Has anyone ever watched those PBS/ or TLC programs, I think they were called the "life" series. Through a microscopic lens I watched as thousands of 'seeds' of man traveling towards the fertile egg woman. It's quite an eye opener, the 'seeds' are actually living. They look like 'tadpoles' with a little tail.
If that is not living, what is causing it to move towards it's goal? And when it reaches it's goal it's not easy to get in to the egg. It has to penetrate the egg to get in. So it pushes it's way in and only ONE gets in.
You need to ask yourself, how does it know where to go? There is an amazing attraction between seeds and that egg.
NOTE: is this ok, is anyone offended by this speech? Am I too graphic? I am trying to be as discreet as I possibly can.
Genesis 7:3 the male and the female; [b][color=993300]to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth[/color][/b].
Genesis 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, [b][color=993300]that we may preserve seed of our father.[/color][/b]
Men were viewed as seed bearers, and women were viewed as preservers of the seed. That is, women made sure that the seed remained on the earth, men that is.
Lot's daughters thought they were the last of their kind, therefore to keep men from dying off and leaving the earth uninhabitable, they got their father drunk, thus Moab and Ammon came about.
The purpose of my post is to tell my readers that life begins at the source of where the seed is. God spoke about Abraham's son Isaac as if he was alive, before he came into being, and God said that before Isaac came into being that he was presently in Abrahams loins when Abraham met Melchisedec.
Hebrews 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.10 For [b][color=990000]he was yet in the loins of his father[/color][/b], when Melchisedec met him.
My thoughts on abortion are thus, it's murder!! If the woman's life is in danger while giving birth, I don't know. This is a touchy subject because it all depends on circumstances. I may love my wife more than my children, am I selfish in wanting her to live on and my baby to die? In the bible they didn't have such luxeries as we have today. A woman died giving birth, there was no choices, that child was meant to live and his mother was meant to die. I wonder if this verse has anything to do with this.
1 Timothy 2:15... [b]she shall be saved in childbearing[/b], if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
| 2007/6/20 19:07|
| Re: Bush to meet Pope|
Peace, brother! I'm genuinely sorry if I've caused you undue distress.
When I saw your last post, I went in search of statistics for myself, and think I've realised we are talking from two different cultural backgrounds. Surprise! Surprise! :-(
I couldn't find anything similar for the US, so I guess it really is abortion on demand over there and this is why you are so exercised about it. The aim of therapeutic abortion is to reduce the rate morbidity and death from those pregnancies which pose a risk to the mother.
Some could be carried to term, but would produce a severely deformed, disabled or mentally disabled child, and some carry definite risk to the mother during labour.
Terminations of pregnancy are given to minors under 16 because the risk of complications in the immature body are significant, severe and risk the life of the mother (who is also herself still a child). The next age-group (16 - 18) are also at risk. The safest time to bear a child is the second baby at the age of 24.
Therefore, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is based on statistical evidence gathered previously, of risks of continuing the pregnancy.
Here are the [u]criteria[/u] applicable in the UK but not Eire, and not in the private sector.
There must be agreement between two doctors before an abortion can be carried out.
Note, this are our criteria for ALL therapeutic abortions.
A - the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant women greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.
B - the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
C - the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
D - the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman
E - there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
F - it was necessary to save the life of the woman.
G - it was necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
In terms of actual statistics, I came across this online magazine report from England and Wales, dated 19th June, 2007. It's a bit vague.
'More than 200,000 women had abortions last year, the highest number ever, figures show today.
Almost 4,000 of the 201,173 procedures carried out in England and Wales were on girls under 16, the legal age of consent for sex.
The total rose by almost four per cent last year on 2005. The increase is being blamed on a crisis in contraception services.'
From another website, I learned that over 3,500 of these will be Irish women and teenagers, who cannot obtain a legal abortion in Ireland. By which I mean that even a raped 13 year old with the support of her parents, is not eligible.
According to the online publication of the Scotish statistics for last year, the number averaged out to 12.4 (per thousand live births). The only numbers I could find for the US are slightly older, and seemed to be in the region of 335 (per thousand live births).
