FDA unleashes new threat to human babies

American Life League, Inc. ^ | Release issued 21 Nov 01

[toenail]

FDA unleashes new threat to human babies

"In the midst of a terror campaign and a frightening battle against anthrax, the FDA has somehow been able to find the time to sanction yet another form of baby killing," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "The newly-approved birth control patch uses the same abortion-causing chemicals used in many other so-called contraceptives."

With its approval of the birth control patch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has now approved its fourth new "contraceptive" option in the last year. The skin patch has been added to a collection that already includes a monthly injection, a hormone-emitting IUD, and a hormone-emitting contraceptive ring.

"All these devices deliver the same hormones to the woman's body and all work in the same manner," said Mrs. Brown. "They all affect the uterine lining and prevent implantation of a newly-conceived human being, thus causing the end of that human being's life."

"The FDA should be ashamed of itself," said Mrs. Brown. "All Americans should reject this new form of baby killing and seek to protect all innocent human life, from fertilization to natural death."

Release issued: 21 Nov 01

©2001 American Life League, Inc.

[pcl]

Will you two stop trying to play dumb? You are starting to look silly. If you do not know exactly what I mean in post #214 you both are in deep need of a lot of compassion.

[BibChr]

Exodus 21 is a matter of simple and straightforward translation. If you can't face that, you are in denial over some personal problem, and there's no point discussing a passage which does not so much as mention abortion or miscarriage or anything beyond positively conceiving children.

So yet another champion of the "right" to butcher innocent children is exposed as a fraud who cannot face facts honestly. It's never hard.

Dan

[pcl]

In other words, you give up.

Okay, then I will take you by the hand lead you through Numbers.

(5:11,12) Tells us that the following information comes directly to man from god via Moses.

(5:11-13) Says that if a woman has sex with man who is not her husband and there we no witnesses to the fact other than the fact that she is pregnant (defiled)

(5:14) of if she is not pregnant (defilded) but the husband is suspicious of her..(now this is an important verse. Some may dispute the meaning of "defiled." this verse give us the two alternatives. In either case the husband is suspicious of her. In one case she is defiled (pregnant) and in the other case she is not)

(5:15-19) Tells the man to take his wife to a priest. There, certain rituals will be followed which revolve around the woman swearing an oath that she has been faitfull.

(5:20)This verse speaks once again of the alternatives. She is had sex with someone other that her husband and she either difiled (pregnant) or not. Two choices here.

(5:21-27) Tells of various alternative routes for the defiled (pregnant) woman to have her fetus aborted if she is guilty of having had sex with another man. The term the bible uses for the abortion itself is "thy belly to swell and they thigh to rot."

(5:28) Says that if the woman has not strayed but is pregnant then she shall "conceive seed." The lucky pregnant girl can go ahead and have her baby without having to have it aborted.

(5:29-31) Repeat the formulas for putting a woman through this ritual: either she is pregnant and the husband thinks he did not do it or she is not pregnant but the husband is nevertheless suspicious.

Now, I realize that persons under the influence of cognitive dissonance could read through these verses thinking that there is no mention of abortion but it takes some mind twisting. You have to ingnore those versus that spell out the fact that she did have sex with someone and then give the alternatives: she is pregnant or not. You will have to come up with some alternative meaning for all those belly swelling and thigh rotting phrases. You will have to ignore the fact the at the end of the process, if she has been a good girl, she can proceed to have her baby. You will also have to ignore the fact that many Christian organizations also to interpret these verses as a god directed abortion.

I really do not expect you hardliners to accept the simple truths here in Number or those in Exodus. I do know, from my FR mail box that there are others of you who are on the fence that are reading this and paying very close attention to the truth.

Peace be with you all.

[toenail]

"I really do not expect you hardliners to accept the simple truths here in Number or those in Exodus. I do know, from my FR mail box that there are others of you who are on the fence that are reading this and paying very close attention to the truth."

Then I'd suggest that they buy and read Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Jewish and Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World.

[toenail]

P.S. The Exodus passage you quoted? Could you please post the Septuagint version? Thanks.

[pcl]

Is the King James version of the bible a false bible?

With so many versions of the bible running around, how do you Christians know what to believe?

I do not have a copy of the Septuagint Version at hand. If there is point your would like to make, I would apprciate it you could take the effort to provide that specific text here.

