The abortion issue-

[Dr. Shane]

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

there is the implication that the child will not be able to sustain itself outside the womb

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

I don't see that implication in the hebrew. Nor do any of the scholars I have read in Bible commentary. Someone has to add such an implication. In the hebrew, it just isn't there. Someone has to spin it in there.

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

what does the word "miscarry" imply?

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

The word miscarry is not in the original hebrew text. Not there. It just says "baby comes out".

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

the whole focus is on what happens to the mother, not the child.

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

You are using circular reasoning. In order for this to be true the correct translation needs to read miscarry. Then the baby would be dead and verse 23 could only refer to the mother. However if the "premature birth" is correct that verse 23 would include the baby. The original hebrew doesn't read miscarry. There is not contect for to imply miscarry. The context, espeacially in light of other Scriptures, indicates that "child comes out" refers to premature birth and not miscarriage. So the "further mischief" applies to both mother and child unless the word "miscarry" is a correct translation and there is just no reason to believe that it is.

NIV also has a good translation on this verse. Consider our sister's testimony regarding her son's premature birth. As a result her son has respitory problems. And she counts herself (and him) lucky that is all he has wrong. The reason a monetary fine had to be paid if the "baby comes out" was becuase the baby was liely to have birth defects as a result. If "further mischief" occured it was to be life for life.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The context, espeacially in light of other Scriptures, indicates that "child comes out" refers to premature birth and not miscarriage.

---

Ok, let's go with the concept of a "premature birth" as most miscarriages truely are. How many 24 weekers do you know that could have survived without modern medical attention back in biblical times? How many 32 weekers could have survived without modern medical attention? News flash! The "fruit of a woman's womb that comes out prematurely", aka "miscarrys", carrys a death sentence with it and it was understood. That is why the NIV uses the 'modern term' miscarrage. The NIV is attempting to show you what the Hebrew understood without the archaic language.

You are using todays understanding of modern medicine and applying it to biblical times. That's fanciful imagination. Reality check-Until recently, premature births carried a death sentence with it. Midwives did not know what to do back then to keep premies alive for very long.

Oh, and Shane, Darby's translation emphasis' the mother in his translation-

[:"blue"] And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child,[:"red"] so that she be delivered,[/] and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate. [/]

Darby shows that the text's emphasis is regarding the woman, not the child.

[SteveB]

Neil:

It would seem, to base ones entire agenda on the worldly philosophy is going to leave one fraught with dangerous denials and winsome sophistries. God gave us Holy Scripture in order to polarize us as a people, His people, with regards to the world, (and I don’t mean “Adventists” when I say “His people”, I mean sincere bible believing Christians everywhere), so we can truly be of one mind spiritually.

I see you and Shane going back and forth on the same scripture. I’ve read the scripture, looked up the Strongs words and have come to the conclusion that whichever way you lean in regards to Exodus 21, harming or aborting an unborn child is strictly forbidden, whether the penalty is a fine or death is immaterial. It is crystal clear from the context of this verse that we are dealing with an “accident”. If there are such strict penalties against aborting a child unintentionally, and there was no such thing as intentional abortion, can you somehow conclude if there were intent, this would have been ok?

Now we come full circle to those who admit that it’s not ok but believe in choice because they’re afraid of legislation. What happened to Christians standing up for what is right and against what is wrong? We render unto Cesar as long as there is no “moral” conflict with our faith in Jesus. This was Jesus’ own advice to his people. We are simply not to be labeled as pacifists. Jesus’ message is far from pacifistic. We are do be “doers” of the Word and not only “hearers”. We are to help those who can’t help themselves and this includes the unborn.

Aside from the debate over Exodus 21, there are many other verses in the bible that lead us away from abortion. Here are some:

Gal 1:15 But God in his grace chose me even before I was born, and called me to serve him.

Psa 139:13 You created every part of me; you put me together in my mother's womb.

Psa 139:14 I praise you because you are to be feared; all you do is strange and wonderful. I know it with all my heart.

Psa 139:15 When my bones were being formed, carefully put together in my mother's womb, when I was growing there in secret, you knew that I was there---

Psa 139:16 you saw me before I was born. The days allotted to me had all been recorded in your book, before any of them ever began.

Ecc 11:5 God made everything, and you can no more understand what he does than you understand how new life begins in the womb of a pregnant woman.

Psa 127:3 Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.

Here is your assignment Neil or anyone else who stands by pro choice:

List verses in the bible that support your philosophy on abortion. The interesting thing is, the bible is rarely, if ever, quoted by the pro choice side unless it is to disassemble verses which are plainly against tampering with Almighty God’s design on human life. So don’t disassemble the verses I have listed, go find some that would lead me to understand your point of view.

Good Luck.

PS. As far as the IQ thing, nowhere in the context of the analogy would this have been anywhere near an attack on your intelligence. You are just paranoid. I would also submit to you, that IQ has nothing to do with faith!

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

It would seem, to base ones entire agenda on the worldly philosophy is going to leave one fraught with dangerous denials and winsome sophistries.

---

Tell me, why is it that when one presents a different idea , whose roots are biblical, if it goes against general ‘bible beliefs’, it is automatically considered as a “worldly philosophy”? There was a time when slavery was considered biblical. The bible even gives laws governing the treatment of slaves. Does it make it right? Not in our view today.

Quote:

---

God gave us Holy Scripture in order to polarize us as a people, His people, with regards to the world [snip] so we can truly be of one mind spiritually.

---

I can concur with the generalities of this thought. But the problem with this is that most people do not grow in their relationship with God at the same rate . Nor do they start out with the same assumptions in life. I have pondered why God allows people different viewpoints and have concluded that God wants people to achieve His goals in the world as they grow in relationship to Him. . And examples of this would be Nebuconnezer [sp], and Darius, both named in the bible and shown to be men who did God’s will, but not necessarily His commands.

Quote:

---

I see you and Shane going back and forth on the same scripture. I’ve read the scripture, looked up the Strongs words and have come to the conclusion that whichever way you lean in regards to Exodus 21, harming or aborting an unborn child is strictly forbidden, whether the penalty is a fine or death is immaterial.

---

I think that we can agree that aborting any child is not a good thing. No one has pointed out that abortion is a good thing. Abortion is not something that pro-choice candidates flippantly recommend that you go do next week. It is a serious procedure and one not to be taken litely.

Quote:

---

It is crystal clear from the context of this verse that we are dealing with an “accident”.

---

Here is where we differ on the interpretation of the Ex. 21. I have used the text to show that the worth of a naturally aborted child, is not worth the life of the one who caused the abortion. While all your bible texts show how wonderful a desired child is, this text of the bible shows that given the worth between mother or unborn child, the mother’s death is worth the death of another man who caused the sequence of events to follow. And yet, from this same sequence of events, the death of the fetus is NOT worth the death of the man who caused it.

Given this senerio, I conclude that, unless the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, this child does NOT have the same rights as a full term natural born child who is able to survive outside the womb. I also conclude that until the birth of the child, that is, until the child is able to survive outside the womb, the child is a part of the mother and she has jurisdiction over her body, including the child.

Quote:

---

Now we come full circle to those who admit that it’s not ok but believe in choice because they’re afraid of legislation. What happened to Christians standing up for what is right and against what is wrong? We render unto Cesar as long as there is no “moral” conflict with our faith in Jesus. This was Jesus’ own advice to his people. We are simply not to be labeled as pacifists. Jesus’ message is far from pacifistic. We are do be “doers” of the Word and not only “hearers”. We are to help those who can’t help themselves and this includes the unborn.

---

1] What makes you think that a Christian who stands up for pro-choice is not standing up for what s/he considers to be morally right or wrong? IOWs, what makes one set of Christian values more important than the other? Is it not who chooses those values? [i bring this up as to avoid the argument that it is the bible that ‘decides”.] As to the weight of the argument of pro-choice as opposed to pro-life, I find that pro-life argues for the degregation of women. It tramples the God given right of choice. Adam and Eve had many choices. One of those choices involved to rebel against God, and God honored that choice. It was a choice that was made with faulty information. God allowed that choice and gave us another chance to choose Him with a lot of correct information about Him.

Quote:

---

Aside from the debate over Exodus 21, there are many other verses in the bible that lead us away from abortion.

---

I think that I have address this issue. But aside from that, let me reinterate. Desired pregnancy/birth is a good thing.[and thus, the positive affirmation of your verses] But one that is not desired, is a heavy burden placed totally upon the shoulders of the unprepared. The women who bear this burden are NOT supported by any stretch of the imagination in our society. Our laws in this land do not support the unwanted pregancys nor the women who choose to continue with the unwanted pregnancy. And these women are stymatized thru out society. Given this principle of the right to choose what is best for them, women, who fear the stymatization, must be allowed to choose to abort the fetus.

I do not say that abortion is the "best" choice, for certainly, carrying the pregnancy to term and giving the child up for adoption is a valid choice. But not all women can/nor are willing to carry the unwanted pregnancy to term.

Quote:

---

Here is your assignment Neil or anyone else who stands by pro choice:

---

Why is it, that when shown a text that supports one position or prinicple, the opponent wants more texts? The principle shown from arguement should be enough. So, please answer this is valid question- why do you need more texts? What is the need for an abundance of texts supporting a position? Why not show principle?

I don’t have time to peruse the bible on “pro-choice” texts. I have given you biblical senerios where I believe that God wants us to choose and exercise the principals given in the bible. Do you choose Him [Who wants reasoned obiedience] or the devil, who wants blind obedience? [There is a whole host of texts there.] But I will leave you with one. Concider Ecc. 3-

Ecclesiastes 3

A Time for Everything

1

There is a time for everything,

and a season for every activity under heaven:

2 [:"red"]a time to be born and a time to die, [/]

a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 [:"red"]a time to kill and a time to heal, [/]

a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,

a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,

a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,

a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,

a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,

a time for war and a time for peace.

[bonnie]

(quote)Given this senerio, I conclude that, unless the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, this child does NOT have the same rights as a full term natural born child who is able to survive outside the womb. I also conclude that until the birth of the child, that is, until the child is able to survive outside the womb, the child is a part of the mother and she has jurisdiction over her body, including the child.(/quote)

Neil,

I realize you probably will not answer , but I am hoping someone that believes as you or at least similar on the rights of women to abort would. Not moral or biblcal answers, just an answer as to the questions.

Using my son's birth, which was not unique then and isn't now, when would it have stopped being my choice and become murder of an infant.

Had I believed I could not care for a handicapped child (which I did) would it have been my CHOICE to kill or end his life, one that needed to be honored to prevent me from becoming a baby making machine. Minutes before he was born, unable to survive outside my body, was it only a bad choice to stick a scissors in the basof his skull. Immediately after birth, unable to survive outside my body without a mechanical substitute for me, who would support sticking a scissors in the base of his skull? Did he only have value as a child when I wanted more than anything for him to live? For three months he survived only with machines taking over my function in continuing his life. When in this three months did he transform into a child? Unable to sustain life, could I have said I can no longer live with this crisis, smother him, destroy him in some fashion?

As for the biblical part, can someone point me to the bible that explains that an aborted fetus is resurrected?

Now I can understand stillborn children, but we are not talking of a child with rights. Do you believe that all products of abortion, whatever name you choose to give it, will be resurrected? Spontaneous or otherwise?

Agreed that God has given us the right to choose. Even the worst of the worst can make terrible choices and gain eternal life. Do we pass into law the terrible choices people can and do make? Or is it again, only the right of the mother to destroy her child?

If it indeed is a child, I have not found anyplace in the bible that says I may destroy my child to take part in my full humanity. It does not say that in order to be fully human all of my choices should be made legal. It does give instuction, hope and promise for eternal life, but does not tell me it is okay .