This doesn't tell me anything about the incidence of pregnancy for the number of women of childbearing age, so it is difficult to interpret the information.
As far as I could tell, there were no numbers for spontaneous (natural) abortions, included in the above statistics.
Also, you should know that in the UK the policy is to terminate as early as possible, and increasingly, this is done medically not surgically.
In the UK, ultrasound has been developed to a very high level of visual accuracy (I'm sure you have it in the US, also.) so that early scanning can confirm or cast doubt upon other signs of, or concerns about fetal abnormality, thus reducing the need to wait till after 16 weeks to terminate those for whom it is advisable. As a proportion of terminations, this is a comparatively small number.
It seemed to me earlier, that you are so against therapeutic abortion, that you don't accept medical reasons. I hope it's obvious now, that this is why I've been pressing you to consider the implications to families of [i]not[/i] taking medical reasons into account.
The fact is, that even medical termination is the ending of a potential lifetime, however disabled or incompatible with normality, and in the days before research, there was no such thing. Literally thousands and thousands of women died in childbirth, and still do in many countries around the world. I know someone who has lost at least 15 friends in childbirth.
The FACT is, that some of the young who fall pregnant would die if they tried to carry it on. And at least some of those would bear children if they survived, who would die later.
I think this is why I feel so very strongly about them not becoming pregnant in the first place, and that it is [u]out of order[/u] to lay it on the girl not to have a termination, unless the boy is being made to feel equally the pain of impending fatherhood.
| 2007/6/20 19:20|
| Re:Silent Scream!|
I haven't seen that documentary but saw pictures from it.
What I've seen is Videos like "Silent Scream" and ones like it, that Thank God that people released them, to level our heads on this issue.
Those are the few times that "science and technology" are used for the Good of Mankind.
Paul has once again beautifully worded his post on this previous page.
If you want to know what Babylon is ... we're in it.
It is the deadly merger of, Governance of the people (the 'misuse' of the "rule of law"), 'Religion' and as the Apostle Paul wrote, "what some call SCIENCE" (technological & 'medicine' as it's called). The deadly trinity.
Even Pat Robertson had to retract his praise of China's "population control" which if one would only type in "global Depopulation" into their Search engines, it 'may' just change their views on many of these issues, that go beyond just this infanticide issue.
Lord God open our eyes before we're sucked into this unholy trinity vortex.
1Ti 6:20,21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
| 2007/6/20 19:25|
| Re: Bush to meet Pope|
Quote:This discussion has not been about pregnant Christians yet, though I hope Krispy will answer when he has collected his thoughts.
The beautiful thing about the Word of God I find is that there are no "what if's" for those who follow God with a clean conscience and seek His righteousness in all avenues. The Holy Ghost speaks clearly, and what He speaks is further corroborated by the testimony and lives of the saints who have gone on before. There's no new radical bendings, no dire extrapolating, no hypothetical allowances. No confusion. Things become confusing only when man begins to pry his own rogue convictions into the equation.
The opinions expressed against abortion, are the imposition of Christian thinking on non-Christians. If a Christian should not be pregnant, (not being married), that is a whole different scenario, which should attract the highest condemnation on one level, and the highest support on another - and therapeutic abortion - except for medical reasons - should not be in their general plan of survival.
| 2007/6/20 19:31|
it is out of order to lay it on the girl not to have a termination, unless the boy is being made to feel equally the pain of impending fatherhood.
I pray you are not saying what I think you are trying to say here. This is very frightening, Dorcas...and very wicked.
I am prepared, out of respect for you, to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please help me understand what the above quote means.
Paul Frederick West
| 2007/6/20 19:34||Profile|
In a major magazine in Canada, the government is encouraging women to have children. I thought,
"Ok, abolish these abortion clinics, stop giving women a choice and this country will be populated".
The baby boomers are dying off and there is going to be a major work force shortage in the next 5 years as baby boomers go into retirement and it's going to cause a financial meltdown as these boomers take their money out of investments. The boomers count for a large percentage of the population. You would think the government would agree that we need more people not more abortion clinics. Some one mentioned about likening abortion to baal worship. I agree, I think its the same thing.
| 2007/6/20 19:47|
How about 99% of abortion in America, Canada & Europe is for people who do not wish to live with the results of their sin.
Brother I agree with you. This is life. Life we are to be fighting for. Just as I post in another post about the pill. Really it is a matter of life. It dosn't matter how we chose to klill it, it is wrong. Yes 99% is due to sin.
My dear brothers and sisters this not a time to fight on what if's but we need to crying and begging God for mercy on us. We to crying that 200, 000 babies died. Oh My lord help us, how careless we are. Can we not hear the their crys?
My heart is sick, we are to fighting for lives. How I guess praying. Speaking out Voteing.
We must come hating this wicked act. I say again it is wicked. No very wicked. How do we care for life. How much blood is on our hands, in America?
They say very hour a baby is being killed in America, that makes around 200,000 dealth a year. 45 million.
In His love
| 2007/6/20 19:52||Profile|
| Re: Innocent blood.|
I look how folks use the O.T. when they want to grab a Comforting Psalm or speak for their own personal issues, but not when it comes to Doctrine nearly as much or at all.
We are commanded to cry out in the defense of the innocent and not have innocent blood on our heads for not crying out, or speaking out, of the practices that Kill ANY Innocents, despite their age and ethnic, religious, etc., that differs from ours ... else, we're no different than those 'Elite' that get into genetics to rid the globe of inferior races, religions, etc., in order for the Elite to "save the earth's resources for themselves" the superior race or the ascended masters, etc. that they believe they are.
The slippery slope will end with the ridding the earth of those they call "Useless eaters" [quote Ted Turner and other big household names] and finishing off those "Mono-theists".
It ends with ridding of the earth of you/us, unless you choose to serve them through compromise one day or already have ... then as Hillary and all those in that large same company of 'pure-bloods' (in their own minds) call you ... you can be one of their "Worker Bees" -end quote - and end of the thus called 'the common man'.
Just a little research, but His people haven't the time for it and perish spiritually for the lack of it.
Cry out while you still can, lest 'anyone's' blood be on your own head.
In His Love.
| 2007/6/20 20:12|
This world has warped ideas about what is moral and what is not. They think that homosexuality is morally good. That alone should send up red flags and cause us to think differently that the governement has no idea what is morally sound.
This world believes that a woman who is married owns her body. This is not what the bible teaches. She gave her body up to her husband, and he gave his up to hers. Each one is to tend to their mates body, he tends to hers, pleasing her. She tends to him, pleasing him. It's sounds sexual but it's not. He lost his rights as an individual and she lost her rights as an individual, the two shall become one flesh, thus a different creation.
For example, we know that God is not a man. Yet, God changed the dynamics of Himself and became a man, the man Christ Jesus, hence the "LORD from heaven". As they say, God became fully man and fully God.
If a woman gets pragnant out of wedlock, is it her choice to have an abortion? The same applies to this woman, she no longer has the right as an individual, she has lost her rights as individual as well as the man. The right thing for them to do in the eyes of man is to get hitched.
If she gets raped, is it her right to abort? The same applies, she lost her right. That seed is now top priority.
The bible is plain on giving credence to the seed, and not to the woman.
It's like a sacrificial offering. When Rachel gave birth to Benjamin, she died.
When Christ gave his life on the cross, He birthed the New Testement.
The seed is important. We must treat it as such.
| 2007/6/20 20:19|
| Re: Bush to meet Pope|
I pray you are not saying what I think you are trying to say here.
I don't know what you think I'm trying to say. Worse, I have absolutely no idea what you might be thinking which would be so awful.
I've written about this before, and would not repeat everything I've said in other threads, as I may be just a little more mellow than before. However, that is with respect to all those who hold a different opinion from myself.
If what I've said about absent fathers in this scenario in this thread, is not clear to you, please tell me what you assume I'm saying that you don't like, because honestly, I can't guess.
| 2007/6/20 20:31|