I tend to agree with Wierwille and think the Old Testament view is more reasonable.
What do you think?
I tend to agree more with Jesus in His sermon on the mount that the Old Testament "eye-for-an-eye" thing is totally whacked, and perhaps would not be appropriately used toward our modern debate on the complex topic of abortion.
And is the creation of the old man in Genesis really appropriate for those of us in the era of the "new man" created by Jesus?
It seems more and more obvious to me that the problem isn't or has never been so much with the fetus, as it is with adults who don't weigh and own up to the responsibilities and consequences of their own actions, though I do lean toward the opinion that abortion should remain available for rape victims and those whose pregnancies in their cases endanger their own lives.
Aside from the Bible ,I believe it is a move to reinforce Patriaricle Dominance over a female body in the long run. I'm not in favor of abortion as a form of birth control.
I do beleive that there should be a capital consquence to the ending of a fetus potentiallity of life when violent conditions like Lacy Perterson occures. I know it sounds contidictory but this issue of fetus life or lack of life will never be black or white.
What was denied was a "wanted child" by Lacy and that changes the whole dynamics of this case. It's hard to say why, it just does.
I'd be more inclined to agree with it being a crime, for a late-term pregnancy where the "fetus" could live outside of the mother. Something like partial birth abortion, which I think should be banned.
However, I do have a problem with charging a federal crime for the termination of "any stage of development" of the fetus. I think that's overboard.
I think Wierwille assumes the term "that her fruit depart from her" means a miscarriage. If it does, then he is correct. However, if it does not, then his entire exposition is irrelevant.
I haven't examined the issue, but would love to hear more about it.
The translations don't agree. Some say miscarriage, others say "premature birth." I'm not sure either way, but I did find this article, which presents a compelling case for the "premature birth" translation. Looking for others on both sides...
For what it's worth, I've checked about 40 sites that discuss this issue on both sides. Of those I checked, every one that takes Wierwille's view relies on the translation of Exodus 21:22 ff. Every one that takes a pro-life view relies on an examination of the verses, particularly on the translation and usage of the Hebrew words involved.
If I were still updating the Actual Errors list, this would be a prime candidate.
Wierwille WOULD be right if the "miscarriage" translation (according to our 20th Century understanding of the word) was correct. But that does not appear to be the case.
I'm very open to change my mind, as my examination of the issue has been cursory.
Catcup: one could argue that there was a fine because the mother and father did not want to lose the baby: therefore the two men who were striving took something from them. If the mother and father INTENDED to lose the baby, the fine would (under a Wierwillian argument) not apply.
I think the "premature birth" argument makes little sense because when a fetus "departs" and is at the 1st or 2nd term, mischief will ALWAYS follow, because the fetus will surely die unless some miracle takes place. Therefore I think the mischief refers to harm to the woman, not the fetus. The only way I see no mischief following and it refers to the fetus is if in the third term and the mother is near childbirth already. But that seems to me more outlandish. If that was what he was talking about, don't you think that verse would be more clear? What do you think?
The translation in the King James is, if I'm not mistaken, "that her fruit depart from her," which we all agree means if the baby comes out.
So, the question is, does the baby come out alive or not? The King James only says the baby comes out. If the baby comes out okay, then no harm done, and the fine is for causing the premature birth and putting the woman and the baby in harm's way. If the baby does NOT come out okay (which, in your words, will "ALWAYS" be the case in the first or second trimester), then ---- kobiyashi maru.
Take a look at those links: they make the case much better than I just did.
Rafael, I read those links, and it seems to me that the folks on the side of "premature birth" are ignoring common horse sense.
Let's say you and I are having a fight, and I cause the pregnant woman, who is 3 months pregnant, to abort. Are you saying that that fetus is going to stay alive after coming out? "and yet no mischief follow" can't mean the fetus in this case, can it?
That's what these folks are ignoring, it seems they're just ignoring the obvious.
Ignoring common horse sense? I disagree wholeheartedly. The first thing they did was "read what's written." Then they base their interpretations on what's actually written in those verses. That's the way it's supposed to be. We've been doing it the other way around, bringing our "horse sense" to the scripture rather than let the scripture speak for itself.
quote:Let's say you and I are having a fight, and I cause the pregnant woman, who is 3 months pregnant, to abort. Are you saying that that fetus is going to stay alive after coming out? That's what these folks are ignoring, it seems they're just ignoring the obvious.
I don't think they're ignoring the obvious at all.
I am not saying a first trimester fetus is going to come out alive. Neither does the verse. The verse merely says the baby comes out. You're the one introducing trimesters into the mix, but if the baby comes out and is dead (a common day definition of miscarriage), then it's the death penalty. The verse only says the baby comes out. The first scenario in the verse is that the baby comes out alive (which, you and I agree, will only take place relatively late in the pregnancy).
If the baby comes out alive, there's a fine (remember, the woman was still struck and her health and the baby's health placed in danger).
If the baby comes out and does not live (which would overwhelmingly be the case in the first or second trimesters), the penalty is proscribed in the verse.
What are they missing? Don't get stuck on a 1st trimester fetus being born alive. No one is saying that. Perhaps this confusion is why honest people don't know whether to translate it "premature birth" or "miscarriage." I think the King James gets this one right, in terms of the actual meaning. "If the child comes out" doesn't address the issue of the baby coming out alive or dead. The rest of the verse immediately addresses that issue.
Raf, I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this one. I think the reason why the scripture doesn't address whether the baby comes out dead or alive, is because the answer is pretty obvious. But that's me. I don't think the bible has to state every minute detail for us at times to use our common sense on some things.
Reading into this scripture anything about abortion per se is exactly that: reading in to it. Because it strictly is defined in the context of an accident that occurs as two men strive.
The scripture has to do with an act that causes a woman to lose a pregnancy. That act is seen by God (it's His Word and commandment, right?) to be offensive.
If you want to equate the stated incident of causing a miscarriage with causing an abortion, in your own interpretation, and then compare the fine levied with the one levied against a murderer, sure, you could say that it is not on the same fine level as murder.
But you have to weigh this carefully.
If you are going to use scriptures regarding murder to justify your position, you need to see how they are used and apply the logic fully.
God makes a difference between intentionally taking a person's life and unintentionally taking a person's life.
Unintentionally causing the death of another person is not viewed the same as murder.
Intentionally causing the death of another is more serious.
Now if you are going to use this verse about two men striving and causing the unintentional death of a fetus, are you then now going to equate unintentionally taking the life of a fetus with intentionally taking the life of a fetus?
The logic doesn't seem to carry over in that favor.
With God, intent seems to be an issue, and not just in this matter.
God seems to indicate that the act of unintentionally causing the death of a fetus is worthy of at least a fine.
And if God indicates that this unintentional act is a punishable offense, why would we believe that somehow intentionally causing the death of a fetus would be any less an offense?
Regardless, the act nonetheless is a punishable offense.
I was listening to WABC radio in NY this weekend (Sunday), "Religion on the Line" or something. It's hosted by a Roman Catholic Father and Jewish Rabbi. The topic was abortion, and the Rabbi mentioned that "there's some room for abortion in Jewish thought", and "there's a difference between life, and potential life." He quoted Exodus as being a miscarriage, in Jewish teaching. No mistake about it. I think his name is Rabbi Joseph Petasnik or something.
First Of all let me say that I have had an abortion, had nothing to do with TWI, and I've felt the lose of that child everyday since.
He would have been 32 this August.
That said. I personally am opposed to Abortion, except for life threatening reasons. This is how I personally feel GOD feels about it
HOwever, I do support legislation that gives women the right to choose.
Let me explain:
we are a free society, what makes us free is our ability to choose. Take that away we loose our freedom and more importantly we take free agency away and free agency is what GOD it is all about.
I is my belief, as a Christian, that if we were doing our jobs in spreading the gospel, in teaching our children, I MEAN REALLY DOING OUR JOBS, There wouldn't be a need for abotion except in life threatening cases.
I know many of you are thinking of the icest/rape scenario, but that is what adoption agencies are for. We need to make adoption more readily attainable for worthy families.
We need to make sure that young women in this predicamant have loving stable surroundings during those pregnacies, with counseling, employment opportunites, education opportunites etc so when the baby is born and given up she will have a life.
Once we get our acts together society as a whole will improve so that hopefully this issue will no longer be an issue
As an appreciator of PFAL, you should know better than to post "so-and-so says that's what it means" and expect that to carry any weight. Plenty of rabbis and Christian teachers interpret that verse precisely the opposite of the way Petasnik does. What does it get you? Nothing. Men's opinion.
I reject his opinion. It is inconsistent with the way the word is used in multiple other instances. His opinion is interesting, but in and of itself is devoid of authority.
Mo, sorry for your loss. God Bless You (He loves you and always has).
From what I've google-searched on the net, the "miscarriage" interpretation seems to be the predominant Jewish view from the Torah. Do a google search on Jewish thought on this topic, and you'll see what I mean.
Also, I figure that the Rabbi wouldn't have made such a definitive statement of Jewish thought on a very widespread and popular radio station if he was just talking about his own opinion. I feel certain that if he were making a comment as "just his own opinion" he would have paraphrased it with that condition. But he didn't.
Having said that, I'm willing to call him up next Sunday myself and ask him if what he meant was only his opinion. Do you have one or two authoritative Jewish sources who dispute the miscarriage interpretation?
There were abortions when the Bible was written. The Assysians had a law that no abortion was legal, they thought the mother could die, but the fetus should be saved. Women were only important for bearing children.
It is significant that the Bible is silent on the issue of abortion. When the Bible is silent on a topic, it is a good idea for believers to be silent, also.
Satan has fairly well suceeded in dividing the church on a mute point in the Bible. The "pro-life" people do very little for children who are already born and have needs.
To me, The Way’s take on abortion is a diversion. They try to get the focus on whether or not abortion is murder rather than whether or not abortion is godly.
The Greek word for “without natural affection” is “astorgos” which means “not stork-like.”
Storks, of course, are so well known their care for the unborn we depict them as the deliverers of our babies.
Way clergy, on the other hand, are properly depicted as wolves devouring the babies the storks bring.
I think and believe that the reason vpw and martindale and top leadership believed in abortion was so if one of the gals got pregnant they had good reason to say that it was ok with God for them to abort.
I know one friend that had to get one...leadership paid for it and drove her to the clinic. So sad.
Let's see if I've got this straight, oldiesman. You're going to call the guy up and ask him if he's privately interpreting the scriptures. And you expect him to answer... what, exactly?
Why don't you call up all those folks who are danged certain they've interpreted John 1 correctly? Why is their word unreliable on John 1, but Rabbi Petasnik is reliable on the Exodus verses? Since when do you leave Biblical interpretation up to "the experts?" Was that a PFAL key that I missed? "Find out what the rabbis think?"
Look uo the history of the word "miscarriage." It didn't always mean the child died. The verse doesn't say "miscarriage." It says "that her fruit depart from her." It could depart from her alive (no harm follows - penalty: a fine) or it could depart from her dead (harm follows by definition). If you disagree with me, fine. You're entitled. But don't ask me to accept men's opinion just because he's got the title "rabbi." Or MOG.
You disagree with me. Afford me the right to disagree with you, the rabbi and Victor Paul Wierwille.
Just wanted to bring this one back up to the top, in response to the recent decision to block the partial birth abortion ban.
It's disgusting, isn't it?
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling agrees with abortion rights activists that a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that it is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, as abortion foes contend.
That second part is ridiculous. Can anything be more barbaric than sucking out a baby's brains before they're born? First or second trimester is one thing, but partial birth is so devilish.
I agree with TWI's teaching on this, which has been that 1-2 trimester abortion is not murder, but 3rd is a no-no, so I'm glad twi at least had/has the good sense to teach folks to oppose that barbaric procedure.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
62
61
55
20
Popular Days
Jun 10
71
Jun 7
52
Jun 9
41
Aug 15
32
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 62 posts
oldiesman 61 posts
mj412 55 posts
Ham 20 posts
Popular Days
Jun 10 2004
71 posts
Jun 7 2004
52 posts
Jun 9 2004
41 posts
Aug 15 2007
32 posts
TheInvisibleDan
I tend to agree more with Jesus in His sermon on the mount that the Old Testament "eye-for-an-eye" thing is totally whacked, and perhaps would not be appropriately used toward our modern debate on the complex topic of abortion.
And is the creation of the old man in Genesis really appropriate for those of us in the era of the "new man" created by Jesus?
It seems more and more obvious to me that the problem isn't or has never been so much with the fetus, as it is with adults who don't weigh and own up to the responsibilities and consequences of their own actions, though I do lean toward the opinion that abortion should remain available for rape victims and those whose pregnancies in their cases endanger their own lives.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
Aside from the Bible ,I believe it is a move to reinforce Patriaricle Dominance over a female body in the long run. I'm not in favor of abortion as a form of birth control.
I do beleive that there should be a capital consquence to the ending of a fetus potentiallity of life when violent conditions like Lacy Perterson occures. I know it sounds contidictory but this issue of fetus life or lack of life will never be black or white.
What was denied was a "wanted child" by Lacy and that changes the whole dynamics of this case. It's hard to say why, it just does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I'd be more inclined to agree with it being a crime, for a late-term pregnancy where the "fetus" could live outside of the mother. Something like partial birth abortion, which I think should be banned.
However, I do have a problem with charging a federal crime for the termination of "any stage of development" of the fetus. I think that's overboard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think Wierwille assumes the term "that her fruit depart from her" means a miscarriage. If it does, then he is correct. However, if it does not, then his entire exposition is irrelevant.
I haven't examined the issue, but would love to hear more about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've been poking around on this:
The translations don't agree. Some say miscarriage, others say "premature birth." I'm not sure either way, but I did find this article, which presents a compelling case for the "premature birth" translation. Looking for others on both sides...
Another argument for "premature birth" translation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Ya know what most people miss about this scripture?
The fact that there is a fine.
A fine means that the described action was an offense and was wrong.
An OFFENSE and WRONG!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For what it's worth, I've checked about 40 sites that discuss this issue on both sides. Of those I checked, every one that takes Wierwille's view relies on the translation of Exodus 21:22 ff. Every one that takes a pro-life view relies on an examination of the verses, particularly on the translation and usage of the Hebrew words involved.
If I were still updating the Actual Errors list, this would be a prime candidate.
Wierwille WOULD be right if the "miscarriage" translation (according to our 20th Century understanding of the word) was correct. But that does not appear to be the case.
I'm very open to change my mind, as my examination of the issue has been cursory.
Catcup: one could argue that there was a fine because the mother and father did not want to lose the baby: therefore the two men who were striving took something from them. If the mother and father INTENDED to lose the baby, the fine would (under a Wierwillian argument) not apply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael,
I think the "premature birth" argument makes little sense because when a fetus "departs" and is at the 1st or 2nd term, mischief will ALWAYS follow, because the fetus will surely die unless some miracle takes place. Therefore I think the mischief refers to harm to the woman, not the fetus. The only way I see no mischief following and it refers to the fetus is if in the third term and the mother is near childbirth already. But that seems to me more outlandish. If that was what he was talking about, don't you think that verse would be more clear? What do you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman,
The translation in the King James is, if I'm not mistaken, "that her fruit depart from her," which we all agree means if the baby comes out.
So, the question is, does the baby come out alive or not? The King James only says the baby comes out. If the baby comes out okay, then no harm done, and the fine is for causing the premature birth and putting the woman and the baby in harm's way. If the baby does NOT come out okay (which, in your words, will "ALWAYS" be the case in the first or second trimester), then ---- kobiyashi maru.
Take a look at those links: they make the case much better than I just did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael, I read those links, and it seems to me that the folks on the side of "premature birth" are ignoring common horse sense.
Let's say you and I are having a fight, and I cause the pregnant woman, who is 3 months pregnant, to abort. Are you saying that that fetus is going to stay alive after coming out? "and yet no mischief follow" can't mean the fetus in this case, can it?
That's what these folks are ignoring, it seems they're just ignoring the obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ignoring common horse sense? I disagree wholeheartedly. The first thing they did was "read what's written." Then they base their interpretations on what's actually written in those verses. That's the way it's supposed to be. We've been doing it the other way around, bringing our "horse sense" to the scripture rather than let the scripture speak for itself.
I don't think they're ignoring the obvious at all.
I am not saying a first trimester fetus is going to come out alive. Neither does the verse. The verse merely says the baby comes out. You're the one introducing trimesters into the mix, but if the baby comes out and is dead (a common day definition of miscarriage), then it's the death penalty. The verse only says the baby comes out. The first scenario in the verse is that the baby comes out alive (which, you and I agree, will only take place relatively late in the pregnancy).
If the baby comes out alive, there's a fine (remember, the woman was still struck and her health and the baby's health placed in danger).
If the baby comes out and does not live (which would overwhelmingly be the case in the first or second trimesters), the penalty is proscribed in the verse.
What are they missing? Don't get stuck on a 1st trimester fetus being born alive. No one is saying that. Perhaps this confusion is why honest people don't know whether to translate it "premature birth" or "miscarriage." I think the King James gets this one right, in terms of the actual meaning. "If the child comes out" doesn't address the issue of the baby coming out alive or dead. The rest of the verse immediately addresses that issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Raf, I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this one. I think the reason why the scripture doesn't address whether the baby comes out dead or alive, is because the answer is pretty obvious. But that's me. I don't think the bible has to state every minute detail for us at times to use our common sense on some things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok. I submit, however, that what you call "obvious" is what you are reading into the text, not what is already written there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Reading into this scripture anything about abortion per se is exactly that: reading in to it. Because it strictly is defined in the context of an accident that occurs as two men strive.
