# Another abortion question



## cupotea (Feb 27, 2010)

Usually when I'm asked about the biblical basis for against abortion, the ten commandment # 6 Thou shalt not kill comes into mind.

I just wonder if it is the ultimate basis.

How about the sanctity of life based on the man's creation and God‘s sovereignty? Could
we say these are the basis for commandment #6.

Also for "kill", according to Strong's

OT:7523
ratsach (raw-tsakh'); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:

KJV - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

Does it cover murder as well as manslaughter?

Thanks for all the input.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 27, 2010)

Does Exodus 21 Sanction Abortion? : ChristianCourier.com

This is a good answer.

“Some Bible teachers say that Exodus 21:22-23 implies that the life of a fetus is not in the same qualitative category as that of its pregnant mother. Would you comment on this?”

This is a common rationalization of those who seek some biblical justification for the practice of abortion. It is a theory without merit. The passage in the book of Exodus reads as follows.

“And if men strive together, and hurt a pregnant woman, so that her
fruit [children] come out, and yet no harm follows; the one who hit her shall surely be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall impose upon him; and he shall pay a fine as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . .”

The argument runs something like this. If two men are fighting, and the
struggle injures a pregnant woman (who perhaps intervenes in an attempt to stop the dispute), so that she miscarries, a monetary fine may be imposed to compensate for the death of the fetus. This infraction, however, was not viewed as a capital case. It is then contended that the implication must be that the fetus was not a human being with rights comparable to an adult person.

This theory was presented a while back by Jewish “rabbi” Shira Stern, daughter of violinist Isaac Stern, as representative of the modern Jewish view (cited by Don Feder, “Abortion, Judaism, and Jews,” National Review, July 8, 1991, p. 50). The position is false, for it is based upon a misunderstanding of what the text actually says.

We must observe, though, that some translations have given credence to
this erroneous viewpoint by rendering the word “depart” as miscarriage. The Revised Standard Version reads: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage . . .” (cf. NASB). The liberal
commentary, The Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon, 1952), as well as other commentaries, also accommodate this view.

However, there is absolutely no evidence that a dead fetus is under consideration in this passage. The fact is, the Hebrew language has a term (shachol) that denotes an abortion, or miscarriage (see 2 Kgs. 2:21; Hos. 9:14), yet that word is not employed in this context. This passage deals with a premature birth, not an aborted fetus.

The Hebrew word rendered “depart” is yasa, basically meaning “to go (come) out.” Though the word has a wide variety of uses in the Old Testament, it is frequently employed of an ordinary birth. God told Jeremiah, " . . .before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you . . ." (Jer. 1:5). In Exodus 21:22 the verb is used “of untimely birth” (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, p. 423), or of “premature birth” (cf. NIV; NKJV).

Noted Hebrew scholar Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. has observed that it is a “gross error,” either by translation or by means of commentary, to argue that a miscarriage is suggested in this passage (Toward Old Testament Ethics, Zondervan, 1983, p. 170).

In an excellent article which discusses this passage at length, Jack W. Cottrell, a professor of theology at the Cincinnati Bible Seminary, declared: “There is absolutely no linguistic justification for translating verse 22 to refer to a miscarriage” (Christianity Today, March 16, 1973, p. 8).

A second factor to be given consideration in this text is the use of the
word “fruit.” The term derives from the Hebrew yeled, which is a “child.” In this instance the word is plural, “children,” which likely is calculated to cover multiple births, or perhaps both sexes. In Genesis 21:8, Moses wrote regarding Isaac: “And the child grew, and was weaned . . .” Is there any question but that Isaac was an actual person at this time? Dr. Kaiser thus notes: “The use of the term ‘child’ makes it clear that a human being is in view here” (op. cit).

What, then, is the passage teaching? Simply this. If two fighting men injure a pregnant woman, causing her to give premature birth, yet no harm
follows – to either mother or child – a fine will be levied as a penalty for such carelessness. However, if any harm followed, to mother or babe, justice was to be meted out commensurate with degree of damage. Both the mother and unborn child had equal protection under the law.

We must, therefore, protest the use of Exodus 21:22-23 as a “proof-text”
for the support of abortion. Alan Cole observed: “It has sometimes been claimed by those in favor of abortion that the unborn child is not really considered as an individual here: but that is not the point of this passage . . .The destruction of the unborn child was regarded by the Hebrews as an instance of the most barbarous cruelty, calling down God’s judgment (2 Kings 15:16)” (“Exodus,” Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, Inter-Varsity, 1985, p. 169).

Again, as professor John Hannah observed: " . . .the unborn fetus is viewed in this passage as just as much a human being as its mother; the abortion of a fetus was considered murder" (“Exodus,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Victor, 1985, p. 141).

Of the wicked Menahem, who became king of Israel, an inspired Old
Testament writer states that he “ripped up” women that were with child (2 Kgs. 15:16), an act which God abhorred (cf. Am. 1:13). Today, abortion clinics are performing the same savage deeds. Surely a time of reckoning will come.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 27, 2010)

earl, that was GREAT!! Thanks so much.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 28, 2010)

I appreciate this article, but still need answer for my question.


----------



## TimV (Feb 28, 2010)

Duncan, the sanctity of life argument is the basis of the modern Roman Catholic reasoning against the death penalty. It need to be refined to allow for a human killing others under some circumstances, like in this verse, from Gen. 9:6


> Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man.



and then it needs to be refined further, at least in my opinion to allow for the termination of pregnancies under some circumstances. And that proof, like so many takes lots of study and thought, and good men disagree over the issue. Take this verse, for instance, that shows, probably, that the Patriarchs would have disagreed with the modern Roman Catholic belief that a soul enters the body at conception.


> Gen 38:24 About three months later Judah was told, "Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality." And Judah said, "Bring her out, and let her be burned."


Clearly the three month old babies didn't have the same rights as others. For instance, Judah would never have executed the woman along with her twin babies.

As I noted on the last thread, the period that the church has generally (yes, there are many who do and have disagreed) said that the fetus has yet to recieve a soul allows for the abortion of a fetus that has been implanted in a fallopian tube without the crime of murder, or even manslaughter to be attached.

It would be interesting to see if any Reformed church has ever disciplined a woman for getting an abortion under that particular circumstance. I would guess not.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 28, 2010)

TimV said:


> It would be interesting to see if any Reformed church has ever disciplined a woman for getting an abortion under that particular circumstance. I would guess not.



Now that is sad the Reformed Church does not discipline in these matters, though no doubt The Lord takes care where we fail.

So far as the verse in Gen that also is a stretch as to when the soul is created. Who is to say the twins were not elect or horror of horrors that they were unelect without having yet committed a sin. I see your point on the history of thought on this.....which is WRONG. I say this knowing you are just telling us the history and that you may not take up that thought.


----------



## TimV (Feb 28, 2010)

Earl, Lynnie asked if anyone would be happy to see a homeschool mom bleed out to death in front of her 3 kids rather than to end an ectopic pregnancy. What is your answer to that.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 28, 2010)

The lesser of two evils would apply here In my most humble opinion. If the Lord saw fit to implant the baby in the womb no doubt He would have. Committing suicide is a sin and if a mom wishes to kill herself with her baby....well I would hope she would "choose" wisely.


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 28, 2010)

In general, I think we need to be careful about "sanctity of life," as a term -- on the surface, it sounds great, after all life is precious. But the idea of "life" as some amorphous ideal takes on a character of its own defending the life of all creatures, sometimes at the expense of man (PETA etc.), and defending cold-blooded killers from justice. As another poster said, the wrongful murder of a human being is the focus of the sixth commandment and elsewhere in the law we have gradations of guilt based on circumstances, so manslaughter charges are not necessarily outside the scope of the scriptures.

Is more than the sixth commandment involved in the abortion issue? It's reasonable to see man's creation in God's image as a huge part of the discussion. His sovereignty in bringing a child into life certainly can't be denied either. But that doesn't mean we should turn off our brains nor should we ignore the advances (made largely because of the influence of a Christian worldview) in science and medicine. 

I am troubled by anyone seeing "quickening" as some kind of dividing line. From my perspective, modern imaging should have shut down the abortion debate years ago: we see a child moving and living in the womb long before the mother is aware. At the same time, modern medicine gives us greater insight into factors that can affect the life and health of mother_ and_ child. That's why wisdom is so critical in discussions regarding choices affecting mother and child. 

Imaging, monitoring and C-sections have eliminated many circumstances that would have flat-out killed a mother (and likely her child) in the past. But in some cases, we know that the child cannot survive a pregnancy and will almost certainly endanger the mother -- to _not_ terminate the pregnancy at that point would be a violation of the sixth commandment (in it's application to the preserving of health).

Clearly, there are shades of gray, and that's where many years of searching God's scriptures and engaging the counsel of the godly comes into play -- to have the wisdom to do what is best for all involved. But I would not budge an inch from the stand that the preservation of human life is involved here -- a decision comes when the life of a mother, child, or both is involved.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 28, 2010)

> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Question 134: Which is the sixth commandment?
> 
> ...



We need a Savior.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 28, 2010)

TimV said:


> > Gen 38:24 About three months later Judah was told, "Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality." And Judah said, "Bring her out, and let her be burned."
> 
> 
> Clearly the three month old babies didn't have the same rights as others. For instance, Judah would never have executed the woman along with her twin babies.


 
I think you're forgetting the fact that prior to Judah saying this, his own track record (morality) was nowhere near sparkling. He lied to Tamar about giving her a new husband from his sons and his own sons were raised up so wickedly that the Lord struck them both down. His actions here have nothing to do with the rights of three month olds - they have more to do with the fact that prior to Tamar confronting him a few verses later, he was still acting in a very wicked fashion.


----------



## TimV (Feb 28, 2010)

> I think you're forgetting the fact that prior to Judah saying this, his own track record (morality) was nowhere near sparkling.



True!! But none the less, I think it fair to say he wouldn't have ordered her twin 3 month olds burnt with her. My point is that there are several millennia in church history where 6 week old fetuses have not had the same rights as a preborn child who was "animated" whatever that means.

I only mean to offer an ethical framework where a woman who has an abortion under certain circumstances isn't a murderer. We don't always know who is listening to us or reading what we write, and we've got to be careful of not placing a burden on someone that's unnecessary.

We had this debate some months ago, and there was the opinion that a couple who ordered their extra fertilized eggs destroyed after a successful fertility treatment should be put to death for murder. And there are women who are, right now as we speak, pressured into "adopting" those fertilized eggs since they are being told that they are morally obligated into doing such.

I think here on the PB we can tackle these issues as long as we don't let our emotions get out of hand.


----------



## Herald (Feb 28, 2010)

TimV said:


> Duncan, the sanctity of life argument is the basis of the modern Roman Catholic reasoning against the death penalty. It need to be refined to allow for a human killing others under some circumstances, like in this verse, from Gen. 9:6
> 
> 
> > Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man.
> ...



Tim,

What is your belief? Do you believe that the soul is present at conception? I'm wondering whether you're arguing for something here or just providing historical background.


----------



## TimV (Feb 28, 2010)

I'm arguing for not knowing for sure. Our sermon today was on James, and the problem of evil. The Pastor said he honestly couldn't solve the problem of evil, but he felt he was in good company.

And it's the same with "ensoulation". We just don't know. Take the theory of ensoulation at the moment of conception, for instance. With identical twins, separation can occur up until the 8 cell stage. So, does God put two souls into one person early on? Does God put one soul into one person, and the soul divides?

I trust you see my point. And as far as the "lesser of all evils" argument, sorry, but I don't swallow it. Would God put you into a position where you have to choose evil? I don't think so. So sorry, Earl! I admire your stance for what you consider truth, but no, I don't think I'll ever be in a situation where I have to choose evil to please the Lord.

And to solve the problem of ectopic pregnancy (and there are naturally other examples, but let's focus on this one since it's been brought up) I just can't see choosing between one of two sins. It's far easier (yes, it may very well be a cop out. I'm a gardener, not a theologian) to posit a theory of ensoulation that happens later, or at the very least, whenever God chooses! And I find it interesting that even as our medical science advances, there are some uncanny similarities between what many if not most church fathers accepted as the time of a person becoming a living soul and the later stages of the types of pregnancies which have to be ended to preserve the mother's life.


----------



## Herald (Feb 28, 2010)

Tim,

I cast my understanding of this issue on the Word of God. 

Jeremiah 1:5 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." 

Psalm 139:16 16 Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. 

I see no evidence from scripture that life can be soulless, even for a nanosecond. On the contrary, I read that life is known to God. Not just that God is cognizant that conception takes place, but knowing because He brings it to pass as part of His sovereign will. So, whether a fertilized egg terminates through a problem pregnancy, or whether the unborn child is aborted, it is human life. And since human life is the sole creative work of God, and man is made in His image (Gen. 1:26), all human life has a spiritual nature (soul).


----------



## TimV (Feb 28, 2010)

> I see no evidence from scripture that life can be soulless, even for a nanosecond. On the contrary, I read that life is known to God.



But a meiotic egg or sperm cell respires, just like a newly fertilized egg. So do every egg and sperm cell with 23 chromosomes have a soul? There's nothing in the verses you quoted to say that at the instant an egg is fertilized a soul which was created in eternity past is necessarily joined with the cell. None at all.

And although I sympathise with you, as I do with Earl, I'd like to ask you if you agree with Earl, that sometimes you have to kill an innocent human being with a soul (according to what you believe) to please the Lord.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 28, 2010)

TimV said:


> There's nothing in the verses you quoted to say that at the instant an egg is fertilized a soul which was created in eternity past is necessarily joined with the cell.


 
Just a quick note - pre-existence of souls is not usually accepted by Reformed creationists: I only recall seeing Origen mentioned as a prominent proponent of it.


----------



## TimV (Feb 28, 2010)

Thanks, Ruben. I thought about posting that, and probably should have said those who were know of God from eternity, which is (consistently?) more ambiguous.

Bill, forget about that part, and concentrate on the point about killing an innocent person to please God.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 1, 2010)

TimV said:


> And as far as the "lesser of all evils" argument, sorry, but I don't swallow it. Would God put you into a position where you have to choose evil? I don't think so. So sorry, Earl! I admire your stance for what you consider truth, but no, I don't think I'll ever be in a situation where I have to choose evil to please the Lord.


 
No need to say sorry. So you never had told a little old white lie to protect someones feelings? Can you imagine being in Nazi Germany and trying to hide Jews in your floor? The SS braks in and they ask "Are you hiding Jews?" What do you do? I could go on and on but you get the point.

So would you let your wife die if she had an etopic pregnancy?


----------



## TimV (Mar 1, 2010)

> No need to say sorry. So you never had told a little old white lie to protect someones feelings? Can you imagine being in Nazi Germany and trying to hide Jews in your floor? The SS braks in and they ask "Are you hiding Jews?" What do you do? I could go on and on but you get the point.
> 
> So would you let your wife die if she had an etopic pregnancy?



Lying isn't a sin during warfare, since you don't owe the enemy the truth. At least my old pastor explained it that way. And no, I wouldn't let my wife die. Especially since aborting a fertilized egg in a fallopian tube isn't killing a human being, at least the way I see it, and I've got a whole lot of history on my side.

See how nice the ethics work out? The Jews is a bit weird. The equivalent today would be the shop owner who's hiding illegal aliens, and I'd fault him for not saying "yes" but then we get dragged into another Hitler was the definition of evil argument and I'm not up for another one just now.

So, and I'd like to hear from elders, does it ever please God to murder an innocent human being?


----------



## earl40 (Mar 1, 2010)

TimV said:


> And no, I wouldn't let my wife die. Especially since aborting a fertilized egg in a fallopian tube isn't killing a human being, at least the way I see it, and I've got a whole lot of history on my side.



Remind me to not jump in your foxhole when someone comes aboard here and fights for killing 6 week old children in the womb. 


---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 PM ----------




TimV said:


> And although I sympathise with you, as I do with Earl, I'd like to ask you if you agree with Earl, that sometimes you have to kill an innocent human being with a soul (according to what you believe) to please the Lord.



So tell us.....if you took our position that a baby is a human being at conception and was in the tube....what would you do? We answered, your turn.


----------



## TimV (Mar 1, 2010)

> Remind me to not jump in your foxhole when someone comes aboard here and fights for killing 6 week old children in the womb.



Sorry, I don't understand. 


> So tell us.....if you took our position that a baby is a human being at conception and was in the tube....what would you do? We answered, your turn.



I'm trying not to insult you, but you make it difficult, with your insulting tone. I answered. Abort it. I could never take a happy clappy position and think it's Christian. "Us"? who is "us"?

You did answer my question. I asked you what you would do under those circumstances, and you said you'd kill an innocent human being, and you thought it would please God. I truly feel sorry for you. A "white lie" is equivalent to killing an innocent human being? I doubt you'd fit into my OPC church. Do you actually belong to a denomination?


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 1, 2010)

This whole ensoulment business reminds me of some big shot Christian scientist coming down to my university two years ago to give a public lecture on how a fertilized embryos can be killed off for the sake of research as there is no evidence of "ensoulment" early on. It got me quite disconcerted but everyone else around me seemed to lap it up as biblical truth. Is there actually such as thing as ensoulment? Jeremiah 1:5 seems to me to be enough evidence to rebuke that big shot scientist.


----------



## cupotea (Mar 1, 2010)

Sorry it seems my question caused some kind of arguing.

But someone please help me sort out my question:

Quote

Also for "kill", according to Strong's

OT:7523
ratsach (raw-tsakh'); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:

KJV - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

Does it cover murder as well as manslaughter?

end of quote

When I asked this question, I was facing a real life situation:

One couple in our church aborted their child, the child was diagnosed with multiple
deformation and the doctors told them the child would either die in the womb or
within a short time after born.

Now we have a problem, some people say it was an act a killing (maybe murder),
other people would rather not use the word "kill" and they definitely would not
use the word "murder".

So my question is: 

Could we say this was at least a case of manslaughter, even though
we are unable to determine the intention of this couple, whether they
premeditate the killing of the baby (I guess even they didn't know,
they wanted to keep the baby and at last they made the painful decision
and they were very sad).

Does Deut. 19:5 falls under the jurisdiction of 6th commandment? 

Did this couple break the 6th commandment? some people say yes they
did, some people say they are not sure.

Please help me so we could help this couple.


----------



## TimV (Mar 2, 2010)

Duncan, in my church, which is one of the most conservative Reformed denomination, the couple in your church would have been called murderers. I doubt that it's different in any other confessional Reformed denomination. They had no right to kill their child under any circumstances other than those spoken of on these two threads, and it's all the more heartless in their case since the child would have needed more love and caring than a healthy baby. They acted like monsters, and for their own spiritual health need to be aware of this.

Here's some further reading from the OPC 

The General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church adopted a statement on children and abortion in 1971. It placed the denomination squarely in the pro-life camp. It reads in part:





> Unborn children are living creatures in the image of God, given by God as a blessing to their parents. Between conception and birth they are the objects of God's particular providence and care as they are being prepared by God for the responsibilities and privileges of postnatal life. Scripture obligates us to treat unborn children as human persons in all decisions and actions involving them. They should not, therefore, be destroyed by voluntary abortion in the absence of valid medical grounds demonstrating the necessity of such abortion to save the mother's life.



New Horizons

It differs from the poorly written PCA statement on abortion, which pretends that things like life threatening ectopic pregnancies are hypothetical.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 2, 2010)

TimV said:


> > Remind me to not jump in your foxhole when someone comes aboard here and fights for killing 6 week old children in the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So your OPC denomination says the are not ensouled till when?

Sorry about coming across as snippy but this issue is rather important and what is interestiong is that you are saying essencially the same thing we are but sugar coating it by making the child a blob of tissue.

Really no offence meant at all becaus I do enjoy many of your post!


PS. We are attending a PCA church and I believe "we" define when a baby is a baby. At conceptionm and as pointed out here the reformed standards speak on this issue quite clearly as presended in the previous posts.

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------

What is up with you presenting a differnt postion than your denomination?


----------



## TimV (Mar 2, 2010)

> So your OPC denomination says the are not ensouled till when?



It kind of avoids that issue. The issue of ensoulation is obvious when you think about it. Any State needs to define the time when a fetus has all the rights of a human being. An obvious reason would be when you could execute a pregnant woman. Another reason would be church discipline. At what time and under what circumstances should you practice church discipline. So the OPC statement is more realistic than the PCA, but fails it deal with the more complicated question of person hood (at least I read it that way). I'm sure it was deliberate.

The PCA's position paper is more consistent e.g. it rightly deals with a point you're not grasping, that you can't please God by murdering an innocent human being. And the way they solve the ethical problem is to live in an alternate reality



> At this point we want to consider what is frequently alleged to be a special case in which an exception is granted by those who would otherwise oppose all abortion. This special case is that abortion may sometimes be necessary to save the life of the mother. The situation is one in which the mother's very life is threatened by the continued existence of a pregnancy. It is posed as a question of one life or the other.
> 
> It is necessary first of all to reduce the emotional character of this "special case" with its accompanying misrepresentation. In many instances one would be led to believe this is an ethical decision faced regularly by physicians and parents. This is not to deny in any way the extremely painful choice when such a decision should confront us. But medically speaking, such a situation would be extremely rare in today's world. Advances in medical technology and in the knowledge and treatment of pregnancy complications have carried us to the point when almost any pregnancy can be carried to term or to the point where premature delivery can be accomplished with good results. The moral and ethical question is more theoretical than practical.



Notice it just brushes over the reality of such decisions by simply saying that one could possibly face an extremely difficult choice. By crystal clear implication, given the rest of the position paper, they demand that under no cases could a fertilized egg be aborted. One wonders what legal repercussions a Session would face if they forced a woman upon pain of excommunication not to abort in certain circumstances.

See, your denomination agrees with me and not you.



> The destruction of such life without proper Biblical warrant is a grave sin. The question must therefore be formulated in terms of whether it is ever justifiable under any circumstance to sin, indeed to sin against an absolute prohibition of God Almighty. God's sovereignty and providential care govern all things. *Being perfect in holiness and righteousness, hating all sin, God will not place His creature in a situation in which sin would be approved or justified*.


PCA Historical Center: Report of the Ad-Interim Committee on Abortion (1878)




> Sorry about coming across as snippy but this issue is rather important and what is interestiong is that you are saying essencially the same thing we are but sugar coating it by making the child a blob of tissue.



Again, I have no idea what you just said.




> PS. We are attending a PCA church and I believe "we" define when a baby is a baby. At conceptionm and as pointed out here the reformed standards speak on this issue quite clearly as presended in the previous posts.



Then I'll through back your own quotation to you!



> The lesser of two evils would apply here In my most humble opinion.



and that directly contradicts the PCA position paper.


----------



## Montanablue (Mar 2, 2010)

I'm really shocked by the PCA's position paper. Ectopic pregnancies DO happen. And if there's not an abortion, both mother and baby die. I really wonder how obgyns in the denomination feel about the paper (or if they know about it?)


----------



## earl40 (Mar 2, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> I'm really shocked by the PCA's position paper. Ectopic pregnancies DO happen. And if there's not an abortion, both mother and baby die. I really wonder how obgyns in the denomination feel about the paper (or if they know about it?)



Do you have the link? If true as stated above (which would suprise me BTW) then they need to revist this issue.

---------- Post added at 12:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

Is this the part being discussed?

PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America

"It is necessary first of all to reduce the emotional character of this "special case" with its accompanying misrepresentation. In many instances one would be led to believe this is an ethical decision faced regularly by physicians and parents. This is not to deny in any way the extremely painful choice when such a decision should confront us. But medically speaking, such a situation would be extremely rare in today's world. Advances in medical technology and in the knowledge and treatment of pregnancy complications have carried us to the point *when almost any pregnancy can be carried to term* or to the point where premature delivery can be accomplished with good results. The moral and ethical question is more theoretical than practical."

This is not discussin etopics.


----------



## Montanablue (Mar 2, 2010)

Earl,

Yes, that appears to be the same position paper that Tim posted above.

Yes, it does concern ectopic pregnancies. They dismiss the issue with the statement "almost any pregnancy can be carried to term" - certainly not the case with ectopic pregnancy. Sure, its not faced "regularly," but it is faced.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 2, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> Earl,
> 
> Yes, that appears to be the same position paper that Tim posted above.
> 
> Yes, it does concern ectopic pregnancies. They dismiss the issue with the statement "almost any pregnancy can be carried to term" - certainly not the case with ectopic pregnancy. Sure, its not faced "regularly," but it is faced.


 
This is not adressing etopics. 

"It is necessary first of all to reduce the emotional character of this "special case"....... 

It must be pointed out that there is a vast difference between the threat of death to the mother and the certain death (intentional) of the baby in the alleged special case for abortion. .....


*We have not dealt with these particular cases with the exception of where the mother's life is threatened*."


The quotation marks make this clear that they are not speaking of etopics but to the "emotional character" that proponents of abortion make.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 2, 2010)

After reading this closely I will agree some revisions should be made in the language as highlighted below.

"4. An exception is not made even in the *extremely rare* case in which in the judgment of competent medical authorities, the unborn child's continuing presence inside the mother's body will necessarily lead to the mother's death. In such a case, the premature removal of the unborn child may be justified, provided that all medical wisdom, judgment, and skill are used to preserve the life of the child as well as the life of the mother. This premature removal of the unborn child shall be at that juncture of time where the greatest possibility for recovery is indicated for both mother and child. If life is lost in such a case, and the death occurs not out of criminal negligence, but merely out of the limitations of human knowledge and skill, all has been done morally that could be done. If we cannot save both lives, we are nevertheless morally bound to save the life we can."


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 2, 2010)

TimV said:


> > I think you're forgetting the fact that prior to Judah saying this, his own track record (morality) was nowhere near sparkling.
> 
> 
> 
> True!! But none the less, I think it fair to say he wouldn't have ordered her twin 3 month olds burnt with her.


 
He just had sex with what he thought was a roadside prostitute. He raised two sons so wicked that God put them to death. He lied to a woman whom he gave a pledge to regarding a new husband so that she would continue a lineage (meaning that she would remain childless and would be considered cursed among the society she lived in). 

I think it's fair to say there'd be 3 month old twin fricasee prior to God showing him (Judah) his own publicly sin via this woman.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 3, 2010)

duncan001 said:


> Sorry it seems my question caused some kind of arguing.
> 
> But someone please help me sort out my question:
> 
> ...


 
This can be a difficult topic, because there is emotion and pain, and because there is so much at stake.

We tend to look at things in a utilitarian way, from our point of interest only, as if we have perfect knowledge. This is only "natural", as we are fallen, limited creatures. But faith is needed.

If you look at the sixth commandment, the best translation is something like "thou shalt do no murder." Different terms applied for soldiers in war, for accidental death, etc.

Biblically, killing a child in his mother's womb is a violation of the sixth commandment, the only question being whether there is a right to self defense by the child's mother which includes contracting someone to kill the child in the womb if, and only if, death is likely to happen to mother if the child is delivered.

At this time, this particular case is not clear to me medically, let alone biblically. 

The common law, derived from a biblical basis would include killing a child in his mother's womb usually as an act of manslaughter, a lesser and included offense within the crime of murder. Circumstances do mitigate culpability and degree, and almost all states viewed it this way before judicial activism intervened in Roe v. Wade. So "killing," based on degree and circumstances can range the gamut of punishment from no punishment (self defense) to less than a year in a local jail for involuntary manslaughter (killing someone through your negligence) to execution by firing squad for pre-meditated murder with aggravating circumstances (such as in connection with a rape or robbery).


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2010)

> At this time, this particular case is not clear to me medically, let alone biblically.



Scott, I like the summation in the last paragraph, but in the case in Duncan's church it seems, from his thumbnail sketch, more like euthanizing a pet cat that had gone blind than anything that would have threatened a mother's life.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 3, 2010)

duncan001 said:


> Sorry it seems my question caused some kind of arguing.
> 
> But someone please help me sort out my question:
> 
> ...


 
I just am a tad curious. What kind of help do they need? It sounds like to me they know what they did and I would just be there and be a friend. This is a tough situation and I would ask them to come to you for advise before they do an act they may regret later.


----------



## cupotea (Mar 10, 2010)

I still have a related question, the following is from an online discussion:

quote

the bible says to kill a woman who is pregnant from adultery or fornication. they didn't want any bastards to be born. so the bible doesn't see a problem with the death of fetus. not to mention how many pregnant women they killed during territorial fighting in the name of their demon god.

end of quote

How to respond to "the bible says to kill a woman who is pregnant from adultery or fornication" stuff?


----------



## TimV (Mar 10, 2010)

> How to respond to "the bible says to kill a woman who is pregnant from adultery or fornication" stuff?



You could ask "where?" The verse about Tamar was used by me only to provide data to support the view that ensoulment occurs at the nanosecond of conception is fairly modern. Under Moses fornication has as it's penalty a fine or marriage. So under Biblical law Judah was overstepping his bounds since Tamar wasn't married. And even when the death penalty applied in case of adultery burning was only for the daughter of a levite or someone who slept with both a mother an her daughter, so Judah's sentence would have been doubly illegal under Biblical law.

So, ask the guy for the Scripture he is using.


----------



## cupotea (Mar 10, 2010)

TimV said:


> > How to respond to "the bible says to kill a woman who is pregnant from adultery or fornication" stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for answering, I'm thinking about Deut. 22:20-24.


----------



## TimV (Mar 10, 2010)

Where does that talk about pregnancy?


----------



## cupotea (Mar 10, 2010)

TimV said:


> Where does that talk about pregnancy?


Is there any possibility of pregnancy in these cases?


----------



## earl40 (Mar 10, 2010)

TimV said:


> You could ask "where?" The verse about Tamar was used by me only to provide data to support the view that ensoulment occurs at the nanosecond of conception is fairly modern. .



You of course do know that science today can help us understand our wonderful creation more fully than the "old timers". 

Just curious...what does your conscience tell you concerning your idea about when the soul comes into existence? Mine screams you are so wrong in your thinking.


----------



## TimV (Mar 10, 2010)

> Is there any possibility of pregnancy in these cases?



Right after the wedding night? Or a few days after a woman is taken in adultery? Sure, and I suppose that would give ammo to those who don't insist on ensoulment at the nanosecond of fertilization. As to the genocide, that's a whole different subject, and has to do with God ordering something He specifically forbids men to do on their own.

We're talkin' 'bout three months, brother.


----------