Regarding the Septuagint Version:

The Septuagint Version, while giving exactly as to the form and substance the true sense of the Sacred Books, differs nevertheless considerably from our present Hebrew text. These discrepancies, however, are not of great importance and are only matters of interpretation. They may be thus classified: Some result from the translators having had at their disposal Hebrew recensions differing from those which were know to the Massoretes; sometimes the texts varied, at others the texts were identical, but they were read in different order. Other discrepancies are due to the translators personally; not to speak of the influence exerted on their work by their methods of interpretation , the inherent difficulties of the work, their greater or less knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, they now and then translated differently from the Massoretes, because they read the texts differently; that was natural, for, Hebrew being written in square characters, and certain consonants being very similar in form, it was easy to confound them occasionally and so give an erroneous translation; moreover, their Hebrew text being written without any spacing between the various words, they could easily make a mistake in the separation of the words; finally, as the Hebrew text at their disposal contained no vowels, they might supply different vowels from those used later by the Massoretes. Again, we must not think that we have at present the Greek text exactly as it was written by the translators; the frequent transcriptions during the early centuries, as well as the corrections and editions of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius impaired the purity of the text: voluntarily or involuntarily the copyists allowed many textual corruptions, transpositions, additions, and omissions to creep into the primitive text of the Septuagint. In particular we may note the addition of parallel passages, explanatory notes, or double translations caused by marginal notes. On this consult Dict. de la Bible, art. cit., and Swete, "An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek". -A. VANDER HEEREN

[pcl]

And for your reading pleasure:

Charles Hartshorne, "Ethics and Process of Living," Paper presented at the Conference on Religion, Ethics and the Life Process, Institute of Religion and Human Development. Texas Medical Center, March 18-19, 1974.

John Stott, "Reverence for Human Life," Christianity Today, June 9, 1972

Sissela Bok, "Who Shall Count as a Human Being?" in Robert L. Perkins, ed., Abortion: Pro and Con (Cambridge, MA:Schenkman Publishing Co., 1974)

W.A. Criswell, The Criswell Study Bible (Dallas: Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, 1979), p. 102.

Donald Shoemaker, Abortion, the Bible and the Christian (Cincinnati: Hayes, 1976)

[toenail]

"With so many versions of the bible running around, how do you Christians know what to believe?"

I'm an atheist and don't really care what the ancient Jews' opinions were concerning abortion, other than for historical reference. I assume you are also in the non-Christian category, but that's no reason to lie about what Jewish opinions on abortion were.

"I do not have a copy of the Septuagint Version at hand. If there is point your would like to make, I would apprciate it you could take the effort to provide that specific text here."

Stating, "While the life of a fetus has some value, it does not have anywhere near the value of the life of a woman" is duplicitous on your part. An accurate statement would be, "It was generally held by various Jewish commentators and communities that abortion not to save the mother's life was always morally wrong, and was not generally considered a legal matter until 40 days after conception."

The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, makes this point clear:

It's not unreasonable to surmise that had the ancient Jews known of biology what we know now, that the legal protection would have extended from conception. That's conjecture, of course, but I label my conjectures as such.

Flavius Josephus Against Apion - BOOK II, CHAPTER 25:

"The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind; if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean."

[pcl]

Thank you. That is a very interesting translation. It is not a widely accepted translation but never-the-less, it is interesting.

It implies that the miscarried fetus is dead. In one case, the dead fetus is imperfectly formed and thus does require the perp to pay with his life. In the other case, the dead fetus is perfectly formed and thus requires the perp pay with his life.

In other words an impfectly formed fetus is not a person while the perfectly formed fetus is a person.

This translation would be difficult to use to make a case for lack of personhood of perfectly formed fetus. On the other hand, it does make an excellent case for the lack of personhood of an imperfectly formed fetus.

The logical extension of that is that it would be legitimate to abort any imperfectly formed fetus. Of course we have your reference to some non-biblical text which would disagree with that assumption also.

It is my understanding that Jewish law does not provide for the personhood of the fetus in the womb.

The fetus is to be protected as a potential person but is not a bar kayamah (a viable, living being), thus, it is not accorded any of the rights or privileges of a human being. Further, under jewish law, the fetus is "as the thigh of its mother" (ubar yerech imo). In other words, it is part of the mother, not a seperate entity. Lastly (for now), we have another point of jewish law that states that a woman with child who is converted to Judism causes the child to be converted as part of her. The child requires no seperate conversion at birth. If the child were a seperate entity, it would need seperate conversion. (Question for Christians: If a woman with child is baptised, does the baby need a seperate baptism at birth? I assume it does.)

[pcl]

and thus does require the perp

I left out a critical NOT before "reguire." Some may see it as my subconcious pushing me towards enlightenment. Who knows, they may be right. LOL

[He Rides A White Horse]

ping

[d14truth]

The case for abortion/miscarriage can be made from the Numbers verses. It doesn't work for me, knowing the 'mysterious ways' in which God can work.

The arguments have been made for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The question becomes---

What advice(whether followed or not) would you give your 'good'(there isn't any other kind for a 'real' father) 17 year old daughter who gets pregnant out of wedlock?

My advice to my daughter was that she have the baby and offer it for adoption. She 'chose' to have my grandson and keep him. So far, despite the difficulties of the first 2 years, that decision has been blessed, and we have had relative peace.

[pcl]

My oldest daughter was in exactly that same postion. Pregnant and not married. She did not ask my advice. She married the father. She has now given me three wonderful grandsons.

If she was not in a situation where marriage was possible, she may have talked to me about it. She was, however, very well educated on all the issues surrounding abortion, pro and con. We, as a family, do not leave such profound issues to be addressed only upon need. I deepely suspect she would have chosen to deliver and keep the baby.

[d14truth]

"We, as a family, do not leave such profound issues to be addressed only upon need."

Likewise. Ours was a 'marriage not possible' situation. Adult(?) married man cannot behave himself with his smitten babysitter(our underage daughter).

One does get to have conversations with God when such happens. By the way, in situations where the woman is denied a 'choice'--rape and incest, I still maintain her right to exercise her God-given 'free will' according to her conscience, without shame.

Our daughter finished high school, has completed a two-year degree, and is continuing in school, family permitting. She married a fine young man two years ago, and they are expecting a daughter in late March, 2002.

[Free the USA]

law has become (perhaps always has been) transactional in nature where civil law is practiced, that's why they're called 'rulings'.

Are you confusing civil and criminal law? In a civil case the court hears the facts and makes a decision, which might include payment of child support, spousal support etc. What you seem to be advocating is making a failure to automatically provide for the needs of another absent any civil adjudication requiring such behavior into a criminal act. Do you support Good Samaritan laws requiring a witness to take all necessary action to save a life? We do have some laws dealing with an immediate crisis requiring a positive action on the part of one individual to provide aid to another, but making failure to provide months of nourishment and shelter, absent a civil injunction, a crime is unprecedented.

[pcl]

My daughter had nearly finished her degree at Stanford when she got pregnant. Thankfully, she was able to graduate but with a bulging robe.

The reason I suspect she would have kept any baby she conceived is that she has always wanted to be a mother. She now has the wonderful kids and is, in turn, a wonderful mother. Counting my blessing, she also has a great husband

One of my youngest daughter's homeschool friends did have an abortion at age 15. I believe she made the best choice for herself at that time. She is a very smart girl. She went into the experience fully informed. It was not easy for her. She has vowed to remain chaste until marriage and I have every reason to believe she has.

[Protagoras]

Exactly when the fetus becomes a human after the first trimester is not clear to me.

Based on this muddled post it is obvious that many ,many things are not clear to you.

[d14truth]

"She has vowed to remain chaste until marriage and I have every reason to believe she has."

I have been given similar assurances by my younger two (22 & 20). Got another wedding coming up next June for the 22 year old.

[New Zealander]

I’ve been lurking around this thread for a day or so, and I’ve been rather disappointed.

You see, given the fact this thread sprang forth from an article about a ‘birth control’ method that prevents implantation, I was hoping I might find some insight into my dilemma of trying to decide if these types of early use ‘abortofectants’ are really unethical. I don’t want to single you out here specifically – I hope anyone here can help me out in reaching an answer. It’s just that I can see that human life begins at conception – prior to implantation – I guess this is illustrated by invitro fertilization, and the cryogenic storage of zygotes.

It’s just that I’m confused about one problem – the life has no potential to develop unless it is implanted into a uterus. I see that as putting a difficult twist upon the words ‘potential life’ – because a zygote is a potential life – but there is also no potential for this zygote if it cannot be implanted. A harsh question that illustrates this dilemma is this:

Given that there are medical conditions, which prevent any fertilised egg from implanting, if a woman who suffers from such ever has sex, does she risk consigning a potential human to death? How does this fit into the abortion issue?

[MHGinTN]

Law is not my strong suit. I merely cited civil adjudication as an example of the transactional nature of our legal system. In the world of Dr. Pangloss, all conceived life would be valued as individual human life and afforded the protection at max the society could give, but to criminalize without clear understanding of the issues is absurd; I agree with you there.

I have as my goal to expose the truth regarding the issues and let my fellow Americans come to an informed decision. What the scientists now seeking to exploit embryonic life stage are trying to accomplish is more of the muddleheaded reasoning, where obfuscation leaves wide gaps in truth which the scientists will then exploit with no regard to whether it is right (as in according to our founding principles) or wrong (as in contrary to the truth regarding human life and our founding principles regarding life endowed by our Creator).

As an aside, I do not believe government has any business dictating to a woman that she cannot practice contraception. However, when a second life comes into being within her body, I weigh the few remaining months until birth against her continued existence and feel the new life should have the nod; we are looking at a few months of inconvenience and difficulties associated with the natural process called pregnancy as weighed against killing that ends an entire lifetime already begun in the preborn! The only way the phrase 'a woman's right to choose' should have any validity when one considers the preborn to be human beings is the absolute right of a woman to not conceive if she doesn't want to! That is reproductive right unalienable, in my honest opinion. But to then extend that right to beyond reproduction, to the serial killing of the already alive individual human beings preborn, is a travesty of reason and anti-life. I will not support such wrong, for a woman's convenience or for scientific exploitation.