death of a child. The question is that of to whom "death" is to apply to...The logical answer is that the word "death/mischief" is to apply to the woman only.

I conclude that the premature aborting of a child is not murder, as the bible give no evidence of a life for a life in the instance of a premie aborted by a woman following a fight.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The best???? For whom?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

For Hebrew scholars. The literal hebrew says the baby comes out. The literal hebrew does not say the baby comes out dead. If these verses are what you hang your hat on in order to justify being pro-choice you are sunk. You have to add meaning to the original hebrew in order to make the verses say what you want them to.

The original hebrew says if the baby comes out but there is no further damage the assultant must pay a fine to the husband but if there is additional damage the assultant is to be put to death; life for life. You have to add to the phrase "baby comes out" the meaning that the baby comes out dead. The hebrew doesn't say the baby comes out dead. Further you have to add into the meaning that the further damage refers only to the death of the mother. The hebrew doesn't say that it refers to only the life (or death) of the mother.

Explainig this issue to you is like explaining the seventh-day Sabbath to someone who really has no interest in the truth. Many just want to believe what they already believe and could care less what the truth is. That seems to be how you are in regard to the abortion issue. The Bible is as clear on abortion as it is on the Sabbath.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

For Hebrew scholars. The literal hebrew says the baby comes out. The literal hebrew does not say the baby comes out dead. If these verses are what you hang your hat on in order to justify being pro-choice you are sunk. You have to add meaning to the original hebrew in order to make the verses say what you want them to.

---

First off, I did not add it. Other scholars added that, because there is the possiblity of the baby coming out alive. But when they [the scholars] use the word "miscarry", there is the implication that the child will not be able to sustain itself outside the womb, which carrys a death sentence with it. The scholars added that because the context and the language warrents it.

Quote:

---

You have to add to the phrase "baby comes out" the meaning that the baby comes out dead. The hebrew doesn't say the baby comes out dead. Further you have to add into the meaning that the further damage refers only to the death of the mother. The hebrew doesn't say that it refers to only the life (or death) of the mother.

---

First, I didnt add any phrases to the context. "Baby comes out" is something that you have placed emphasis on somehow. I did not.

Second, what does the word "miscarry" imply? It carrys with it a death sentence or the extreme likelihood of the death of the fetus. So why use the redundant phrase "further mischief" if the death sentence for the fetus has already been established? Because the whole focus is on what happens to the mother, not the child. The child is, therefore, less important to the family unit than the mother, while at the same time, a blessing to the family unit. The loss of that blessing is a great tragedy, granted. But the loss of the mother is worse.

Quote:

---

Explainig this issue to you is like explaining the seventh-day Sabbath to someone who really has no interest in the truth. Many just want to believe what they already believe and could care less what the truth is. That seems to be how you are in regard to the abortion issue.

---

Now what good is it to imping upon me that I have "chased away the Holy Spirit" and am therefore a bad adventist? By attacking me, you have virtually said "I have run out of arguements but I refuse to listen to you." Someone else has labled this type of situation, and I am going to apply it to you- How does it feel to "kick against the pricks"?

[bonnie]

Just a little curious. Don't expect anyone's mind to be changed. No one specific, can anyoe that is a pro-choice(abortion) proponent explain a little further? Just trying to figure out the rationale that goes into thinking abortion is really just a choice that the woman has a right to.

1. If abortion is not the killing of a child, but simply getting rid of a blob of tissue, why is anyone concerned if it is rare?

2. What is wrong with using it for gender selection. I am not aborting a child, simply exercising my choice to rid myself of something( nothing more than a mass of tissue) that is not my choice.

3. (And if a woman makes a bad choice regarding the new life within her, and she feels that she needs to abort it, that God can, if she claims Jesus aas her Lord, recieve that aborted child in heaven to raise..)

Are we actually for aborting children? Many "christians" exercise their choice of ridding themselves of a mass of tissue, a fetus, which many times has been said here is not a child .

4. What would make this a bad choice, especially if carrying this child (mass) reduces me to a baby-making machine?

5.(.as all aborted children should be raised in a perfect place.)

Wonder if God will ressurect and make whole all the aborted children or aborted tissue, spontaneous or otherwise since creation.

No child is raised in a perfect place. Do we abort some because their lives will not be perfect? Is a perfect life the criteria for carrying a child to term?

6.( This give the aborted child and thier mothers a chance to really bond in perfection. So, what's wrong with this belief system? Change my values for one's that are better....)

Can someone explain this? Are we aborting or giving our blessing to aborting children?

7.( But a woman can make a right choice as well. Concider if a woman, who believes that she is living in a good situation, conciders to have children. She chooses to have children. She is a fully functional being who excercises her right to procreate.)

By my choice then it either becomes a child or is merely a blob of tissue, without any right to protection, is this right?

8. (Tell me that a woman who is not given rights to choose is fully functionally a woman. How do you know? How do you know that she is nothing more than a baby making machine for the pleasure of a man? I submit to you that to reduce a woman to the level of 'baby making machine' is to remove a large chunk of God given humanity to mankind.)

Last I knew, if sex is being portrayed for the man's pleasure, he had that prior to the pregnancy.

If this is accurate then there isn't any need to repent, accept Christ and bond with this aborted blob in heaven. If having a child that is inconvenient because of my own actions, takes away my God given humanity and reduces me to a babymaking machine, I have nothing to be concerned about. I believe I would have done what was right in the sight of God, not something I need to repent for.

9.( God gave to mankind the choice to become fully human or to become a percieved God. To obey God or to obey the devil.)

If this choice is of God, again, why should it be rare, a concern when committed, or why the need to repent so that I may bond with this little non-human in heaven?

Does this say that being oppossed to abortion is obeying the devil?

10. (To remove that choice was to remove mankind ability to become human.)

Does this mean the choice to abort is what makes us human? God in no way has given his consent to the destruction of children. Now if it is merely ridding oneself of a blob of tissue, it is neither something that needs repentence, perfect bonding in heaven, or the slightest concern as to the frequency.

Simply the most sure way of birth control when traditional methods have failed.

11. (To remove that choice from women, is to condemn all mankind as nothing better than beasts....)

The beasts will destroy their young at times. Bad mother, something wrong, or just plain carelessness.

To destroy their own is not what seperates a woman from a beast.

[bonnie]

Hopefully someone can give me an answer or explaination for their thoughts on when a fetus becomes a child, when that fetus is simply a choice or a person, albeit small and defenseless.

Our second son was born prematurely in 1964. With the medical technology then, his chance of survival was slim to none and that was a positive scenerio as oppossed to the problems they anticipated he would be born with.

1. When did he become a child in God's eyes?

2. At five months when it was suggested the pregnancy was to risky and that I should consider a thereputic abortion? No, I am not saying the mother's life should not be considered first. This happened to be my choice. Just what was this thing I was carrying?

3. Was he a child when I went into labor before 7 months?

4. He turned and would have been born breech. Had my decision been at that time "I can't do this,I am not ready or able to care for a handicapped child, would he have been a child still?

By the grace of God, all Dr's were wrong. His only long term problem was a respirtory one.

5. Instead of turning him in the birth position, would turning him and pulling him out of my body up to his neck made him a non-human?

6. Would sticking a scissors in the base of his skull been killing my child, or would I have been simply exercising my choice.

Scissors to graphic, could I or the Dr have placed our hand over his mouth after birth to make sure he did not take that first breath?

7. When did this transformation take place and he make the leap from a choice and a child.

8. He was totally incapable of sustaining life even in the most elementary way at birth. Was he still a child to be protected or only my choice

9. Just explain to me where my choice stopped and my son became a lttle human being with value.

10. When would you consider it murder? When was it my choice?

Prior to his birth, sticking a scissors in his skull and sucking out his brain?

Right after birth when the Dr said this little guy won't make it? Had in that few moments he become human, altho he could not sustain life? Could we just then have silently made the choice to smother him? When he was on machines for the first three months of his life, incapable of breathing on his own, or even nursing from a bottle?

As a woman I have many choices. I can choose to become pregnant, I can choose to engage in the traditional act, knowing I may very well end up pregnant, I can give my child away and not be forced into motherhood.

For the proponents of abortion, when did my son become a child. When did he make the transformation from my choice to a human life?

Today I could find a DR that would pull him feet first from my body, stick a scissors into the back of his skull, suck out his brains and call it only a choice.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

10. (To remove that choice was to remove mankind ability to become human.)

Does this mean the choice to abort is what makes us human? God in no way has given his consent to the destruction of children. Now if it is merely ridding oneself of a blob of tissue, it is neither something that needs repentence, perfect bonding in heaven, or the slightest concern as to the frequency.

Simply the most sure way of birth control when traditional methods have failed.

---

1] No one here has renamed the aborted child/fetus as a "blob of tissue". In it's simplist terms, abortion kills a child. No one here denys that.

2]You said [:"green"] God in no way has given his consent to the destruction of children. [/]. Are you implying that God denied us the ability to choose evil? Because that's what abortion is, choosing between 2 or more [ possibly evil] choices. And sometimes, we do choose an evil choice. Am I "excusing" our choices? I don't think so. I do have to allow the possiblity for others to choose wrongly, and to mess things up. If I don't, then either I am controling them or they are nothing better than machines. And on the woman issue of abortion, she would become a baby making machine. I preferr to allow women to become fully human, which includes , not only making wrong choices, but fully informed choices, educated and wise in thier own eyes.

[bonnie]

I used your recent statement as an example only, not intending that you be the target of my questions. But now that you have answered, you have neglected the specifics of what I asked. I have no illusions about changing anyone's mind, just a direct answer to see where and how this reasoning works. Not asking anyone to change it.

(quote)(2) "Those children--?" A fetus is not a child. A child breathes its own air, digests its own food for nourishment, circulates its own blood, and does not need the vital functions of someone else's body to provide its own vital functions. The reason a premature birth is such a risky thing is precisely because the fetus is NOT a child, and therefore not biologically prepared to sustain its life functions outside the womb(/quote)

This says a fetus is not a child unless vital functions can be maintained without the aid of someone's body. Today, my son, just prior to his birth could have been considered only my choice. Today, I would have it within my power to choose his life or death. You made a statement concerning perceiving ourselves as God. To me, choosing to end his life with a scissors in the base of his skull because I did not want to be a baby making machine, it was inconvienet, or because I was scared( which I was, more scared than I have ever been) would have been playing God.

What made him a child at the point? Or was he? Would he have been less than, had the DR pulled him out feet first? Did the fact the Dr turned him to the birth position make him a person? When would the destruction of my son been considered my choice between the lessor of two evils? When I was convinced he was going to be handicapped and felt ill-equiped to care for him? When he was born not breathing and incapable of sustaining life? The three months he spent on the edge of death, incapable of sustaining even his breathing?

At what point did he become human and would my participation in his death become infanticide? When did he stop being a choice between two evils.

(quote)And what's up with this devaluing of the mother in favor of a zygote or fetus? This is nothing more than baby-worship, pure facile idolatry, plain and simple! It is just yet another manifestation of worshipping the creature rather than the Creator -- for the "product" (the life that is produced) is valued above the "producer" (the life that produces it).(/quote)

Here again, we do not have a child. I know this is not yours, nor am I trying to change anyone's mind or single anyone out, it has been repeated many times.. Just curious, if this is not a child, why does anyone think abortion is evil,or should be as infrequent as possible?

(quote)Christ will spend eternity with every unborn child. Do you think the God of mercy will consign to the second death any innocent who never had a chance to know Him and therefore could never have rejected Him?? That aborted unborn fetus has it "made" in a way no one born ever will.(/quote)

Now the unborn are children and you have said basically the same thing.

Can someone show me the text that states that aborted fetus's will be in heaven. It maybe that I have missed it, but would like to read it. Or is it inoccent children that will be in heaven?

(quote)No one here has renamed the aborted child/fetus as a "blob of tissue". In it's simplist terms, abortion kills a child. No one here denys that.(/quote)

Yes, it has been said by more than one, that it is not a child. You have said it is.

When does it become a child that is wrong not a choice, to kill, that was really the basic question.

(quote)2]You said God in no way has given his consent to the destruction of children. . Are you implying that God denied us the ability to choose evil? Because that's what abortion is, choosing between 2 or more [ possibly evil] choices. And sometimes, we do choose an evil choice.(/quote)

Never said a word about God denying the right to choose. I can choose to do mnay things that are not right. I do not expect anyone to champion my cause as I exercise that right to kill, steal etc. If it is not a child people get downright angry over my right to murder and mayhem

(quote) Am I "excusing" our choices? I don't think so. I do have to allow the possiblity for others to choose wrongly, and to mess things up. If I don't, then either I am controling them or they are nothing better than machines.(/quote)

Do you feel you are nothing but a machine and controlled because you cannot behave in any fashion towards anyone you may wish to. Why is only the abortion issue seen as a means of contol?

(quote) And on the woman issue of abortion, she would become a baby making machine. I preferr to allow women to become fully human, which includes , not only making wrong choices, but fully informed choices, educated and wise in thier own eyes.(/quote)

The bible says a little about being wise in my own eyes.

Odd way to feel women can only become fully human by destroying what you have seemed to say is a child.

When does a woman become fully human and when is she guilty of infantcide?

Before the child has a chance to be fully born it is exercising her humanity as designed by God by sticking a scissors into his brain? Five minutes later if the child is born,is she then guilty of killing a human being instead of exercising her choice

Women do not become baby making machines by a accidental, unplanned pregnancy.

I have absolutely no intent of trying to change your mind or anyone else's. Just curious how this breaks down as a woman's right. When just prior to my son's birth and shortly after would you have stood by and supported any decison I made? Would you have supported my decision to stick a scissors in his brain, just before birth, postioning him so he was not technically born, or right after as the problems seemed insurmountable and he could not sustain vital functions?