Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:57:31 EDT
From:         MKLINE%VDH.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Subject:      abortion

Subject: abortion


CXKJP%UTXDP.bitnet@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU ------------------------>
   Is abortion murder? Exodus 21: 22-25 shows that the woman
and her fetus have different legal status.  Also Numbers
5: 5-31.

MAKS> Sorry, but that is not true. I feel for you and your sister, and
      if you or her are ever in need of a warm, safe, loving home, come
      look us up... :-)

      Anyhow, the paragraph below describes Exodus and what it means,
      and the fuller article follows for those even more interested.
      This also, as Kerry was trying to say "How can one be Christian
      and Pro-Choice" lends weight to the truth of her question.

   "Thus the whole sentence really implies that there is the possibility of
injury to the mother and her children, but it may not be a fatal injury.
However it goes on to say, "BUT IF THERE SHALL BE AN INJURY THEN THOU SHALL
PAY LIFE FOR LIFE..." There's no ambiguity here what ever. What is required
is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her
children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant.
If it involves the life, the NEFESH(sp) of the premature baby, then the
assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second class status
attached to the fetus under this rule. The fetus is just as valuable as the
mother. It is as if he were a normally delivered child, or an older person.
The penalty is life for life."

MAKS> More comments. So, what "Pro Choice" is saying, is that a woman
      has a right to have an abortion and have a doctor come under the
      penalty of death. If the penalty was "life for life", then there
      is no difference between killing a child or killing a fetus.

      With the same reasoning as condoms to teens, to make sin less
      painful, with less consequences, we decide (we in a global
      meaning...) to allow those "in pain" to have abortions because
      they won't be able to make it other wise, they will abuse, they
      will fall into sin, never to come back to God. Sure puts a
      small faith in God. God's not in control so let's abort. That
      will solve the problem. That sort of explains why the solution
      has resulted in a marked increase in child abuse and the like.
      Now that children are "choice" we can abuse our "choices"
      because "if we had known" they would have been an "un-choice",
      after all they are such a pain in the ***.

      The same reasoning that allowed us to "terminate" them because
      they were not human, no deserving of life, now condemns "us"
      to have to raise brats. Oh, if only there had been a "choice"
      back then. Now we're condemned to raise them until they are
      18 or what ever.

      No, friends, abortion has only told us life is less valuable
      than it was before. It is a logical second step from evolution.
      After all, who knows, the fetus may evolve into a rabbit, so
      it can't be human.

      Focus on the Family and I believe that Chuck Smith not to long
      ago said our society, even our Christian society has been done
      a great disservice because no one preaches about sin anymore.
      Look at the example of Samson. He was blinded because of his
      sin, and though he killed more of the enemy at his death, HE
      REMAINED BLIND FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.

      Look at Moses. He struck the rock instead of speaking to it.
      Because of that HE NEVER ENTERED THE PROMISED LAND.

      How can we let this happen to our children, our friends? Sue
      is pregnant. She will have the burden of that baby the rest of
      her life. We can't let that happen to her. All that lost happiness,
      all that lost opportunity. Her life will never be the same
      again.

      We give personal stories that make abortion seem right and "the
      easy way out" though even those will probably admit "It was not
      that easy".

      Okay, here's one, my sister-in-law. She married young, in the
      service and found that her husband really didn't want anything
      to do with her, except to get her pregnant. There was talk he
      might have even been gay, but as far as I know, that was dismissed.
        She came home, had the child and was on welfare. Bad huh?
      When in the program, she got training to be a nurse. She then
      married Bill, a man who might qualify as a mechanic. As far as
      I know, a man with out any skills at all. He and Jackie fight
      all the time. He's left her several times, leaving her "alone"
      to arrange baby-sitting for the children and to get to work
      so she can meet her bills.
         Jackie has had a rough life all her life. She may be a
      "glutton for punishment", but that's Jackie. She's had 3
      children, 3 too many, and sometimes she yells too much.
         Through all of this, on her last child she called Linda
      on her last child as she was considering abortion. Linda and
      her talked quite a bit. She kept Cory. Notice, this "fetus"
      turned into "Cory", not a rabbit. If she aborted it though,
      who knows, maybe it would have been a rabbit.
         Last year, Jackie held down 2 jobs, has bought her own house,
      has a swimming pool in the back yard, has a new car, has
      struggled with Bill leaving TWICE, and earned over $40,000.
         Would her life had been better with 3 abortions? Maybe.
      Should she have had them? Maybe. Would it have been right?
      NEVER! I've held those children, knowing each and ever one
      was another "Oh, great, this is exactly what Jackie needs,
      another kid!" But, each and everyone is very precious.

      Well, this got out of hand. Please remember the "we", "us", and
      "I" in the above are speaking in terms of "us as a society"
      and not to any individuals. Everyone has to do what's right
      in their sight, and then LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

      Some who got abortions found out they were damaged and would
      never have children again. Sort of gave new meaning to the
      "fetus they threw away."

      There is a song, "I wonder if God cries". I think abortion is
      one of those issues that I will have to ask Him about when I
      see Him face to face. I imagine with my feelings about the
      subject, I will want to hug all those aborted children when
      I get to heaven as well. :-(

      I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. I really didn't mean
      to, I was just speaking my heart. Linda had a miscarriage
      at about 1 month and talks about it from time to time, it
      was a girl. Sorry, how could it be, it was still a fetus.
      Anyhow, the doctor said if it had lived it would have been
      a girl. My ex-mother-in-law still talks about her 4 children
      including the one that was a miscarriage and would have been
      xx years old had she lived.

      Here are women talking about children and morning that God
      took away, and other women just throw them away. :-( Yes,
      I wonder if God cries... Bye.

Maks.....

The full article concerning this portion of text --------------------->
    Now this can be proven by the important passage found in Exodus
21:21-23. I've asked my good friend Dr. Gleason Archer, one of the most
respected and honored Hebrew scholars in our country, to translate and
interpret the words in this passage for you.

    MAKS> Not knowing Hebrew, I left this out. What I can say is that
through this whole thing they would highlight the English, explain it, go
to a Hebrew scripture and highlight the Hebrew words involved. Still, I'm
sure some are going to say, "one of the most respected and honored Hebrew
scholars in our country" and say, "Who does he think he is?". Basically
what we have that follows is that Exodus 21-21-23-25 equates abortion with
murder and in Old Testament times the abortionist might have paid with his
life for what he did. Pro Choice doesn't want to hear this. <MAKS

    Dr. Gleason Archer: "In earlier years of the current abortion
controversy, it used to be said, even by some evangelical scholars that
Exodus 21:22-25 implied that the killing of an unborn fetus involved a
lesser degree of culpability than the slaughter of a child already born.
But this was based upon an unfortunate mistranslation of the Hebrew
original. Even the text rendering of the New American Standard perpetuates
this misunderstanding quite as much as the King James Version, for it
renders, "(22)And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with
child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he
shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he
shall pay as the judges decide. (23)But if there is any further injury,
then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, (24)eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,". Now in the margin (on 22 "so
that(1) she has a miscarriage") the New American Standard acknowledges that
(Hebrew ya-sa-oul ow-wal-a-day-hi) which they render "so that she has a
miscarriage" literally means "her children come out".

    The same term used for a child from infancy to the age of 12 is the
term which is used here, YELED in the singular, YELADIM in the plural. The
plural happens to be used here, because the woman might be pregnant with
twins when this injury befalls her. The result of this blow to her womb is
that her child or children will be aborted from her womb, and if she is
fortunate, they will come forth alive. The second important observation was
that the "further" inserted by the New American Standard in italics,
indicated by parenthesis here, does not appear in the Hebrew, nor in the
opinion of this writer, is it even implied in the Hebrew at all. The New
International Version correctly renders in its text by saying simply "but
there is no serious injury". The Hebrew as it stands for the third clause
is perfectly clear, and there is no injury (Hebrew given), thus the whole
sentence really should be translated as follows. "(Hebrew) AND WHEN MEN
STRUGGLE TOGETHER (Hebrew given) AND THEY STRIKE A WOMAN WHO IS PREGNANT
(Hebrew given) AND HER CHILDREN COME FORTH (Hebrew) BUT THERE IS NO INJURY,
(Hebrew) THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN SHALL CERTAINLY LEVY A FINE ACCORDING AS
HE SHALL APPOINT FOR HIM. (Hebrew) AND HE SHALL PAY IT TO THE JUDGES."

    Thus the whole sentence really implies that there is the possibility of
injury to the mother and her children, but it may not be a fatal injury.
However it goes on to say, "BUT IF THERE SHALL BE AN INJURY THEN THOU SHALL
PAY LIFE FOR LIFE..." There's no ambiguity here what ever. What is required
is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her
children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant.
If it involves the life, the NEFESH(sp) of the premature baby, then the
assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second class status
attached to the fetus under this rule. The fetus is just as valuable as the
mother. It is as if he were a normally delivered child, or an older person.
The penalty is life for life.

    MAKS> I think we get more conversation on this when we cut it short
like this. For those that think some of this side is harsh, I'm sorry. So
often, even the Christians gloss over different things in favor of not
getting involved and the like.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU