SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : not for women only

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread









 not for women only


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 would add, that before obstetric anaesthesia became as good as it is since WWII, it was [i]so[/i] risky that the success rate was around 8%.

 2007/7/3 11:19
UniqueWebRev
Member



Joined: 2007/2/9
Posts: 640
Southern California

 Re: 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



_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/7/4 4:38Profile
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

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


_________________
Jordan

 2007/7/5 10:28Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7451
Mississippi

 Re:

Quote:
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



_________________
Sandra Miller

 2007/7/6 17:03Profile









 Re: not for women only


ginnyrose quoted Bernard Nathanson' book:

Quote:
I had come to the conclusion that there is no reason for an abortion at any time;

Sister,

He could only come to this conclusion because of safer anaesthetics for pregnant women available to him in the USA.

Had he been practising obstetrics in a situation where caesarian section may be unsafe for many reasons, he would have been faced with more primitive choices and much more often, because there, screening [u]is[/u] non-existent.

Without doubt, he would have seen women die, if he was not prepared to end the pregnancy in time to save the mother.


Therefore, I was interested to learn from Forrest,

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


This is not human badness. This is the Fall in action.

 2007/7/6 19:15
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7451
Mississippi

 Re:

Quote:
'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


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2007/7/6 19:23Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7451
Mississippi

 Re:

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


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2007/7/6 20:14Profile









 Re: not for women only


Hi ginny,

I'm not sure how much real sense you are making with this statement, in the context of the discussion - which is about obstetric conditions.

Quote:
we still would not have allowed the baby to be aborted in order to save the life of my one and only daughter

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


Also, there is some difference between the situation in which your family found itself - able to give a healthy baby a chance at life, who could be delivered (by caesarian?) so cancer can be treated, and 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.

I am struggling to believe that this is what you would, also, condemn a [i]healthy[/i] woman to experience? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding?

 2007/7/6 22:51
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
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:
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.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/7/7 0:15Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7451
Mississippi

 Re:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2007/7/7 9:19Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy