not for women only

A difficult subject to approach, so fraught with the horror of abortion as we know it in this day and age, when women use the law to murder children they need not have conceived.

In my view, America, and indeed, all the nations, will be judged on the sacrifice of the unborn to the worship of convenience and a good life style, as if that should matter when men and women everywhere in America are desperate to adopt a child.

But the question Dorcas raises is not one of abortion as contraception, nor even as something that is commonly to be done, but as an exception to a rule on murder, if indeed murder is the term.

In the Old and New Testaments, self defense is not forbidden.

And it is law that we speak of here. If you will claim grace, then why do you place women under men as a law?

And under Jewish law, a child that endangers the life of it's mother is an attacker, and is therefore trefe, I believe the word is, denoting something that is accursed or unclean for attacking the innocent.

For a mother is a viable member of the community, a part of her husband, and to be valued and cherished against any attacker, even a child that is half formed, and even innocent of intent to kill for it's own survival. Yet by the life that is in it, the child has an instinct to live, even at the expense of it's host.

And that the attack may come from an unborn child in the womb does not make the danger less of an attack on the mother, for it is the mother who gives life, and can give life to many. And if she cannot bear children, she has other value.

She is already a given producer, at least as a wife, as a member of a family, as a member of a community, and possibly as mother of many children already. The fact that many a mother will indeed, from the pressure they feel to fulfill a misunderstanding of their role in life by God, seek to give up their own life for the child they are bearing, is not generousity.

It is self immolation.

But if she, the wife, has no value except as a producer of children, man makes her less than human, and disposable.

All well and good in a time when there was not choice, as a law, and a bad 'choice' it is, too...but there has always been choice, to save the life of a woman from the attack of the child within her.

God made herbs and fungi that have a specific effect on the human body, to the cleanse the womb of a woman who cannot bear a child safely, ergot being the most common.

Oddly, there has always been a choice for women to bear or not to bear, if their life was in danger. That they have been made to feel guilt for what is an act of self defense is due to the pressure of some men to have large families at the expense of their wife's frailties.

And it relates to God's decree's as to what is killing, and what is murder.

Killing in war is not murder, but justifiable homicide.

Killing to protect others is not murder, but justifiable homicide.

Killing in self defense is not murder, but justifiable homicide.

Why then, if the child in your womb is going to kill you are you not allowed to defend yourself?

I will go farther. Being burdened by many children, and physically drained by the demands of the man upon the woman in many societies, despite her inability to bear children safely, many women are bled of strength by the over bearing of children into an early death.

Is this what God intends of a marriage where two are to beome one?

Particularly now, when we can see the problems ahead of time, with ultrasound, and other medical tests and techniques, what the exact problem is? Most dangers in bearing children these days are gotten around by a caeserian birth, a literal operation to take the child from the body of the woman without killing her.

If a child cannot live, or live long, yet will not endanger the life or sanity of the mother by being born, God uses such agony of pain for parents and child to refine the spirit. The birth should go forward, that the few days of life for the child, or the few years, shall become a blessing to all.

But if the child does endanger the life of the mother, and cannot live? What then? If it will kill both mother and child, and the child would die anyway, there is blame in plenty to go around for those that will not protect the wife from her husband.

And there are reasons that a woman should not bear children. To give an example would be a diabetic, who would experience kidney failure, and death if she pressed on in pursuit of a child. Well, if that is her choice, and her husband's choice, to exchange her life for a child, it is not a man dying in a Christlike manner to save others from damnation. But is it a sacrifice to be made? Is it necessary that a woman give up her life to bear children when it is not safe for her to do so?

Is a woman, delicate,and to be cherished by her husband, although willing, due to custom, and the pressure to produce a child, to die merely to produce a son and heir for a beloved husband, even though she leaves the child bereft of a mother, and the husband bereft of a wife?

What if it is murder by childbearing, a disposal of the wife of your youth for a newer, stronger woman? What then, oh man?

This is not the curse laid on Eve.

[color=993300]Genesis 3:16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.[/color]

God said woman would bring forth children in sorrow, and to any man that has witnessed his wife give birth, he knows that he could not take such a burden of distress and pain and travail, for travail it is. Childbearing is a work of pain beyond your imagination.

But the curse on the daughters of Eve is in bringing children forth in pain and suffering, not as a death sentence, and not dying from harboring them in your body.

To force a woman to give up her life to bear life is murder. It is murder by the husband who chooses the life of an unknown child over the wife of his youth. Better he should divorce her for being barren, and commit adultury...the sin is the same - an essential betrayal of the union of the man and his wife.

And the child? The child has a soul and a destiny, but God permits mankind to make decisions that affect other people's lives. And those decisions are often the destiny that God has chosen for all. We do not serve an unseeing, unfeeling God, and what we choose is often what God will use to teach and chastise us.

The soul of the child will not suffer for not being born. The child will experience little of life except the life within the womb, but even if killed to save the life of the mother, it does not suffer the loss of salvation, for the child is innocent.

And what a life for the child, later living with the knowledge that his or her birth murdered a loving mother, is that child not saddled with the very real desire to turn back the clock? Most children would generously offer up his or her life for the mother, particularly if it were before they were able to understand the pain of living without a mother, and the anguish of being blamed for her death. This at least is sacrifice for a right reason, if indeed their birth was the only reason for the woman's death.

Yet, if a woman wishes, without pressure, to give her life to produce life, should it be so? Yes, it is a sacrifice of self, and could be viewed as giving a life for a life, even as Christ gave His life for us. Yet God may view it as suicide by childbirth, a sin unto God.

So be very sure that only a woman's personal desire to produce life for the sake of producing life is in view, for otherwise, she is doing it to satisfy the desires of the husband, or the customs of her community, who will lie to himself or themselves, that he or they had no choice in the matter.

For in all things, God has given us the ability to reason, and to choose what is our desire, yet commanding that man is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, and gave His life willingly for her.

[color=993300]Ecclesiastes 9: 9. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.

Ephesians 5: 28. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.[/color]

Blessings,

Forrest

By taking the life of a child, even to save the mother, aren't we stepping into God's place? How do we know that God wouldn't do a miracle and save the mother and child if someone would pray and believe in faith for them?

I don't know yet what I'd do if my wife was in this place, but these are just questions I'm asking.

Jordan

By taking the life of a child, even to save the mother, aren't we stepping into God's place? How do we know that God wouldn't do a miracle and save the mother and child if someone would pray and believe in faith for them?

Jordan, when our daughter was diagnosed with a brain tumor, she was already pregnant which interfered with the physicians' ability to treat her aggressively. They had to postpone it until the baby was mature enough to live outside the womb. I asked the doctor if she had an abortion would it help the situation? He said "No." Jordan, I was fully prepared to hear him say "yes", that it would mean the difference for her survival. AND if that would have been the case, we still would not have allowed the baby to be aborted in order to save the life of my one and only daughter, whom I loved very much. We knew God could change the situation, heal her and we trusted Him for it, but it did not happen and that it ok. Her mission on this planet was completed and to live beyond that time could have been devastating.

Now about [b]"Therapeutic abortions"[/b], done to save the life of a mother.

I have worked at a Crises Pregnancy Center for fifteen years. During the course of my time there I have talked with women who had these kind of ABs. All of them felt intense guilt and anger at the doctor who did them. The anger is so intense unlike anything you might encounter elsewhere. (And the reality is if these women would sue these doctors for malpractice, it would quickly put them out of business! The reason they do not is because of the intense emotions they would have to deal with in court: they did not want to go through with it.) The only people who were ambivilent about their ABs were those who had one for convenience sake.

Bernard Nathanson, Jewish born, also an atheist -and later a Christian - led the fight in the USA to legzalize ABs. He was also director of the world's largest abortion clinic who presided over 63,000 abs, including one of his own children. He did a lot of speaking, writing and lying during his life as the USA's most prominent abortionist. However, God had his hand on him and he had a complete change of heart on this issue. He detailed this journey in his book "The Hand of God." On page 128 he says, "I finally resricted my abortion practice to those who I judged to have a compelling need for an abortion. This was in the late seventies. I included rape and incest as compelling reasons. During this period, I wrote a bok called [b]Aborting America[/b]. In my book, I listed a lot of medical conditions that would justify abortion. I did two or three abortions in 1978, and then in 1979 I did my last one. I had come to the conclusion that there is no reason for an abortion at any time; this person in the womb is a living human being, and we could not contiue to wage war against the most defenseless of human beings."

Is it not fascinating that an atheist could come to this conclusion while you have professing christians debate this issue? That he learned the truth of Proverbs 6:16-19: "There are six things which the LORD hates,Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers" (NASB) before he became a Christian? To distort the plain Scripture to suit your perceptions of reality will not dismiss the absolute authority of the Word. To do so will only invite the wrath of God, I am afraid.

ginnyrose

'And under Jewish law, a child that endangers the life of it's mother is an attacker, and is therefore trefe, I believe the word is, denoting something that is accursed or unclean for attacking the innocent.'

Could you please quote me the book, chapter, verse from where this law is found?

ginnyrose

Dorcas, Check out this site:

http://www.bible.ca/H-Abortion.htm

This is what the early Christians thought about abortion long before modern medicine.

ginnyrose

Is it not fascinating that an atheist could come to this conclusion while you have professing christians debate this issue? That he learned the truth of Proverbs 6:16-19: "There are six things which the LORD hates,Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers" (NASB) before he became a Christian? To distort the plain Scripture to suit your perceptions of reality will not dismiss the absolute authority of the Word. To do so will only invite the wrath of God, I am afraid.

quote me the book, chapter, verse

Thank you ginnyrose, for all that you have shared and stated. What is so troubling [i]again[/i] is this latest round of emphasis on exceptions and anomalies ... Is there no longer personal anguish in decision making that enters the realms of being none of our business? Or must we press hypotheticals to their breaking point of credulity by stuffing our opinions and noses places where a voyeurism is postulated as yet another pragmatism to satisfy some strange, perceived ability to decide 'what-if' scenarios?

If that is too heady then let me be more blunt; Poppycock! What kind of useless drivel is being promoted here under the guise of ... what? Some kind of psychological mumbo jumbo? I do not see how anyone could read through most of this without some kind of indignation rising up at the sheer foolishness being postulated. It was an [i]effort[/i] to try and even go along with a backdrop of possibly being mistaken. It is absolutely absurd! [i]Especially[/i] after what ginnyrose shared ... the audacity to begin questioning ...

1Ti 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

You said 'we still' as if you and your husband were making this decision, not your daughter and her husband...?

The "we" involves all of us.

the kind of situation I have in mind in which you would be condemning your daughter to an obastructed labour in which both she and her child will inevitably die - she through any number of possible systemic failures, but most likely a ruptured womb.

Since you are so knowledgable about obstetrics and the situations you found yourself in Africa, why did you not as a nurse not assist these poor women so an abortion would not happen instead of assisting in it? My sister is an registered nurse and she has delivered babies before the doctor got there! Even one which had the cord wrapped around it's neck.

You should know as well that to die because of a medical condition is not horrible; but to kill an innocent life with the expectation to save the life of another murder. It is also playing God. Let God be God.

Dorcas, you and me have discussed this issue privately before and now you are bringing it to this forum publically. It seems to me you are so desperate to get approval for your participation in "attending woman having terminations" that you will go to great lengths to get the approval of posters on this forum. Lady, it will not matter in the sight of God whose approval you will be able to wrangle with your arguments, what will matter is when you stand before the ALMIGHTY on judgement day. AND what will he say to you? This is what you should fear: really fear, fear so much you will bow down in repentenace and sorrow for your role in the abortion procedure of women: that of assisting in a murderous procedure! God is ready to forgive and would love to do it but you must repentent. Just like everyone else has to.

Sorry, I had to be so blunt. But I know of no other way to handle this situation that you laid out here for all of us to consider.

ginnyrose

Am anticipating some backlash and as always there is this undercurrent of regret that must have been feeding Paul in his distress;

2Co 7:8 For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.

2Co 7:12 Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you.

Could only pray that the middle verses be true as well, for the Lords sake. Would rather fend it off before hand by noting the separation of the person from the words. I am just weary of having to tolerate some nefarious idea that 'niceties' equates to charity and that real love is covered over by staying silent. It is the notions that have once again caused the alarm and the seemingly harshness of address ...

2Co 12:15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.

2Co 12:16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

2Co 12:17 Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?

2Co 12:18 I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?

2Co 12:19 Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.

2Co 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:

To force a woman to give up her life to bear life is murder.

This is a choice that is not hers to make

I would remind her that God started that child’s heart beat and she doesn’t have the right to stop it.

God works in mysterious ways…when you let him.

situations which are defined (medically) as 'avoidable'

Defined ‘avoidable’ by who?

The Great Physician?

Or some earth bound mortal?

I have suggested that God did not leave us a choice between one murder or two, when the means to save at least one life is available.

Should the midwife have saved Rachel and killed Benjamin? Did God not know Rachel would die? As Rachel was going through her hard, fatal labor pains, God recorded the midwife as saying:

"Thou shalt have this son also" (Gen. 36:17)

I fear you have erred greatly in this conviction of killing babies whose births jeopardize the lives of their mothers. I see the same principle at play with Peter trying to dissuade Jesus from going to Calvary; humanistically, it all seems noble, and it all makes sense, though, in actuality, it is satanic.

[i]"Thou shalt have this son also."[/i]

What a sad, ugly thread. How can the approval of destroying a child be entertained in the mind of Christ? In the mind of limited, wicked, humanistic man, this is certainly feasible, as we see here. Where do such ungodly, humanistic thoughts come from? Why even discuss this wickedness among mature saints?

Brother Paul

Dorcas,

There is one question that has dogged me...you keep referring to females whose pregnancy would be life threatening. How can you determine this without modern technology at your disposal? If you have this at hand to make such a dubious evaluation, you will also have the means to help the woman through the pregnacy so that a 'termination' would not be "necessary."

But never mind about the natural way of things, murder is murder regardless how you want to justify it. And you know it, too, or else you would not have such fine tuned arguments in place to defend the procedure. I have had many abortion minded clients who told me ab is murder and you, who professes to be a Christian, will refute that? Your defense of the procedure generates more questions, like: have you ever had one? or have any of your grandchildren been aborted?

ginnyrose

To all concerned persons on SI:

After I posted on this thread my displeasure with abortion, I got to wondering how knowledgeable people are about the abortion procedure. So I did a brief search online and here are some links I found with very good information.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/themanyways.htm

http://www.lifedynamics.com/DeathCamps/Methods.cfm

http://www.lifesite.net/abortiontypes/

http://www.lifedynamics.com/Index.cfm

I would urge you to study them carefully and prayerfully and ask: is this what Jesus would have anyone do?

I have been told that when an abortionist enters the uterus with a currette, the baby will try to move away from this intruder. So a nurse will put pressure on the abdomen to steady the child so the doctor can more easily kill it. Does this sound like something Jesus would have his children participate in? When I first heard this it just about made me physically ill.

BTW, science is now telling us that a fetus has a heighten sense of pain. So not only are you killing it, the child suffers immense pain.

Godly?

ginnyrose

dorcas wrote:

ginnyrose,

Thank you for your reply.

I feel we are not quite talking about the same scenarios;

The reason I opened this thread was to let Forrest post her point about Jewish culture. She used the word 'law' and will answer, I'm sure, when she can.

As I anticipated an emotional debate over the issue of abortion as murder, I took care to explain that there are cases in Jewish Law where the mother's life is considered more valuable than the child's if one or both of them must die if there is not an abortion.

I am speaking about a rarity, and not a constant.

I am presenting killing as a means of survival under Jewish Law, not murdering children for possible safety or convenience, or as a means of birth control.

If you are willing to defend your home, or your family, or your country, by killing another, which is allowed, and even mandated by God, you must also be willing to defend a woman against the rare situation in which the mother will not survive the birth if she has the child.

Abortion as we know it in America is not at issue.

We are talking the Law of Moses, as given by God, as a guide to the issue of self defense.

For details on Jewish treatment of abortion, please see:

[u]HTTP://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_birthcontrolabortion.htm[/u]

Or Google Jewish Law,Abortion

Blessings,

Forrest

If there was an olympics for logic, Dorcas and Uniqueweb would have just won the gold medal for the long jump.

I am presenting killing as a means of survival under Jewish Law

I would not suppose to kill my young children today in self-defense, or self-preservation for that matter, and neither would I kill them when they were even younger for the same reason. Additionally, I find the use of the term 'self-defense' to be pitiful, given the fact that an unborn child is not attacking said 'self.' The little one may be in the middle of a stormy delimma, but certainly not the cause of it.

It is remarkable that we can agree on so many starting points and yet be so far away on the destination. It just goes to show how important it is to establish Godly precepts before committing to a vector. How vital is the adjustment of just a few degrees at the starting point.

Yet, today we seem far away from our starting point. Clearly we live in an age of spiritual confusion and moral chaos. Trying to discern right from wrong anymore seems like walking through a house of mirrors. Perhaps this is why judgement must begin in the house of God. He must first shatter the labrynth of the skewed and fractured reflections we have built up in our convoluted hearts so that we once again can see straight ahead to make straight the path for others. How heavy this thread makes my heart for our dizzy Church. When the righteous cannot tell right from wrong, perhaps the land really is cursed.

This conversation causes me to pause cautiously concerning the light that I believe is in me. If experienced saints can be so off-balance on an issue of this importance...then all of us should take care. These days we need to hold fast and tight to the scriptures and measure our thoughts and actions by the bible's most simple and bold proclamations...without our learned guile or shrewdness.

I care for the saints in this thread, and know their quality is beyond compare. They know I have learned more from them then they will ever from me. Yet we, God's people, are so weary from the spinning compasses of human reasoning and just so needful for God's direction. We look for relief in loopholes..but alas unless we accept Jesus' yoke alone, and not that of some obstetrician, our deceitful thoughts tend to run away with us, exausting us, and making our hearts unstable and double-minded. For this cause I must strongly object to all of this gnat straining and camel swallowing they would have for us.

Now I do admit that I am obstetricianally ill-informed. (spelling?) Yet, it strikes me as important the number of scriptures establishing that man's spirit and independant relationship to God begins (at least) in the womb.

"Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?...Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb....For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb....I am fearfully and wonderfully made;...My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret,...Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb,...Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb...for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death...The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me....Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb...Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb....Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you... he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb...when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased...The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

These verses show that man has a seperate spirit even in the womb. Indeed, they establish that an unborn baby can be filled with the Holy Spirit. This refutes the idea that the unborn child is not a seperate person because of his or her biological dependency.

And not only are they given spirits, but perhaps they are appointed angels to watch out for them. "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven" Is there good reason to suppose that unborn children are exempted from this blessing?

Okay..If having your opinion respectfully heard is enough then let it go at that. Thankfully, though you are not pursuasive on this point as you have been in many other topics!

I still love you both though! I just think, that on this sensitive issue, you have spent too much time in the hall of mirrors that modern and personal ethics have become.

Let me leave this subject by focusing on the hope that is in our Jesus. That abortion is displeasing to the Lord does not at all change the fact that there is forgiveness, and no condemnation for those who are in Him. Though I harped on needing spiritual and moral direction from the Lord...I ultimately recognize we need much more then that; we need his mercy and grace. How else could we dare confess the truth about our own conditions with a hopeful heart of faith?!

Blessings,

MC

Clearly we live in an age of spiritual confusion and moral chaos. Trying to discern right from wrong anymore seems like walking through a house of mirrors. Perhaps this is why judgement must begin in the house of God. He must first shatter the labrynth of the skewed and fractured reflections we have built up in our convoluted hearts so that we once again can see straight ahead to make straight the path for others. How heavy this thread makes my heart for our dizzy Church. When the righteous cannot tell right from wrong, perhaps the land really is cursed.

This conversation causes me to pause cautiously concerning the light that I believe is in me. If experienced saints can be so off-balance on an issue of this importance...then all of us should take care. These days we need to hold fast and tight to the scriptures and measure our thoughts and actions by the bible's most simple and bold proclamations...without our learned guile or shrewdness.

There is something of a gasp of relief in this, in that you are better articulating that which has been something of a painful anguish that can cut across many varied and different discussions at times ...

It's the worlds thinking and it's logic which is in the simplest from, all those things spoken to it by the scriptures. In the complex reality of that system or rather the reason for it's complexity is that it is a world of it's own confusion. And it is creeping in everywhere it seems. The philosophies of man, of natural man and our spiritual understanding are in direct confrontation, or should be and I don't know if this is not endemic of where we find ourselves in this present hour, somewhere in the midst of trying to sort through it, pick out the embedded elements that are somewhat hidden or subtle in their borrowing of ... [i]our[/i] truth if I might put it so seemingly arrogantly.

Have mentioned before that so much of what we end up having to do is a great demolition project. It seems we might be better off starting all over again rather than doing so much needed remodeling, it just doesn't seem to be effective enough, patching and painting, fixing the bathroom when the roof shakes are so dried out to be in great fire danger ...

MC, you are so correct here. Had shelved something related to this as it applies to the upcoming embedding of another sort; These RF devices that have some of us, rightly concerned about the equating of it all to the system outlined in The Revelation of Jesus Christ to pronounce the title correctly. What I wanted to express in that was this same problem I believe we will be only more and more up against; More and more confusion even amongst our very selves, those of us clinging to the heart of the scriptures, our fellow travelers paradoxically fighting upstream in a downward spiraling world, those walking backwards on old paths ...

It seems already that we have trouble holding two or more thoughts simultaneously, in abeyance and will be continually in 'explanation' mode as to what we [b]do[/b] mean and what we [b]don't[/b] mean. It's that confused and contrived and without just spiritual fundamentals. To clarify that, I am thinking of how the world will be able to foster all the things we seem to believe will be forthcoming in the days ahead. A one world system of government, the rise of the anti-christ, the marking or number of the beast. If even the most shallow of Christians have some idea of all these things the obvious answer seems to be that nobody would be duped at all. The devil is far too crafty for such an overt and obvious display to suck in the unsuspecting. What then better and more characteristic of his wiles than what has always been the route of his travels; Confusion. Lies. And the best in the arsenal a whole lot of [i]our[/i] truth as we are containers of that embodiment by way of the Holy Spirit in us used as ammunition against us, "friendly fire". His word, twisted, clipped out of it's context ... [i]Has God said[/i]? [i]"Cast Yourself down from this ...[/i]". A great deal not being mentioned here as to a certain gullibility of many Christians, that which I am alluding to by way of holding more than one thought ... jumping to conclusions, getting carried away with notions and so forth.

It is going to take a whole different kind of courage to even confront the 'elect' as the Lord put it about not being deceived. We are going to have to reach down deep and find 'charitable' ways of confrontation, rebuking in anguish of heart which is true love for the Brethren and a sheer willingness to be greatly misunderstood. Times where the only way to get a serious point across is to be exceedingly harsh, not brash, but factual and somewhat spiritually in your face if I could put it in that fashion. Was not the Lord so? Are not the vast majority of speakers and messengers presented here so ... [i]other than[/i] not only the world but even all that which constitutes an ideal of that which is supposedly "Chrisitian"? Words, profound words have been stripped of their ultimate meanings. Love. Truth. Even our recently dearly departed brother expressed his great concern over just two of these;

[color=000099]"I cannot express in so many words, how profound my jealousy is for these two great words ‘prophetic’ and ‘apostolic’; they are the foundations of the church, and if they lose their meaning, their cogency, if they stand for something other than what God intends, then we have lost the game. If I could, I would say to these guys, “Listen, play your games with other language—‘Body of Christ, church growth, power evangelism’—go ahead, but don’t touch these sacred words; they’re not yours to defame and to employ.”

I think this is [i]the[/i] great issue of the hour, and I am jealous for other prophetic men to be watchmen on the wall and to be careful how these great words are understood and employed. To stand against these organizational, fraternal collectives of men who congratulate one another and call [i]that[/i] ‘being submitted.’ I was told in Singapore, by one of their American spokesmen, that I am out of relationship, and I am not truly submitted, and that is why I have the strange views of Israel that I do! But he did not even begin to touch the depth of the authenticity of what we know as a very real submittedness, they have it only in the organizational, mutually applauding and congratulatory framework, which is a deceit and a contradiction of the very words ‘prophetic’ and ‘apostolic’! There is something here of grave concern that we need to be aware of.[/color]

[url=http://www.benisrael.org/aboutus/artkatzbio.html]Art Katz Biographical Interview[/url]

A far better exegesis of this worldly understanding I believe is exemplified in [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=17838&forum=34&post_id=&refresh=Go]Authentic Christianity[/url] just as well.

All this might seem 'off topic' to this particular issue in this post but I am seeing a certain deception creeping in amongst ourselves that keeps throwing up red flags.

Neither baby nor I would have survived.

According to whom?

The way the body develops in the womb, things like a heart beat and other functions are bound to start when they are ready,[b] but, that does not mean the body is 'alive'[/b] as it will be if it begins to work properly outside the womb.

And this logic, my brethren, is the very mothership by which the wicked spirit of abortion is fed. The Satanic influence is already in the world, and is now trying to rise up here. Dorcas, why would you create a thread like this? I pray others use discernment...and deal with this shameful thread accordingly.

I am an EMT and have spent plenty of time in hospitals.

I was wanting to know if God told you this…or just some mortal man that has not walked on water, raised the dead, turned water to wine…

As for me and my house, we will listen to God. God is the starter of heartbeats.

Man is not to stop them.

No matter what doctors says.

Sister, I am in no position to condemn you or anyone.

I understand all aspects of pregnancy and the internal workings of the human body.

I have a question.

Do you know how to walk on water?

I don’t either, but I serve the one true living God and He does. My understanding does not matter.

I cannot count the times I have brought people into the ER that should be dead.

The doctors could find no medical explanation why they lived.

They call it a miracle.

I believe in miracles.

Do you believe God can do anything?

I do…and if I had a wife I would hope that she would have sufficient faith to trust in Him.

**edit**

I am not trying to re-hash your past. I am just writing about the now.

From the original post;

In the thread entitled Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?, Forrest has requested a new thread before posting on this sensitive subject, to which I had asked an answer from the brethren, on how they would deal with the choice between the life of the baby and its mother, or, would they choose to lose both?

I have suggested that God did not leave us a choice between one murder or two, when the means to save at least one life is available.

EDIT: It is clear from the Old Testament, that God makes a difference between sorts of killing.

In the paragraph first above, I am not now stating that I accept abortion is 'murder'. But, there is therapeutic abortion today, because doctors [i]did[/i] used to have to 'kill' babies who [u]may[/u] have survived if they could have been born without killing the mother [u]or[/u] whose fatal abnormality was not detected until during [i]labour[/i]. EDIT end.

I am at great pain to even codify some sort of response to all of this. The question itself is an absurd one as a hypothetical, it is apparent that this is an exercise of the intellect over an anguish of an incident. What different tone might all this take if it was someone of our number in such an anguished position.

How, I ask with indignation can you possibly make something of a life or death matter a mere question for fodder of opinion when any number of possible extenuating circumstances are possible?

But that is hardly the problem here as much as the revealing of answers and almost clinical response ... it was earlier stated that this indeed is a 'playing God' that is repulsive and diabolical.

What this does amount to is a complete breakdown in faith, unbelief and trust in the living God. To take matters into our own hands even by these insinuations as a supposed hypothetical is down right frightening for a supposed Christian to be entertaining ...

This whole thing is littered with the humanism of the hour, the philosophies of the feminist movement, pragmatism, quasi-psychology, worldly methods and thinking that it is not even possible nor worth the bother trying to sort out which;

I see the belief that all termination of pregnancy is murder, restricts the options available to this woman's attendants.

but as an exception to a rule on murder, if indeed murder is the term.

Oh dear God to just go back through all this to excerpt these comments ...

No, it is enough, it is far too much, I pray the Lord will open the eyes and hearts and minds. This penchant for dissecting 'exceptions' and ... I am just aghast at all this. There is nothing here worthy of the Lord nor any scriptural notations whatsoever to these far fetched notions and assumptions.

Two quotes to leave this with;

This conversation causes me to pause cautiously concerning the light that I believe is in me. If experienced saints can be so off-balance on an issue of this importance...then all of us should take care. These days we need to hold fast and tight to the scriptures and measure our thoughts and actions by the bible's most simple and bold proclamations...without our learned guile or shrewdness.

I care for the saints in this thread, and know their quality is beyond compare. They know I have learned more from them then they will ever from me. Yet we, God's people, are so weary from the spinning compasses of human reasoning and just so needful for God's direction. We look for relief in loopholes..but alas unless we accept Jesus' yoke alone, and not that of some obstetrician, our deceitful thoughts tend to run away with us, exausting us, and making our hearts unstable and double-minded. For this cause I must strongly object to all of this gnat straining and camel swallowing they would have for us.

I have been told that when an abortionist enters the uterus with a currette, the baby will try to move away from this intruder. So a nurse will put pressure on the abdomen to steady the child so the doctor can more easily kill it. Does this sound like something Jesus would have his children participate in? When I first heard this it just about made me physically ill.

BTW, science is now telling us that a fetus has a heighten sense of pain. So not only are you killing it, the child suffers immense pain.

Godly?

It is enough. This thread will be locked. May the Lord rebuke.

P.S. Don't bother to write me.