|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:24 am
 |
|
|
 |
by Paul F. Taylor
Life begins at fertilization, and all human life is precious and made in the image of God.
The whole subject of abortion1 produces very strong emotions on both sides of the argument. The two primary sides are:
Pro-life: The pro-life position is that life begins at fertilization, and that all human life is precious and made in the image of God.
Pro-choice (or more so “anti-life”): The pro-choice position is that it is the woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, because an unborn child is considered to be a part of the woman’s body. Under this definition, the unborn child is not considered to be fully human.
You would think that pro-choice meant that someone would allow the baby to choose whether he or she should live or die (miscarry), but that is not the case. Even while the baby is choosing to live and continuing to develop, some do not respect that choice. And that has brought us to the heat of a debate that rages around the world.
Such emotions are understandable and can cloud the debate, hiding the truth of what the Bible teaches. However, as this chapter will hopefully make clear, emotional responses to the subject of abortion are not necessarily inappropriate—indeed, such responses may be the most appropriate. Also, an acknowledgment that emotional issues cloud both sides of the debate should not be taken to imply that this chapter will steer a “middle ground” between the two positions. It will not—because the Bible does not do so.
The emotional arguments against abortion include a disgust at the nature of the procedure being discussed. Emotional arguments in favor of abortion focus on an anger that suggests that no one has the right to undermine a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body.
Although this essay is not designed to steer a middle way, it will be necessary to examine some issues dispassionately. This is not because I believe the subject does not demand one’s emotions, but because I want to start by cutting through the emotional charge and examining the issues from a “first-principles” biblical perspective. Only when this foundation is laid can we return to the issue of which emotional responses may be appropriate.
Of crucial importance to the debate is the status of the embryo, fetus, or baby before birth. Please forgive the coldness of the question—but what exactly is it? Should we refer to it as it, or is it a he or she?
The Bible does not directly refer to abortion. There are many other issues about which the Bible does not give specific comment. However, in many cases, it is clear what the biblical position is. And the Bible does have a great deal to say about the status of life before birth. In Jeremiah 1:4–5 we read:
Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
The Lord is giving a number of pieces of information to the prophet. First, God says that He knew Jeremiah when he was in the womb. Second, He makes clear that He knew Jeremiah even before He was formed in the womb. Third, He tells Jeremiah that his growth in the womb was as a result of being “"formed"” by God Himself.
Today, we have a great deal of knowledge of how a baby develops in his or her mother’s womb. In this passage, God is making clear that this is not an arbitrary process. It is a direct act of formation by God. The Hebrew word that is translated as formed is yatsar, and refers to being formed or shaped in the same sort of manner that a potter shapes clay. This analogy is interesting, because the image of God as a potter is closely associated with the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 18 is the famous chapter that talks about the potter and the clay. It is significant that a similar image is being used of an unborn child in Jeremiah 1:5.
The passage implies that there is a personhood associated with the unborn Jeremiah. Therefore, the unborn child should be considered as a full human being, with all the implications that the fact entails. We need to examine whether other passages of Scripture make a similar assumption of personhood for other characters, and, hence, whether we can determine if the Bible counts unborn babies as human beings.
Scripture makes clear that both Jesus and John the Baptist were human before their birth. Jesus was given a name, and His birth was foretold to Mary, at the time of His conception, as recorded in Luke 1:26–38. Some might want to argue, however, that Jesus was a special case. However, no special case argument can be made to apply to John, the account of whose birth is closely wound up with the account of Jesus’ birth.
In Luke 1:41 we note that Elizabeth was “"filled with the Holy Spirit".” She was immediately able to ascertain that Mary was pregnant with the Messiah.
Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:43)
What is interesting about this passage is that the unborn John joins in the celebration.
For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. (Luke 1:44)
John does not just leap—he leaps for joy! Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this Scripture has been recorded in order to emphasize that John’s prophetic work in “preparing the way of the Lord” was beginning before his birth. Therefore, John must have been fully human before his birth.
There is an interesting account in the Mosaic Law about the various penalties for different types of murders.
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. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22–25)
When examining Mosaic Law, it is important to remember that the penalties prescribed do not necessarily apply to today, because these laws were civil laws for the children of Israel. For example, because the Church does not hold the sword of the state today, we are not entitled to legislate stoning for adultery. Nevertheless, the fact that stoning is the punishment prescribed for adultery in the Mosaic theocracy illustrates to us how seriously God views that particular sin.
So when we analyze the passage from Exodus 21 quoted above, we see that there are differing sanctions, based on differing circumstances. In the first case analyzed, we have a pregnant woman who is hurt and gives birth prematurely. In this case, however, the baby is not harmed. So the offense is treated in the same manner as it would if the woman had not been pregnant.
The situation changes notably if harm comes to the baby. On this occasion, there is to be recompense of the “eye for an eye” model. This is not to suppose that we are entitled to use the same sanctions today. Nevertheless, the concept of “"life for life"” illustrates that God considers the death of the unborn to be equivalent to the death of the living. Accordingly, a society should reflect this value in its laws, even if the sanction prescribed is different.
What we have seen from this analysis of Bible passages is that the Bible considers the unborn baby to be human and to have personality, and that God views the value of the life of the unborn, when it is prematurely harmed, to be of equal value to that of any other human being.
Amazingly, this passage has actually been used by some to attempt to condone abortion. This is because of a mistranslation in certain modern versions of the Bible. For example, the Message Bible has:
When there’s a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt . . . [emphasis added]
The Message Bible puts the emphasis on the harm to the woman, whereas other editions emphasize the harm to both mother and baby. The Hebrew term translated either as premature birth or miscarriage is yatsa. This word, which means “to come out,” is used many times in the Old Testament, and in each case always refers to a whole birth. It usually refers to a live birth, though one passage refers to a still birth. In no other place, however, is the term used for a miscarriage.2
The most famous passage referring to the life of the unborn must be from Psalm 139.
For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them. (Psalm 139:13–16)
This is a pictorial account of the development of an unborn baby. It refers to the formation of flesh (covering), internal organs (inward parts), and bones (frame). None of these developments was hidden from God, though they were “"secret"” from people, indicating that we cannot directly see the formation of the unborn. The concept of the “"lowest parts of the earth"” is a euphemism for the female reproductive system. Even in this unborn state, it is clear that the baby is human, as God has already determined “"the days fashioned"” for the baby.
What these passages from Scripture show us is that the unborn baby has personality and sensitivity before birth. It is therefore human, and subject to all the protections of the moral laws that protect other humans. If the unborn baby was an integral part of the woman’s body, then it would not have the separate actions and reactions outlined in these scriptural passages. Viewing the evidence that shows that unborn babies can react to external stimuli, such as light and sound, is a further confirmation of their unique life apart from the mother.
An argument frequently used in favor of abortion is that we need to have concern for the mother. Abortion was supposedly legalized in the UK and the United States to alleviate the suffering of women undergoing crisis pregnancies.
Such crises in pregnancies are very real. Women can be in very real distress during times of pregnancy, particularly if the pregnancy is not planned, or is going wrong because of illness, etc.
Nevertheless, a lot of the difficult cases become clearer once we have determined from Scripture, as above, that the unborn baby is human. Both the UK’s Abortion Act of 1967 and the famous U.S. case of Roe v. Wade were supposed to eliminate dangerous backstreet abortions, and reduce difficult cases, without being used as a general abortion-on-demand measure. Nevertheless, the practical outworking of these laws on both sides of the Atlantic has been startling.
David Reardon has suggested that many women get abortions because they feel under pressure to do so.3 Some such pressures he identifies as circumstantial—women concerned about how they might cope, financially, emotionally, etc. But many more pressures come from other people. He particularly notes that the pressures frequently come from men—husbands, boyfriends, fathers, etc. Women are often coming under pressure to “do the right thing,” even if they have severe doubts. This is one of the factors, Reardon notes, which has made Post-Abortion Trauma such a major psychological illness among women in the last 20 years or so. Reardon’s studies suggested that 53 percent of women felt coerced into abortion by other people, and 65 percent by circumstances (obviously some overlap here). Only 33 percent had felt that their abortion was a “free” choice.
In the case of coercion by others, it can be seen that abortion is frequently not even an answer to this coercion. Many women have had abortions because of pressure from male partners in the hope of saving their relationships, only to find that the partner leaves anyway.
In the case of coercion by circumstances, it is my belief that pro-life Christians need to be pro-active in providing help and care for mothers undergoing crisis pregnancies. Is the proposed abortion happening because the mother cannot afford baby equipment and care? Then Christians should be providing that equipment and care. Will the mother be thrown out of her home if she proceeds with the pregnancy? Then Christians must provide emergency refuge and shelter.
Reardon’s study, which examined women whose abortions had been about ten years previous to the study, also noted that adolescent women (aged 20 or under) were frequently likely to leave abortions to later in gestation, due to reduced ability to make decisions. This immaturity among younger women led to a greater likelihood of post-abortion trauma, and also physical issues, such as a high rate of subsequent infertility. The work of Christian post-abortion counselors, such as Image (see reference 1), has shown that women can be most helped through the application of God’s forgiveness, when the woman repents.
In 2007, 205,598 abortions were carried out in England and Wales,4 and 13,703 in Scotland.5 This UK total6 of 219,301 compares with 23,641 in 1968. There are currently more than 600 abortions performed per day in the UK. Of these figures, 82 percent were performed on single women. About 1 percent of abortions were performed because of suspected handicap in the unborn child. One in five pregnancies in the UK ends in abortion. Abortion law was further liberalized under the 1990 Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, with the result that, in certain cases, abortion can be carried out up to full term. Statistics like these seem to run counter to the generally held mythology that legalized abortions are not carried out for social reasons. Indeed, one top surgeon has recently criticized the “cavalier” way that young surgeons carry out abortions, complaining, “I know of no case where the Department of Health has questioned the legality of abortions.”7
Social justifications for abortion would seem to be of secondary importance, if the unborn baby is defined as human. Yet the overwhelming majority of abortions carried out in the UK are for “social reasons”—government statistics suggest that 98 percent of all abortions are for social reasons.8 The earlier sections have shown that abortions are not even in the interest of the mother, when one considers the violence that can be done to the body, the risk for young adolescent pregnant women, and the dangers of post-abortion trauma. However, many difficult cases continue to be cited, so it is worth examining the practical outcome of a couple of these.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that abortions are often offered to mothers when Down’s Syndrome is suspected. Indeed, in the UK, nine out of ten babies suffering from Down’s Syndrome are aborted.9 The attitude frequently seems to be that it is “kinder” in some way for such a child not to live, because of its “quality of life.” But the people concerned—the “sufferers” of Down’s Syndrome—may have very different opinions about their quality of life. The issue of “quality of life” is an evolutionary concept and has no place in a biblical worldview, which sees all human life as being in the image of God.
Anya Souza—a Down Syndrome sufferer—was allowed to address the 2003 International Down Syndrome Screening Conference in London. She said:
I can’t get rid of my Down’s Syndrome, but you can’t get rid of my happiness. You can’t get rid of the happiness I give others either. It’s doctors like you that want to test pregnant women and stop people like me being born. Together with my family and friends I have fought to prevent my separation from normal society. I have fought for my rights. . . . I may have Down’s syndrome but I am a person first.10
Another set of difficult cases often cited in support of abortion “rights” is what to do about pregnancies resulting from incest or rape. In these cases, it is clear that a crime has taken place—and that crime could well have been a very violent crime. The woman concerned has been violated, and is clearly already going to be suffering as a result of what has happened to her.
Abortion itself is an act of violence on the unborn baby (and the mother). It is not clear that the difficulties of undergoing an abortion could be in any way a comfort to the woman who has suffered the crimes of incest or rape. Moreover, the unborn baby is an innocent party to the event. It does not make sense to end the life of the innocent party because of another act of violence. Add to this the dangers that the mothers themselves may suffer, as stated above—such as infertility and post-abortion trauma.
All human life is valuable. The unborn baby’s life is precious—and so is the mother’s. There are certainly a precious few occasions when, tragically, there is a choice between the life of the baby and the life of the mother. It may be necessary, under these extreme conditions, to consider saving the life of the mother or the child. These tragic situations arise because we live in a fallen world.
One example of the above would be an ectopic pregnancy, where the unborn baby has started to develop in the fallopian tube, rather than in the uterus. It may not be possible to move the baby, and the baby would, in any case, die in such circumstances, as would the mother. Sadly, it may be necessary for the baby to be removed surgically, which will result in his death. With this situation though, it is a matter of trying to save a life or two, as opposed to forcing death on one or both of them.
Other circumstances can be more complicated. When there is a tragic choice between saving either the baby or the mother, but it is impossible to do both, then individual families will need, prayerfully, to come to their own decisions on this matter, and no one would be able to criticize their painful choice. It is fortunate that such events are very rare—about 0.004 percent of all cases involve the possible death of the mother.11
The issue of the personhood of Ms. Souza leads us to examine the use of terminology in the abortion debate. The terminology is important, because language that denies the humanity of the unborn child makes it easier for abortionists to make their case.
The unborn baby is often referred to using two terms. Embryo indicates the fertilized product of conception from implantation to eight weeks. Fetus (or foetus) indicates the baby from the eighth week to birth. Such terms are often easier to use, if the baby is to be terminated, as they do not sound human. The etymology of the latter term is interesting—fetus means “little one.”
There is also the word conception. It always has been, and to most people still is, the combination of the sperm and egg—or fertilization. But the 27th edition of Stedman’s Medical Dictionary now defines conception as implantation of the combined sperm and egg (that must be over 4–5 days old [blastocyte]) when it attaches to the lining of the uterus (endometrium). This has now led to people aborting children with “morning after pills,” cloning of humans, and embryonic stem cell research all the while declaring that it is “before conception.”
As with so many cases, we find that abortion is not the real problem. The real problem is much deeper, and abortion is a symptom of the deeper problem. A society that permits abortion does not do so by chance. It is a society that has neglected the fundamentals of God’s law. The basis for our objection to abortion has been the biblical position that the unborn baby is human. However, in an evolutionary view, why should any human be accorded special status, compared with, for instance, the welfare of animals? To put it crudely, if an animal is sick or injured, we will often take it to the vet to be “put down.”
The difference between the welfare of humans and animals stems back to Genesis. Humans were not made ex nihilo in the way that animals were. The first man was fashioned out of the dust, and God breathed into him the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). The first chapter of the Bible reminds us that God made us in His image (Genesis 1:26). This statement was not made of any other animal.
Evolutionary beliefs have influenced us to think that we are simply evolved animals—that we share a common ancestor with the apes—indeed, further back, we are supposed to share a common ancestor with all mammals. As one modern and rather base pop song puts it—“you and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals.” If that is the case, then the arguments against abortion become hollow. Even if the unborn baby is human, such humans are dispensable if we are just mammals. The dignity of human life means nothing if humans have evolved by millions of years of death, disease, and bloodshed.
The Bible’s position is vastly different. We did not evolve by millions of years of death, disease, and bloodshed; we are not just animals. We are special because we are made in the image of God. We are fallen from that image, certainly, but that image still sets us apart from the animals. Our certainty of the truth of Genesis provides us with the assurance that we are human, and that our humanity began at the moment of conception. It is for that reason that we oppose abortion, because it is a denial of the humanity of the unborn baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:21 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:09 pm
|
|
|
|
edited to fix bbcode and diction
In another thread, I offered a biblical examples where an abortion procedure is actually commanded by God (thus YHWH commanding that the child in the womb be directly targeted and killed on purpose in response to a specific act of sexual immorality), and an example where the pro-life stance, as described by the world, actually becomes murder, again based on biblical examples. I will link to that thread / response here: [Abortion] though it also addresses incest and bestiality since someone asked about it.
That said, the reason why this article wasn't able to detect them, and thus its logic is not complete:
About the article's description of "Mosaic Law"
Quote: When examining Mosaic Law, it is important to remember that the penalties prescribed do not necessarily apply to today, because these laws were civil laws for the children of Israel.
...just to be clear: that would apply to gentiles/foreigners living amongst them too.
Exodus 12:49 (NIV)
49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”
Leviticus 18:26 (NIV)
26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things,
Leviticus 24:16 (NIV)
16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.
Leviticus 24:22 (NIV)
22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God.’”
Numbers 15:29 (NIV)
29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether a native-born Israelite or a foreigner residing among you.
et cetera...
Any nation that submits to His Law, as the law of the land (thus government, justice system, the nation as a whole, submitted to the Holy God of Israel), would be a nation that punished like the children of Israel. They would be rendering justice via a Sanhedrin, not their gentile courts.
On a related note...
Not Against All Stoning
I think people do not realize that Jesus was not against ALL stoning to death, but against unjust stoning to death. That's a big difference. And I'll give examples of both:
In John 8:3-11, He spared the adulteress (thus did not approving of stoning to death) because, aside from His first coming being about forgiveness and reconciling people to God, the Pharisees were not willing to condemn the adulterer along with her, but still wanted to condemn the adulteress to death—and the adulterer could've very well been one of the Pharisees accusing her. Ergo, that would have resulted in an unjust condemnation because one is being spared, but not the other who was equally an accomplice to that act of adultery.
In contrast, Jesus called for the "stoning to death" of those who curse their parents in Matthew 15:3-9 as the righteous thing to do and what He expected the Pharisees to do, but the Pharisees wouldn't do so according to God's Law. Ergo, Jesus is not against the Law of His Father, but against the cherry-picking Pharisees in both examples. He's against the Pharisees' stoning to death if they do so unjustly (unlawfully) and He's against the Pharisee's refraining from stoning to death if they nullify one of God's commands in order to spare the stoning.
When a Sanhedrin is up and running, Jesus fully expects us to carry out justice according to His Father's Laws. Not the nations' laws.
The Nation's laws VS. YHWH's Law
YHWH's Laws are superior; whereas, the laws He gives to the nations, or allows the nations to adopt (because He gives them over to their sinful desires), are inferior.
The commands and verses suggesting as much:
YHWH's Commands:
Leviticus 18:5 (NIV)
5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.
Ezekiel 20:11 (NIV)
11 I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, by which the person who obeys them will live.
Ezekiel 20:13 (NIV)
13 “‘Yet the people of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not follow my decrees but rejected my laws—by which the person who obeys them will live—and they utterly desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and destroy them in the wilderness.
Living by laws (and ways) that are not based on YHWH's righteous standards:
Ezekiel 20:24-25 (NIV)
24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. 25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live;
Romans 1:28 (NIV)
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
Psalm 81:12 (NIV)
12 So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts
to follow their own devices.
The Law of “Israel”
If, by calling it the "Civil Law" for the children of Israel only, they're trying to distance themselves from it, then that is an inaccurate way of speaking because...
(1) we're being grafted into Israel,
Romans 11:13-18 (NIV)
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruitsis holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.
Romans 11:25 (NIV)
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,
(2) the New Covenant, wherever it gets described in the Scriptures, is a promise made to Israel.
Old Testament:
Jeremiah 31:31-33 (NIV)
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,[b]”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
Footnotes:
a. Jeremiah 31:32 Hebrew; Septuagint and Syriac / and I turned away from
b. Jeremiah 31:32 Or was their master
New Testament:
Hebrews 8:10 (NIV)
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
(3) As noted above, the New Covenant does not contain different commands for the citizens of God's Kingdom to live by. Those very same commands, which YHWH gave to Moses, are to be written on our hearts, no longer hating on nor rebelling against His Commands. Anyone who is hostile to His Commands does not belong to Him:
Romans 8:7-9 (NIV)
7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
Ezekiel 36:27 (NIV)
27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
It would have been more accurate to say wherever the Law of YHWH is the law of the land, the punishment detailed in the Law of Moses (really, the Law of YHWH) will be, and is, the punishment of that land. They will punish like the children of Israel, because they have become children of Israel, children of the set-apart body of God.
That the Book of the Law of Moses (thus more than the Ten Commandments) is equivalent to the Law of YHWH (our God):
Nehemiah 8:1 (NIV)
8 1 all the people came together as one in the square before the Water Gate. They told Ezra the teacher of the Law to bring out the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded for Israel.
Nehemiah 9:3 (NIV)
3 They stood where they were and read from the Book of the Law of the Lord their God for a quarter of the day, and spent another quarter in confession and in worshiping the Lord their God.
It's not a case of ONLY the Civil Law of Israel—if they meant we too aren't Israel. If we are a part of the New Covenant, then we are set-apart to God and joining Israel. We're being grafted in. And the nation that submits to His Law as the law of the land would punish sin exactly as it is written.
Kings / presidents / judges in the courts, they're the justice system in God's eyes, responsible for justice, right-ruling, and righteous decrees, as the King of Israel was expected to do. The leaders are in place to carry out justice, preferably according to God's superior standards—but the Gentiles still have the inferior ones set in place. But YHWH's are better. And one day, many nations will come to learn from God's righteous laws:
Micah 4:2 (NIV)
2 Many nations will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
I'll leave it at that and let the examples of YHWH commanding abortion in certain cases speak for themselves. They do not help the pro-choice position at all, if you ask me, because this isn't a choice. It's a command.
Pro-YHWH/Pro-Jesus means Pro-life when He is Pro-life, and Pro-death when He is Pro-death.
Needless to say, because this article does not submit to biblical definitions, their perspectives are incomplete, not totally wrong, just incomplete. Some cases of pro-death are not sinful. Some cases of pro-life are actually murder.
Starting with pro-death situations that are NOT sinful [a.k.a. NOT transgressions of the law, 1 John 3:4]:
✠ God commanding an abortion procedure/test for an adultery-suspicion lacking sufficient witnesses
If a woman were suspected of adultery, but there were no witnesses to condemn her to death, the husband could bring her to the priest. The priest would prepare the bitter drink commanded by God. The commanded procedure—again, commanded by YHWH—would result in her miscarriage/abortion if she were guilty (and I suspect would later lead to her stoning too, thus why her husband's innocence is emphasized later in contrast to "bearing her own sins". It could just mean she'll be infertile, but I don't see what that has to do with the husband's innocence).
Numbers 5:11-22 (NIV)
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
Footnotes:
a. Numbers 5:15 That is, probably about 3 1/2 pounds or about 1.6 kilograms
b. Numbers 5:21 That is, may he cause your name to be used in cursing (see Jer. 29:22); or, may others see that you are cursed; similarly in verse 27.
Numbers 5:28-31 (NIV)
28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
It could be argued that it is YHWH and the natural systems in place that He designed, that are responsible for the abortion, not man savagely cutting into her body and doing more harm than good. But man facilitated it.
✠ YHWH commanding man to stone other people because of sexual immorality they committed (which could have resulted in man aborting a pregnancy / a fertile egg)
According to God's Law, the adulterer and the adulteress are stoned to death. The woman could have conceived as a result of this adulterous sexual relation. But that did not change the command of the Most High God. There is no condition: "but if she might be pregnant, then wait. And if in a few months her belly grows, wait until she brings forth a child, puts him or her up for adoption, then kill the adulterer and adulteress". No, they get stoned without such sparing of the child. Thus, the fertilized egg, inside the womb of the adulteress, would've died too. One's humanness did not prevent any of their deaths—“embryonic” / “fetal” / in the womb or adult.
When sins that are worthy of death are not forgiven, but punished (because two to three witnesses can testify against it, truthfully, not falsely), and the witnesses weren't accomplices, mankind does have the authority to kill off everyone involved in that specific act, including the unborn baby in the womb of the adulterous mother. The mother doesn't get spared while the baby killed, but both die. Along with the adulterous father. The witnesses, who are not participants in their act of adultery, can cast the stone.
Deuteronomy 17:7 (NIV)
7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.
Which is why I highly suspect that the Pharisees were the adulterers—the ones who committed adultery with the adulteress in John 8. And why they couldn't condemn the adulteress, or else they would be ousting themselves as the adulterers who committed adultery with her. Judah and Tamar all over again (Genesis 38).
✠ YHWH Himself, without man's intervention, killing the child after it has been born, because of sexual immorality
An example where God, instead of man, kills the baby because of the adultery, though forgiving the adulterer and adulteress, was David and Bathsheba's adultery (2 Samuel 12:13-18).
2 Samuel 12:13-18 (NIV)
13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”
Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”
15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth[b] on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
18 On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.”
Footnotes:
a. 2 Samuel 12:14 An ancient Hebrew scribal tradition; Masoretic Text for the enemies of
b. 2 Samuel 12:16 Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint; Masoretic Text does not have in sackcloth.
Here, God killed the child, not mankind.
In a nutshell:
The two scenarios of an embryo/fetus/child in the womb being aborted with man's intervention would NOT have been a sin, neither on man's behalf (if done lawfully, according to the commands) nor on God's behalf (He has the right to kill us at any time and command mankind for how to do it). And in the last example, a child outside of the womb being killed by God.
But if mankind is executing the baby in cases of adultery, where two to three witness are stoning the adulteress, then by definition, they are to be executing the mother and father as well or else it is injustice. (Pro-choice advocates do not gain any ground here; if you condemn the baby, then you must condemn the other guilty participants of the sexually immoral act too; otherwise, if mankind spares the life of one, then mankind must spare the life of all the participants of that specific act of adultery, including the baby).
And even if there are no witnesses of who the father / adulterer was, it is lawful for the baby in her womb to be miscarried on purpose if/when the adulteress' husband suspects her of adultery and, in case that she is guilty, the bitter drink causes her to abort. I'm not sure if anyone stones her to death upon the bitter drink working on her, thus proving her guilt; I would think that is suffcient witness (God Himself, the priest, and the husband, all witnessed the bitter drink's effect proving her guilty). Thus the husband's innocence being emphasized. Nothing happens to him. Just her (and of course the miscarried / aborted fetus / child in the womb, who would have been killed in a regular condemnation of adultery had two or three witnesses seen the adulteress and adulterer).
When the pro-life stance becomes murder
Pro-lifers who argue that it's okay to kill the baby, if the baby poses a risk to the mother at any time, even in the fallopian tube, are not basing themselves on scripture. Like I said in Garland's thread on [Abortion], it is unstable to reason that tubal pregnancy is lawful reason to abort (those suggesting it's an acceptable reason say that “the baby becomes an aggressor" at that point). But what if the baby becomes an aggressor at birth, do you kill the baby? And if he is an aggressor, do you hold that kid accountable for the murder of his or her mother when he or she grows up? No. Then the child is not really an aggressor then.
Take the example of Benjamin's birth being a detriment to his mother's life:
Genesis 35:17-19 (NIV)
17 And as she was having great difficulty in childbirth, the midwife said to her, “Don’t despair, for you have another son.” 18 As she breathed her last—for she was dying—she named her son Ben-Oni.[a] But his father named him Benjamin.[b]
19 So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem).
Footnotes:
a. Genesis 35:18 Ben-Oni means son of my trouble.
b. Genesis 35:18 Benjamin means son of my right hand.
Just because the baby poses a risk to his or her mother, that is not lawful reason (or excuse) to kill the baby. Whether the child is in the fallopian tube, in the womb, or the child is coming out during birth, the baby is not viewed as an aggressor / murderer or ever held accountable for murder in scripture. Otherwise, Benjamin should have been stoned to death, like other murderers, as a baby OR when he got older. So that is not a lawful reason for aborting the child (He's not really an aggressor if you wouldn't stone him to death for the death of his mother).
We would have to let the mother die in any case even if she is not guilty of sexual immorality like in the other cases above. Why would our modern technology change the baby's biblical status of non-aggressor to aggressor? In their day, the mother would have died. No one would have said, "let's go in and kill the baby". So, why should we, today, become murderers "because man's technology"? Let the kid die with his or her mom, like any other case in reality when she is not able to deliver the baby prior to her death. They both would die together. Otherwise, we become murderers in our attempts to save one (why not kill Benjamin to spare Benjamin's mother?). We become murderers thanks to technology telling us it's okay to do it now, though God's word is not telling us it's okay.
We cannot have it both ways: either the fertilized egg is a living human life or it is not. And we cannot label the fertilized egg as an aggressor just because it is in the fallopian tube and won't come out. The baby itself is not causing his or herself to stay in the fallopian tube. God is. Do people really think God is not in control of what is going on in our fallopian tubes? We do not base our decisions on prayers alone, but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God, every example. Including the examples where babies, who posed a risk to their mothers, weren't killed.
For the sake of mercy, protection is sacrificed
I just want people to realize that, when we ignore any of God's commands (even for the sake of mercy / forgiveness), it does not magically erase the consequences for disobeying the commands that call for someone's death.
On the one hand, in the case of forgiveness, the act of mercy DOES allow opportunity for the adulterers (and their child eventually, if the child survives) to repent of sin and be reconciled to God.
On the other hand, the negative consequences that God protects us from in the first place, thus why He called for their death in the first place, we're no longer protected from (jealousy between the children and half-children, passing on of STD's from the adulterous spouses to the non-adulterous spouse and the children they later beget, complicated family inheritances because we have people being born to other mothers outside the family, but the father is still responsible for them, etc).
So for the sake of mercy, when we are not obeying the command to stone to death the adulterer and the adulteress (which would include the child in her womb along with her), we're not protected from the consequences. Obviously, whenever a command of God, an instruction of God, is not being followed, detriment—that the command serves to protect us from—happens. Every single one of His Commands still protect us, to this day, in this decaying and corrupt world. I would encourage people to meditate on how that lack of protection, even for failing to adhere to the least of the commands, manifests in our lives.
Conclusion
It's not immoral in God's eyes when sinners, who committed sins worthy of death were put to death, along with the embryo/fetus/child in the woman's womb. And it's probably precisely because the sexually immoral relation DID result in conception / pregnancy that He ordered death against them in the first place (because order would not be preserved in some way, whether in the genetic integrity of the child, health in the mother, and thus the other spouse for continuing to have relations with the adultereress [or never having a peaceful conscience because of constant suspicion of cheating] or all of the above).
It's not immoral in God's eyes for governments to render capital punishment (kill people for behaving sinfully, even if they define sin/crime by lower standards). But YHWH's Law is superior and what conforms to reality and true justice. Whatever other laws we impose upon ourselves will not preserve our lives the way YHWH's commands do. So people need to stop pushing YHWH's Law off to the side and distancing themselves from it just because they are not native-born Israelite, and hating on His punishments. The world would be a better place if everyone followed every command justly, like Jesus did. And one day many nations will.
So, if someone is getting stoned for committing the sin, the accomplices should die too. But if one guilty party is being pardoned from the act, then the other accomplices who participated in the situation are spared too. All or nothing. If they won't give up all the accomplices of a specific instance of a crime, then no one dies for that specific instance of the crime. That is justice and mercy.
God's commands are not to be set aside. When we don't set aside the least of them, we get a much fuller, better, and just definition.
Matthew 5:19 (NIV)
19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Some instances of pro-death on the child—where the child in the womb is being directly targeted by God and man—were commanded by God and we need to acknowledge that. Whereas, in other instances, we'd be violating God's commands against murder in our attempts to save one and not the other, despite the act being approved in "pro-life" circles. The pro-life stance appears like the obvious righteous one, and the pro-choice stance appears like the obviously wicked stance, and, though pro-life gets more right, they both err.
The only solution is that we need to become Pro-YHWH/Pro-Jesus: thus pro-life when He is pro-life. Pro-death when He is pro-death. The Father and the Son do not disagree. And they're not against the death penalty, stoning to death, when it is just, even if the adulteress has a fertilized egg in her. And though we forgive, that doesn't save us from the biological consequences those commands are protecting us from. So whether carrying out justice, or having mercy, they both will have their downsides: carry out justice, protect creation biologically, appease the wrathful consciences of people involved, keep the family organized VS. forgive, grant mercy, not be protected from everything those commands to stone them to death are protecting us from.
Above all, I want to say: YHWH's law is not evil. So let's stop reasoning like it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:54 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