If it is not a child, how does it go from a aborted fetus to an aborted child that will be ressurected. If God places enough value on that little human to grant him eternal life, What am I doing, "saying, you know what little one, I don't want you, not ready for you, wait you will go to heaven"

I believe my son would have gone to heaven had I and the DR made the choice to not keep him artifically alive till he could sustain life. Would that have been an acceptable reason to smother him to ensure he did not take his first breath?

Or is it only acceptable that brief few minutes, after the DR has pulled him from my body up to his head, prevent his complete birth, stick a scissors in his skull and suck out his brain?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I realize you probably will not answer , but I am hoping someone that believes as you or at least similar on the rights of women to abort would. Not moral or biblcal answers, just an answer as to the questions.

---

Personally, I don't think anyone is qualified to answer these questions for you, Bonnie. Not a Doctor, nor a friend, not an enemy, not even me, scumbucket that I am.

I will say this much...Before you can be pro-life, you must be pro-choice. Pro-choice gives you the option to be pro-life. You obviously choose to do everything you could to save that child. That is a choice that is to be honored. Absolutely no one can condemn you for your choice in the attempt to save your handicapped child. And not many would want to be in your shoes to make those choices. God definately was with you as you made hard choices.

And that is all I am going to say regarding your personal experience with this subject.

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

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.

---

????

It can not be what? Murder? Or it can not be differentiated. From the context of your post I will have to guess you mean the latter for which I had to “subjectively” supply the word “differentiated”. Without proper context from you opinions purveyed earlier throughout your post, I would not have been able to determine what you meant with that last statement in regard to the quoted paragraph. I would say this is a fairly objective statement taken in proper context, but if removed from its intended context, it would then become subject to interpretation.

The bible is an authority for believer and unbeliever alike. I say this because I believe the believer and unbeliever alike, will stand trial before God in regards to his or her “deeds”, so whether you believe or not is immaterial. The consequences will be real and absolute, not withstanding what you do or don’t believe.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,

If one chooses to refer to worldly wisdom and “doctrines of devils” to refute and make absolute biblical truth subjective to ones own life experiences, then this indeed takes away from the authority of the bible as inspired by God and reduces it to man made arguments. Arguments which are turned into “pleasant” sounding doctrines. This is necessary for one to hold to certain views which are contrary to the “context” of scripture in its entirety.

2Ti 4:3 The time will come when people will not listen to sound doctrine, but will follow their own desires and will collect for themselves more and more teachers who will tell them what they are itching to hear.

2Ti 4:4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give their attention to legends.

Now let’s deal with “murder vs kill” straight from the original Hebrew and Greek.

H7523

&#1512;&#1510;&#1495;

ra&#770;tsach

raw-tsakh'

A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

Sample context (above): Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

H5221

&#1504;&#1499;&#1492;

na&#770;ka&#770;h

naw-kaw'

A primitive root; to strike (lightly or severely, literally or figuratively): - beat, cast forth, clap, give [wounds], X go forward, X indeed, kill, make [slaughter], murderer, punish, slaughter, slay (-er, -ing), smite (-r, -ing), strike, be stricken, (give) stripes, X surely, wound.

Sample context (above): Gen 37:20 Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into some pit, and we will say, Some evil beast hath devoured him: and we shall see what will become of his dreams.

Gen 37:21 And Reuben heard it, and he delivered him out of their hands; and said, Let us not kill him.

H2026

&#1492;&#1512;&#1490;

ha&#770;rag

haw-rag'

A primitive root; to smite with deadly intent: - destroy, out of hand, kill, murder (-er), put to [death], make [slaughter], slay (-er), X surely.

Sample context (above): Gen 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

H4191

&#1502;&#1493;&#1468;&#1514;

mu&#770;th

mooth

A primitive root; to die (literally or figuratively); causatively to kill: - X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy (-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro [-mancer], X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in [no] wise.

Sample of context: Exo 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

Lev 20:4 But if the community ignores what you have done and does not put you to death,

1Ki 11:40 Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. But Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt, to Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon.

H7819

&#1513;&#1473;&#1495;&#1496;

sha&#770;chat&#803;

shaw-khat'

A primitive root; to slaughter (in sacrifice or massacre): - kill, offer, shoot out, slay, slaughter.

Sample context (above): Exo 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

Exo 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

Now the Greek:

G5407

&#966;&#959;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#769;&#969;

phoneuo&#772;

fon-yoo'-o

From G5406; to be a murderer (of): - kill, do murder, slay.

Sample context (above): Mat 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'

G615

&#945;&#787;&#960;&#959;&#954;&#964;&#949;&#953;&#769;&#957;&#969;

apokteino&#772;

ap-ok-ti'-no

From G575 and &#954;&#964;&#949;&#953;&#769;&#957;&#969; kteino&#772; (to slay); to kill outright; figuratively to destroy: - put to death, kill, slay.

Sample context: (above) Mar 9:31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise."

Whenever God told his people to go to war or to discipline someone as in life for life, etc the term used was commonly;

H4191

A primitive root; to die (literally or figuratively); causatively to kill: - X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy (-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro [-mancer], X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in [no] wise.

This definition doesn’t seem to indicate murder therefore this does differentiate from the other terms used and especially the commandment term for “thou shalt not kill”, which is;

H7523

A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

And this term is very specific to murder. In the NT Jesus used two very different terms. When He referred to the commandment He used;

G5407

From G5406; to be a murderer (of): - kill, do murder, slay

Which is very specific.

When He spoke about His own death He used an entirely different word;

G615 From G575 and &#954;&#964;&#949;&#953;&#769;&#957;&#969; kteino&#772; (to slay); to kill outright; figuratively to destroy: - put to death, kill, slay.

Which is more general and would not be specifically pertaining to “murder”. In this way I would like to point out it is possible to kill WITHOUT having murderous intent and it is the murderous “intent” which differentiates from one who is defending your freedom and your country or possibly helping others escape outright barbarism, and one who is killing for the sake of convenience, anger, greed, lust or many other selfish items!

