Posted on 10/27/2005 7:20:09 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
HOUSTON, October 27, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An experiment has been underway for a month in a Houston Texas where parents are permitted to ask scientists for a child with the gender of their choice. The procedure involves preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) which is able to detect the sex of embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) prior to their implantation in their mothers' wombs.
While sex selection via PGD has been allowed in some cases where sex-linked diseases are concerned, the clinical trial is seeking to gage the impact of sex selection at the whim of the parents. According to the journal Nature, the researchers, led by Sandra Carlson of Baylor College of Medicine, will be studying the long term health effect to the children born after PGD and also the social impact on the families.
The fundamental ethical problems behind PGD lie in its origin of IVF which creates children outside of the loving union of a man and a woman. Moreover, the lives of the embryonic children conceived by the IVF procedure are under severe threat since the latest statistics have revealed that over 85% of embryos transferred in the procedure die in the process.
However, with those arguments ignored, and IVF accepted as a moral procedure in most of the world, researchers are left looking at PGD as perhaps problematic since it may cause sex discrimination as is the case in China and India. Both countries have seen a discrepancy in the ratio of boys and girls born since one-child policies and discrimination against female children have resulted in abortion being used to eliminate female babies in utero.
PGD sex selection is banned in Canada, Britain and several other countries for that reason. However the researchers are suggesting sex selection may be ethical for 'family balancing'. The researchers have said they will only accept couples into the trial who have a child and want another child of the opposite sex.
PGD is already routinely used to screen out embryos with genetic defects. Thus those embryonic children with disabilities are disposed of (read killed) prior to being given a chance to be born, a fact which has been of serious concern to groups advocating for the disabled.
Your opinions can't prove me wrong.. you are a fraud and a fake sir.. Quote me on facts if you think I'm so wrong.
Otherwise either keep this discourse as a matter of opinion or take your bullying elsewhere.
Bwahahahaha ... "Your opinions can't prove me wrong.. you are a fraud and a fake sir.." What does one expect from a person who would use the name of a candy bar as an Internet handle?... Quite amusing you are.
Is G_d Pro Abortion?
If we go to the bible, we will find that the penalty for killing a woman is death. The penalty for killing the mother of an unborn child is death. But the penalty for harming a mother so that her unborn child dies but she survives is not death. How can we accept such unmistakable devaluation and cheapening of the life of the unborn?
Exodus 21:22-25: Translations & Mistranslations By Gary Butner, Th.D.
"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, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1996.
A majority of the pastors and mature Christians are familiar with these obscure verses in Exodus. It is unlikely they are aware of important translation updates which have been made to the passage above which will be discussed later in this article. They may or may not be aware these verses have a strong relationship to the cultural war currently dividing our country. It is also unlikely they are aware of the detrimental effect this passage has had on the spiritual condition of their congregation. Indeed, I have found a majority in the Pro-Life Movement is completely unaware these verses are the mantra for the Pro-Abortion Movement when combating those familiar with the Bible. Every fourth woman sitting in the pews has undergone an abortion and this passage was likely used to counter any spiritual objections they raised prior to their abortion. Sitting in our pews are many additional women who will fall victim to this vicious attack unless pastors provide their flocks with a proper exegesis for the passage. I realize fighting abortion is not a pleasant topic, but it can be handled delicately and decisively if the Christian warrior sets his mind to the task.
The pro-abortion sales technique for overcoming spiritual objections goes like this; God only punishes the guilty person(s) with a fine if the fetus is lost in an accidental miscarriage, but invokes equal punishment if the woman is injured or killed as a result of the accident. The implication being: 1) the unborn child only has a monetary value to God, 2) the unborn child is not a person, hence their use of the word "fetus," and 3), the woman has infinite value while the fetus has little if any value. At first glance the New American Standard and many other English translations would appear to validate their position. There are several errors in their position and points that follow:
These verses have nothing to do with abortion, which the pro-abortion side will admit if pushed. However, a correct exegesis can be used to destroy the pro-abortion position.
The Hebrew word translated child or fruit "yeled" is plural, hence children. The woman might be pregnant with twins. This is the same word used for babies and young children throughout the OT (Gen. 21:8; Ex. 2:3). The preborn is considered to be just as much a person as any young child.
The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is "yatsa," which actually means to "come out" or "give birth." This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth.
It is very important to note the same writer used the normal word Hebrew word for miscarriage "shakal" just two chapters later in Exodus 23:26. This clearly indicates the writer had something besides miscarriage in mind for the Exodus 21:22-25 passage.
The Hebrew doesn't indicate if the injuries in question are those sustained by the woman or the child(ren). A reading, just by glancing at the order of the words (not a strong argument for Hebrew) and by the force of the case of the pronouns (a stronger argument) would indicate that the possible injuries are relative to either. The great Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, wrote, "But if any mischief happen, that is, if the woman dies or the children die, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, etc.: you, 0 judge (or you, 0 Israel, through the judge who represents you) shall adopt the principle of 'life for life,' etc." Clearly this point places an equal value on both woman and child in calling for punishment if either is injured or killed.
The use of the word "further" in the text is not in the Hebrew nor is it implied. A literal translation for the whole sentence really should read, "And when men struggle together and strike a pregnant woman [or wife] and her children come forth, but there is no injury, he shall certainly be fined, as the husband of the woman shall impose on him, and he shall give [or pay] in [the presence of] the judges; but if there shall be an injury, then you shall pay eye for eye, life for life."
The pro-choice rendering of these verses is not in harmony with the rest of Scripture or the teaching of the Early Church Fathers. Twice in the Didache, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," the Exodus 21:22-25 passage is referenced, "Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit pederasty, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not practice witchcraft, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten." ABORTION IS CLEARLY LABELED MURDER IN BOTH SECTIONS.
As mentioned earlier, the pro-choice position implies the unborn child has little value or is not a person. Denying the person of Christ was in the womb from the moment of conception is a denial of the Incarnation. John 1:14 Deny the person of Christ in the flesh at any point, including in the womb, and one is anti-Christian...opposed to Christ. I John 4:1-4
Two very important points that will cast additional light on this issue need to be brought to attention:
While there are technical and historical reasons for the previous translation, namely the Septuagint and cultural laws which surrounded ancient Israel, The Lockman Foundation has graciously made a strong decision to continue providing what many scholars consider to be the best literal translation by changing the version which was shown at the first of this article. They should be congratulated for their decision to continue providing accurate Bibles. The new translation reads:
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no 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, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25 The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1996.
I have been advised the NCCC has contracted for a light revision of the Revised Standard Version, which will be released in 2002. This new version will be named the English Standard Version. The translators have informed me they have changed the Exodus passage to correct the previous mistranslation.
These two translations join the King James, The New King James, New International Version, The New Living Version, 1901 American Standard,1890 Darby, God’s Word, and Young’s Literal Translation as placing a high value on the unborn and providing the correct exegesis. We can expect other translations to follow by correcting their reading in the not too distant future. This will not eliminate all abortions, but with the Lord’s help it will guide Christians into setting a higher standard for the world.
260 posted on 11/01/2005 8:05:15 AM EST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
Some of us blessed to be Catholics legitimately rely upon both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition wherein plainly it has been taught consistently that abortion is murder...
I think your son is giving you a message. He's saying that it's too much for him. (It's too much for ME, and I'm an adult.) Maybe you should shield him from some of these stories. I mean, he's a child. Why should he have to be burdened with bad stories everyday? Why not share good stories with him instead? They're out there, you just have to look.
Oh, my son is a child, no doubt. But he reads everything. And both of my kids are addicted to talk radio. They want to join Free Republic, but I have said no to that...for now.
I've tried to shield them. They want to know more.
Interesting read but totally inrelevant to our conversation.
As for abortion I agree completely.
So the arguement rising from the text would be the context of the situation.
I do hope you read the offering. I offered it because of what you posted to me in #157 above ... "Neither of us can back the claim of what is or what is not murder since it is never stated in the bible regarding this topic (abortion)." Was that not offered by you in the 'discussion'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.