To murder an unborn human being is to kill with murderous intent. In one form or another, the idea that leads to the action is wrought in selfishness. God can in no way approve of murder or our passivity towards murder, no matter how you try to slice it.

[bonnie]

Just to set the record straight if I haven't and my son should happen to read. For all the anticipated handicaps he should have had, a respirtory problem that has eased over the years is all that he had in the end. Not quite 16 inches long at birth he is now 6'6" and 250 lbs. Has excelled in his chosen field beyond the usual.

I am very pro-choice, but am careful how I use that word and what it means when it concerns a child.

I am against any woman being forced by a man to have sex with or without the intent of forcing a pregnancy . I am against any man dictating to me, just how many I will conceive. I am against anyone forcing me to marry. I am against anyone forcing me to raise a child that I don't want. That to me is choice.

The word choice when it concerns abortion carries a whole different meaning. That sanitized word breaks down to the destruction of a child. Whether in it's early stages or when the child could by medical means survive. Choice in fact means I have the right to allow my Dr to stick a scissors into the base of his brain and kill him. It means I can determine a child less than perfect has no right to survive. Seems to me, Hitler did the same thing.

Before I can become pro-choice as you describe it, I have to make sure that I am not sanctioning the destruction of a child.

You have stated you cannot answer my questions. I did not ask for you to sanction my belief, but to understand where you and others stand.

For me, if my son or any infant is a child minutes after birth, minutes before being artificially pulled from the mother, it is a child. Not a choice only to be determined by whether I am ready or not. If I am not ready, then I have to be mother enough at least to place him with someone that is.

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

There was a time when slavery was considered biblical. The bible even gives laws governing the treatment of slaves. Does it make it right? Not in our view today.

---

Slavery is still biblical! It is still practiced in a broad since of the word. I work for the owner of a company. He is my master and I am to submit to his authority, (biblical instructions for me). He is to treat me humanely and acknowledge his position of authority under God and treat me as he then would like to be treated. There were heavy biblical penalties for a master who mistreated a slave. Rules with consequences shall we say. Slavery in this country was far from biblical slavery and as such, it was proper to stand against such in-humane treatment of human beings, as it is proper to stand against in-humane treatment of the un-born.

Quote:

---

Quote:

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

It is crystal clear from the context of this verse that we are dealing with an “accident”.

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

Here is where we differ on the interpretation of the Ex. 21. I have used the text to show that the worth of a naturally aborted child, is not worth the life of the one who caused the abortion. While all your bible texts show how wonderful a desired child is, this text of the bible shows that given the worth between mother or unborn child, the mother’s death is worth the death of another man who caused the sequence of events to follow. And yet, from this same sequence of events, the death of the fetus is NOT worth the death of the man who caused it.

Given this senerio, I conclude that, unless the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, this child does NOT have the same rights as a full term natural born child who is able to survive outside the womb.

---

Exodus 21's purpose is not to show who’s life is more important the mothers vs the baby’s. This is a most ludicrous spin. Keep in mind, ACCIDENT! From this context it deals with the seriousness of harming either and is not specific about “mischief” enough to separate the issue of mother vs baby. Further mischief can be indicative to mother or baby!

This is from the ESV and closely mirrors the original Hebrew with no “supplied” modern words.

Exo 21:22 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Exo 21:23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,

I would say, “children come out but there is no harm”, means exactly what it says! In order for the woman to give premature birth and have no harm, she would have to be further along in the pregnancy then you contend in your own arguments which is entirely plausible and is less of a stretch then to unequivocally say this means to “miss carry”. Otherwise, if there is harm meaning earlier in the pregnancy or very severe damage later would be equivalent as life for life. You can not convince virtually any woman who has every miscarried early on in a “wanted” pregnancy, her child wasn’t really a child. There is grief, there is a funeral, and a period of mourning afterwards. Shane is right, you are spinning the text to fit your views.

Quote:

---

I find that pro-life argues for the degregation of women. It tramples the God given right of choice.

---

Let me give you a scenario: For the sake of making a point, your mom was raped, whipped and beat to a bloody pulp. She conceived and it was you. There is absolutely no possible way you can stand, sit, lay down, stand on your head or whatever, and tell me you are a mistake and should have been aborted because of the traumatic circumstances surrounding your conception. The bible says God Almighty knew YOU before you were born, even before you were conceived and before HE formed you in your mothers womb, so whatever the circumstances, it is not beyond God to have a purpose for your life which your mothers human understanding would not be able to comprehend or foresee, and if He has a purpose for your life EVEN before you are conceived then who is your mom to play God and do away with you? Sure, she is free to choose to do “wrong”, society, by the same token, is also free to stand together and place consequences against such behavior to protect itself as a whole. Society protecting itself as a whole, includes you, for you are a part of society are you not? Society, setting consequences for murder, stealing and various other infractions of the law, in no way effects your God given right to choose! So please tell me, in what way does this view degrade women????

Quote:

---

Given this principle of the right to choose what is best for them, women, who fear the stymatization, must be allowed to choose to abort the fetus.

---

OK, just buy her an "I got an abortion" tee shirt and all will be well in the world.

Quote:

---

Why is it, that when shown a text that supports one position or prinicple, the opponent wants more texts? The principle shown from arguement should be enough. So, please answer this is valid question- why do you need more texts? What is the need for an abundance of texts supporting a position? Why not show principle?

---

If I didn't have the bible, I might just fall for your human philosophical, world biased / based “principals”.

Quote:

---

I don’t have time to peruse the bible on “pro-choice” texts.

---

I wonder how much time it took you to come up with this doozie!?

Quote:

---

Ecclesiastes 3

A Time for Everything

1

There is a time for everything,

and a season for every activity under heaven:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,

a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,

a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,

a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,

a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,

a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,

a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,

a time for war and a time for peace.

---

Give me an honest break! This for support of abortion???? To make your case with this we would have to supply:

A time for “lying”

A time for “Stealing”

A time for “murder”

Please insert the above where-ever you need to in order to better make your point.

Sorry, “invalid and weak” is mild language when it comes to you presenting the above so as to be in favor of abortion. Please try again or hold to your original quip that you just don’t have time to see what the bible says on the subject.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Exodus 21's purpose is not to show who’s life is more important the mothers vs the baby’s. This is a most ludicrous spin

---

But that is just it. It DOES show the value of the infant. As long as the child was able to sustain life apart from it's mother and thrive, it was concidered an individual. Where is the probing questions, the clarification of the issue here? Denial and throwing up dust does not help in this discussion.

Quote:

---

This is from the ESV and closely mirrors the original Hebrew with no “supplied” modern words.

---

But the intent of the hebrew words is there, as shown by those "modern" translations. By restricting the translation, you narrow the true intent of the meaning. Show where in this case, you MUST restrict the translation to your narrow view? Otherwise, conceed the fact that you have nothing to show for it.

Quote:

---

In order for the woman to give premature birth and have no harm, she would have to be further along in the pregnancy then you contend in your own arguments which is entirely plausible and is less of a stretch then to unequivocally say this means to “miss carry”.

---

But only from a modern medical point of view. Premature birth, while possible to survive it, was a death sentence. The earlist child to be born without complications would be around 38-43 week gestation [if memory serves correctly]. This could be concidered a term baby, with 43 week as a normal pregnancy. I remember taking care of 36 weekers in the NICU, and they had problems. They would have not made it if without oxygen and medical care. While it is very possible that they could make it, the odds are against them.

Quote:

---

You can not convince virtually any woman who has every miscarried early on in a “wanted” pregnancy, her child wasn’t really a child. There is grief, there is a funeral, and a period of mourning afterwards.

---

And I am not attempting to define to any woman who wants her child that the fetus is not a child. Please do not put words into my mouth that are not, nor ever were there. Let me be a bit more blunt. Termination of a pregnacy is the killing of a child.

What I am argueing here is not that abortion is murder. It is. What I am arguing for is women's right to choose to have that abortion. Her values are not necessarily my values. And as long as the child can not support itself without getting sustance continually from the mother, the life or death of that child rests with the mother. What pro-lifers fail to take into account is that most mothers have an inate desire to nurture thier young. Some better than others. And when circumstances are not favorable for nurturing children, mother have that right to separate themselves from the unborn child.

If they do not have that right, then you condemn them to being slaves whose only true purpose is to procreate and nurture children. So, tell me, in your unbiblical philosophy, what do you do with old women? In all honesty, they are like drones of the behive. They have spent thier purpose, and now they are worthless. To insist that a woman has no right to terminate a pregnacy is to deny her very nature, condemn her to slavery, and reduce her to her most basic demeaning purpose that man can give, that of a sex plaything, to be tossed aside when she losses her attractiveness. You may think that God conciders abortion murder, but the alternative is to deny the God given right to become what God intended all along-devinely human.

[Dr. Shane]

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

The "fruit of a woman's womb that comes out prematurely", aka "miscarrys", carrys a death sentence with it and it was understood.

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

You continue to spin the Bible. You continue to add to the text what the text does not say. While I will grant you that the infant mortality rate was much higher for premature babies, it was far from being "understood" that a premature baby would die. Winston Churchill was born in the 1800s, before modern medicine, and was two months premature. Or maybe you don't know who he was. Forget it, he was a warmonger, no one that would interest you.

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

That is why the NIV uses the 'modern term' miscarriage.

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

I think you mean NASB. Are you reading this out of your Bible or off from some wacko-liberal website?

If you are a serious Bible student, as all SDAs should be, you will have a Strong's Concordance. Reading various versions of the Bible gives us the perspectives of differentl translating teams that translated them. The Strongs takes us back to the original text.

Exodus 21:22, 23 in the original Hebrew gives no support to the pro-choice position. Words have to be added in order for that to be the case.

These passage of Scripture, like so many others, must be examined in light of other Scriptures. That is what so many Bible scholars have done.

BTW, my Spanish version of the Bible specifically states in the verse (not the margin) that the baby is NOT born dead. Yet they are translating the same hebrew words we find in Strongs.

[Neil D]

- Exd 21:22 - "Now suppose two people are fighting, and in the process, they hurt a pregnant woman so her child is born prematurely. If no further harm results, then the person responsible must pay damages in the amount the woman's husband demands and the judges approve.

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NKJV - Exd 21:22 - "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NASB - Exd 21:22 - "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges {decide.}

New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

RSV - Exd 21:22 - "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

Webster - Exd 21:22 - If men shall contend, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit shall depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].

Noah Webster Version 1833 Info

Young - Exd 21:22 - `And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;

Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info

Darby - Exd 21:22 - And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate.

J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info

ASV - Exd 21:22 - And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

American Standard Version 1901 Info

HNV - Exd 21:22 - "If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman's husband demands and the judges allow.

Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

Vulgate - Exd 21:22 - si rixati fuerint viri et percusserit quis mulierem praegnantem et abortivum quidem fecerit sed ipsa vixerit subiacebit damno quantum expetierit maritus mulieris et arbitri iudicarint

Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info

Exodus 21

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [1] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,,,,,,NIV

Exodus 21- Strongs "wacko-liberal" website

Quote:

---

These passage of Scripture, like so many others, must be examined in light of other Scriptures. That is what so many Bible scholars have done.

---

And what you have done is restricted the meaning of the hebrew words. That is why I have included the modern translations, because they show intend of the hebrew language. If I were to say- During my fustrating discussions on abortion, you'll were causing grey hair, you would not understand if I were speaking to you specifically or were commenting generally upon a group of people. Langueage is like that Shane, and Steve. The language nuances show up in various translations, specifically the more modern ones. So, don't take it up with me, but rather with those scholars who don't support your viewpoints.

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

What I am argueing here is not that abortion is murder. It is. What I am arguing for is women's right to choose to have that abortion. Her values are not necessarily my values.

---

Well that about sums it up doesn’t it? “What I am arguing here is not that abortion is murder. It is. What I am arguing for is women's right to choose to have that abortion / commit that murder.” Yep, that is what we’ve been looking for, the famous unintentional misnomer saying a woman can commit murder with absolution. Thank you for that.

Neil! We are in perfect agreement after all. All I am saying is, being’s that it is in fact “murder” society has a right to “legislate” a strict penalty for breaking the law. She does indeed have the “choice” to break the law!

As for the rest of your post, you are not being kind or fair in regards to a woman’s value. My wife has had a partial hysterectomy and a tubal. You are suggesting because she can no longer choose to have a child or to kill a child she is, how you say, “To insist that a woman has no right to terminate a pregnacy is to deny her very nature, condemn her to slavery, and reduce her to her most basic demeaning purpose that man can give, that of a sex plaything, to be tossed aside when she losses her attractiveness.”

I’m very sorry you feel this way Neil. My wife is my partner, to me she is beautiful and will be until death do us part, age will have nothing to do with my attraction to my wife. As we age, we do not change instantly, hence I stay finely tuned to her ever present beauty. Also, being my companion she will always be valuable to me, her opinion carries weight, is valuable and works wonders on the side of my brain that doesn’t work so well. We complete each other. There are things I don’t understand about her and she about me. Put us together however, regardless of our God intended differences and we become the powerful force God meant us to be. If I should be lain to rest first then your idea that says she shall become worthless, is bigoted and totally erroneous. There is one example which quickly comes to mind from the bible, (sorry), Dorcas. Do you know the story? Did she become worthless when she could no longer bear children or be some mans “sex plaything”? Far from that!

You have just, with very little effect regarding your side of this debate, spoken from both of your orifices at once.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Neil! We are in perfect agreement after all. All I am saying is, being’s that it is in fact “murder” society has a right to “legislate” a strict penalty for breaking the law. She does indeed have the “choice” to break the law!

---

I really don’t like eating your words…They taste awful.

No, we are NOT in perfect agreement. Yes, I said that abortion is the killing of a fetus, premeditated. I guess that would mean that it is murder. Except for one small detail. Abortion is NOT murder….

Yeah, I know, I said it was. But upon reflection, I have come to the conclusion that when a woman wants to separate herself from a fetus, it is NOT murder. She is in fact, allowing the fetus to fend for it’s self as she withdraws support for it. Is that murder? Well, is it murder to withdraw support for the terminally ill or a brain dead patient [aka a vegetable]?

I would refer you to the practice of stoning the guilty party or the killing of a condemned man. It is necessary to take the life of a person. Your problem is that of the concept of "innocence". You believe that all children are innocent. The bible says that all mankind is condemned to die. Young and old, great and poor, all mankind is doomed to die. The only question is when, and not many get to choose when they die.

And I am sorry, but society does NOT have the right to legislate what a woman does to her body. I again refer you to Ex 21 where the baby is not worth the life of the offender who caused an abortion. I also refer you to all the references of rape and gang rape. And that's what society would be doing to each woman. Forcing her to do something that she may or may not want, have a child.

Quote:

---

As for the rest of your post, you are not being kind or fair in regards to a woman’s value. My wife has had a partial hysterectomy and a tubal. You are suggesting because she can no longer choose to have a child or to kill a child she is, how you say, “To insist that a woman has no right to terminate a pregnacy is to deny her very nature, condemn her to slavery, and reduce her to her most basic demeaning purpose that man can give, that of a sex plaything, to be tossed aside when she losses her attractiveness.”

---

Here you go again, putting words into my mouth that taste awful. You are implying that I am insisting that when a woman has lost her reproductive organ, she is nothing more than a play thing.. I will say that many women who have gone thru surgery for hysterectomy do feel a loss and have stated that they are less of a woman. They also say the same thing for a mastectomy. Why is that, I wonder?

As for becoming a sex object after a hysterectomy…no. I said that that to insist that a woman bring all conceptions to term is to make her nothing more than a baby producing machine. The logical extension of this is that her worth as a human being is now centered upon her ovaries.

There is a whole host of ramifications of this philosophy and it is due to insisting that a woman's right over her body is lost to the pro-life movement. So, a woman who loses her right to control her body becomes automatically a second class citizen in this society.. Let's say that society takes control of a womans body and will not allow her to abort the fetus. What happens when a woman loses her ovaries, and/or breasts? Or she goes thru menopause, an accident, cancer? As she ages, does she loose the right to life? As the planet becomes more crowed, it is a possibility and not a far stretch of the legal system. After all, society has control of her body.

Does it have control of her life? Who determines what jobs she is going to take, if she get any? Hey society has determined that woman can not abort her pregnancy, [because God says it’s murder] therefore she should not determine her destiny.If she is incompetant to make the decision to keep the pregnacy, then she is incompetant to make decisions regarding her life. Therefore, society must determine what she is to do. Doesn’t that sound appealing? All because society interprets the commandment of "thou shalt not kill." as extended to fetus'. Is this the type of God we serve, One who does not allow a woman to determine her what she does to her body?

Well, I am sorry, but the God I serve allow a woman to make decisions, even wrong ones. And He has allowed women to have the last say in reproductive rights. I have to trust that a woman has the knowledge and the wherewithal to determine the best environment to raise her children. And if it is wrong, she has the choice to terminate the pregnancy or to give it up for adoption.

Sorry, guys, but it was for freedom that Christ set us free. even to rebell against Him again.

Quote:

---

ou have just, with very little effect regarding your side of this debate, spoken from both of your orifices at once.

---

Well, apparently, I have to, cause you ain't usin' your ears to hear...And since you got blinders on, you can't see none too well, neither...And since you appear to run out of good arguements, you have to insult the messager, I guess that this means you are, as one person on this board has said, "fighting against the pricks"....Although I ain't so sure I like the idea of being called a "prick".

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

Yes, I said that abortion is the killing of a fetus, premeditated. I guess that would mean that it is murder. Except for one small detail. Abortion is NOT murder….

Yeah, I know, I said it was. But upon reflection, I have come to the conclusion that when a woman wants to separate herself from a fetus, it is NOT murder.

---

Flipper, they call him Flipper!

To quote someone else: "What a bunch of convoluted reasoning and idiocy some have to go thru to make abortion right and moral." Key word being convoluted, and you Neil, have done a wonderful job of proving this to all.

I will see you on another topic soon.

[SteveB]

Just one more small item to note:

Quote:

---

I really don’t like eating your words…They taste awful.

---

You meant to say "eating MY OWN words" didn't you? Replacing "my" for "your" would fit the context better don't you think? So it should have read as follows:

Quote:

---

I really don’t like eating

MY

words…They taste awful.

---

[SteveB]

This is from Ed Dickerson, a new member as of July 14, day after my birthday. He was having trouble posting a reply in this thread so he sent me a PM... He makes a very good point in regards to the on going debate over Exodus 21:22.

Quote:

---

In Exodus 21:22, the only possible life in question is that of the baby.

In 21:12, if two strive and one is killed, then death is the penalty. That covers the two men striving in 21:22

IN the OT, a wife was in the same category as a servant. Should a man kill another's servant, he would be punished with death. 21:20

If a servant was only injured for a time, then money damages were appropriate.

The only category left is the unborn child. Every LIVING child would be either a son, a daughter, or a servant. Those had already been covered. What remained was the unborn.

The Hebrew word mis-translated "miscarriage" simply means to "bring forth." So the two men fight, a pregnant woman is injured in the process, and delivers prematurely. THAT is an injury, and the culprit must pay money damages. If the child dies however, the law treats it as murder.

Ed Dickerson

---

[Dr. Shane]

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

And what you have done is restricted the meaning of the hebrew words. That is why I have included the modern translations, because they show intend of the hebrew language.

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

The various transaltions were all done by men. Understand that men are fallable. Men makes errors. The original hebrew was inspired by God. Undestand that God is infallible. God makes no mistakes. What is important is the hebrew not the various modern translations.

I know many Catholics believe the clergy have a better understanding of the Scripture's intent. It seems you agree with them, Brother Neil. I however believe the laity are just as capable of reading and understanding the Bible. I don't need the modern translators to show me the intent of the hebrew. How do they learn this intent anyway? Do they have divine visions or dreams?

BTW my NASB version is not the same as the NASB that you quoted <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> You may want to check your sources on that.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Flipper, they call him Flipper!

---

A dophin is a very noble animal....

Quote:

---

o quote someone else: "What a bunch of convoluted reasoning and idiocy some have to go thru to make abortion right and moral." Key word being convoluted, and you Neil, have done a wonderful job of proving this to all.

---

I never said tht you would convince me, nor did I say that I haven't thought it all out nor did I say that I held all the answers not did I say that...oh never mind...I momentary forgot you were deef anyway. Must be my alzhimers kicking in again.....

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The various transaltions were all done by men. Understand that men are fallable. Men makes errors. The original hebrew was inspired by God.[snip]. What is important is the hebrew not the various modern translations.

---

Are you for real, Shane???? Every single bible scholar, including the SDAs would disagree with this premise. Hebrew was NOT INSPIRED by God. The Hebrew language was USED by God, THRU MOSES. Good night, man!... Only non-informed laymen make ....Oh,never mind...

Quote:

---

I however believe the laity are just as capable of reading and understanding the Bible. I don't need the modern translators to show me the intent of the hebrew. How do they learn this intent anyway? Do they have divine visions or dreams?

---

Shane, you know the nuances of construction [since you are in the construction business] better than I. And I would defer to you in those matters. I would hope that you would do the same for me in the respiratory field of medicine. Surely, you could do the same for those men and women who study the nuances of the hebrew language and culture and who translate the bible in different languages?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

BTW my NASB version is not the same as the NASB that you quoted You may want to check your sources on that.

---

[:"purple"]The New American Standard Bible has been produced with the conviction that the words of Scripture, as originally penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, were inspired by God. Since they are the eternal Word of God, the Holy Scriptures speak with fresh power to each generation, to give wisdom that leads to salvation so that men and women may serve Christ for the glory of God. With this in mind, the Editorial Board has continued to function since publication of the complete Bible in 1971.

The[:"red"] updated NASB[/] represents revisions and refinements recommended over the last several years and incorporates thorough research based on current English usage. And rest assured, the translators and consultants who contributed to the updated NASB are, as always, conservative Bible scholars who have doctorates in biblical languages, theology, or other advanced degrees. Representing a variety of denominational backgrounds, the translators of the updated NASB meticulously followed all the same tried-and-true safeguards as set forth in the original NASB, which took the NASB translators nearly 10 years to complete. [/]

I believe that I have been using whatever is on the internet from either Gatewaybible or Strong Concordance....

[Nicodema]

Since I have formal training thus far only in Greek, Hebrew is not my strong suit. I only know as much Hebrew as I've been able to teach myself through painstaking Qabbalistic translation and wrangling my way through a Strong's Concordance with Hebrew & Chaldee dictionaries. So at this point I personally do not have the expertise required to nail down all the nuances of translation in the passage in question, namely, Exodus 21:22 -- namely, to whom the indications of "no mischief (harm) follow" versus "if any mischief (harm) follow" should be applied -- the woman or the fetus. I had been hoping the answer lay in the specific word itself but it does not, and since it does not, it is beyond my personal scope.

Without this crucial distinction of to which party the designation of "no harm" or "harm following" should apply, it is impossible to arrive at a solid conclusion about the definitive meaning of this verse. The Hebrew word used here for "depart" (as in "her fruit departs from her") is yatsa' {yaw-tsaw'}, a primitive root with a BROAD variety of meanings, including to go or come out or forth, depart; to go forward, proceed to (to or toward something); to come or go forth (with purpose or for result); to come out of; to cause to go or come out, bring out, lead out; to bring out of; to lead out; to deliver; and to be brought out or forth. There is another Hebrew word that is used for miscarry, such as found in Hosea 9:14; that word is shakol {shaw-kole'}. Shakol is another primitive root and it means properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):--bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, X expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil.

Since it is yatsa' and not shakol which is used in Exodus 21:22, it is impossible to determine from this sentence alone whether the reference to "causing her fruit to depart" means a miscarriage or simply a premature birth. The context of the statement would make it clear could the context be discerned from the original Hebrew but again, because I'm not professionally trained in Hebrew, I'm not able to make that crucial judgment call as to whether the "further harm or none" business refers to the fetus or to the woman. Determining that would determine the meaning of this verse.

If it were determined the "further harm or none" pertained to the fetus, then it would be plain to see that the meaning is, a premature birth which might result in disability, disadvantage, or even death ("an eye for an eye, a life for a life" etc.) On the other hand, if it were determined the "further harm or none" referred strictly to the woman and NOT the fetus, then the context would undoubtedly indicate a miscarried fetus. Why? Because there would be no other reason for the husband to demand payment of some penalty in punishment, unless the loss of the potential progeny were an issue. No one would complain or demand punishment for the premature birth of a healthy, viable child.

Is there a Hebrew scholar in the house who knows the language inside and out enough to determine the proper attribution of pronouns/cases/whatever and who does NOT have an axe to grind on this issue?

[Nicodema]

Breath and the fetus

The Bible repeatedly refers to breath as a condition of [human] life. For example:

Psalm 146:4

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."

In the case of Adam's creation, even, breath is indicated as the condition of the commencement of life itself:

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Genesis 2:7

Question: How much "breath" is in the fetus? Does the fetus have "breath" in it? Biblically speaking, a fully living human soul is defined by the presence of breath in the nostrils.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Since it is yatsa' and not shakol which is used in Exodus 21:22, it is impossible to determine from this sentence alone whether the reference to "causing her fruit to depart" means a miscarriage or simply a premature birth. The context of the statement would make it clear could the context be discerned from the original Hebrew but again, because I'm not professionally trained in Hebrew, I'm not able to make that crucial judgment call as to whether the "further harm or none" business refers to the fetus or to the woman. Determining that would determine the meaning of this verse.

---

I suspect that there is as much diversity among the scholars as there is here....:eyesroll:

Having the "fruit of the woman depart" or "her children come out" as on translation puts it, still describes a premature birth. Up until the advent of compressed oxygen, approximately 1920 and onward, there was no treatment for premature babies. It was a virual bullet aimed directly at the aborted fetus. The odds of surviving premature labor was not good. Everyone knew this. A premature birth was a death sentence in most cases. That is why modern translators advocated the use of the word "miscarry" or premature birth.

Given the fact that most women in the last trimester will not help their husbands in a fight due to the baby,and [sorry girls] thier overly large stomachs, still advances the notion that the premature birth was a death sentence.

These factors were known and contributed to the nuances of the language. You might contact your professors and see if this were correct.....

[bonnie]

(quote)Given the fact that most women in the last trimester will not help their husbands in a fight due to the baby,and [sorry girls] thier overly large stomachs, still advances the notion that the premature birth was a death sentence(/quote)

Most women that want their children instinctively protect and withdraw from anything that will harm or destroy their child, whether it is first/second or last trimester.

A firmly held conviction, no matter what, leads somewhere and carries responsibilities and consequences of actions.

I am pro-life. This means I have to accept responsibility for the good, bad and the ugly where I can, involved in that. I have to define it, and accept what that definition means. Pro-life does not mean I simply oppose women terminating a pregnancy.

It is far more than debating the nuance of a word. I don't think a child is a nuance.

If I were to become pro-choice, that carries the same responsibility.

Pro-choice advocates are always very quick to assert they really are not in favor of abortion.

Not many dispute the right of a woman to decide to become pregnant, they do not go to jail for pre-marital sex. No one can dictate how many they have, no one can force you to raise a child. So the choice you are talking about is pro or anti abortion.

If I am pro-choice I have to take responsibility for ALL that entails, not just the sanitized word choice.

You artfully ducked a blunt answer to my previous question. Will try again.

The true nuance to the word choice says in the birth of my son and the thousands like him born everyday, means that just minutes prior to his birth, my choice could have placed a scissors in the base of his skull. The definition of not being able to breathe on his own and not having taken that first breath means in those first few minutes following his birth , I could have exercised choice and put a scissors in the base of his skull. Or could I? When would he have had value that said he should be protected and cared for? Does God leave it up to me to determine the point of value?

If God places a high enough value on whatever you choose to call the object women are terminating to ressurect them at the second coming and grant them eternal life, where does my right come in to determine their value?

Where biblically does God state or imply that it is my right as a woman to have the state or anyone running ahead of me to remove the obstacles in my path. Or even the downright crisis. Or is it only the crisis of a child I don't want to spend nine months carrying that is at issue? Not raise and be forced into motherhood, no one can do that? Just to eliminate a process I don't want to go thru.

Is the aborted? during the first trimester to be resurrected? The one from the second trimester?

The one from the third trimester unable to breathe and maintain vital functions on it's own.?

If God values any of these enough to grant them eternal life along with those of us that will, when did he give me my choice to overide what he places such value in?

If it is not a child, no problem. Then I don' specifically care if they are disposed of as I did an unwanted animal on the farm.

If it is in fact a child as you seem to say, then for myself, I have to be very careful in what I lend my support to.

Abortion destroys something. You have claimed it a child to be resurrected, Nico has said basically the same. Not a big issue, it sounds as aborted??? will have it made and will have eternal life.

It seems to me that Christ thought eternal life was a very big deal, and those that attain it are all important to him.