The scripture has to do with an act that causes a woman to lose a pregnancy. That act is seen by God (it's His Word and commandment, right?) to be offensive.
If you want to equate the stated incident of causing a miscarriage with causing an abortion, in your own interpretation, and then compare the fine levied with the one levied against a murderer, sure, you could say that it is not on the same fine level as murder.
But you have to weigh this carefully.
If you are going to use scriptures regarding murder to justify your position, you need to see how they are used and apply the logic fully.
God makes a difference between intentionally taking a person's life and unintentionally taking a person's life.
Unintentionally causing the death of another person is not viewed the same as murder.
Intentionally causing the death of another is more serious.
Now if you are going to use this verse about two men striving and causing the unintentional death of a fetus, are you then now going to equate unintentionally taking the life of a fetus with intentionally taking the life of a fetus?
The logic doesn't seem to carry over in that favor.
With God, intent seems to be an issue, and not just in this matter.
God seems to indicate that the act of unintentionally causing the death of a fetus is worthy of at least a fine.
And if God indicates that this unintentional act is a punishable offense, why would we believe that somehow intentionally causing the death of a fetus would be any less an offense?
Regardless, the act nonetheless is a punishable offense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I was listening to WABC radio in NY this weekend (Sunday), "Religion on the Line" or something. It's hosted by a Roman Catholic Father and Jewish Rabbi. The topic was abortion, and the Rabbi mentioned that "there's some room for abortion in Jewish thought", and "there's a difference between life, and potential life." He quoted Exodus as being a miscarriage, in Jewish teaching. No mistake about it. I think his name is Rabbi Joseph Petasnik or something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
First Of all let me say that I have had an abortion, had nothing to do with TWI, and I've felt the lose of that child everyday since.
He would have been 32 this August.
That said. I personally am opposed to Abortion, except for life threatening reasons. This is how I personally feel GOD feels about it
HOwever, I do support legislation that gives women the right to choose.
Let me explain:
we are a free society, what makes us free is our ability to choose. Take that away we loose our freedom and more importantly we take free agency away and free agency is what GOD it is all about.
I is my belief, as a Christian, that if we were doing our jobs in spreading the gospel, in teaching our children, I MEAN REALLY DOING OUR JOBS, There wouldn't be a need for abotion except in life threatening cases.
I know many of you are thinking of the icest/rape scenario, but that is what adoption agencies are for. We need to make adoption more readily attainable for worthy families.
We need to make sure that young women in this predicamant have loving stable surroundings during those pregnacies, with counseling, employment opportunites, education opportunites etc so when the baby is born and given up she will have a life.
Once we get our acts together society as a whole will improve so that hopefully this issue will no longer be an issue
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman,
As an appreciator of PFAL, you should know better than to post "so-and-so says that's what it means" and expect that to carry any weight. Plenty of rabbis and Christian teachers interpret that verse precisely the opposite of the way Petasnik does. What does it get you? Nothing. Men's opinion.
I reject his opinion. It is inconsistent with the way the word is used in multiple other instances. His opinion is interesting, but in and of itself is devoid of authority.
Mo, sorry for your loss. God Bless You (He loves you and always has).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Raf,
From what I've google-searched on the net, the "miscarriage" interpretation seems to be the predominant Jewish view from the Torah. Do a google search on Jewish thought on this topic, and you'll see what I mean.
Also, I figure that the Rabbi wouldn't have made such a definitive statement of Jewish thought on a very widespread and popular radio station if he was just talking about his own opinion. I feel certain that if he were making a comment as "just his own opinion" he would have paraphrased it with that condition. But he didn't.
Having said that, I'm willing to call him up next Sunday myself and ask him if what he meant was only his opinion. Do you have one or two authoritative Jewish sources who dispute the miscarriage interpretation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Golfie
There were abortions when the Bible was written. The Assysians had a law that no abortion was legal, they thought the mother could die, but the fetus should be saved. Women were only important for bearing children.
It is significant that the Bible is silent on the issue of abortion. When the Bible is silent on a topic, it is a good idea for believers to be silent, also.
Satan has fairly well suceeded in dividing the church on a mute point in the Bible. The "pro-life" people do very little for children who are already born and have needs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
To me, The Way’s take on abortion is a diversion. They try to get the focus on whether or not abortion is murder rather than whether or not abortion is godly.
The Greek word for “without natural affection” is “astorgos” which means “not stork-like.”
Storks, of course, are so well known their care for the unborn we depict them as the deliverers of our babies.
Way clergy, on the other hand, are properly depicted as wolves devouring the babies the storks bring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I think and believe that the reason vpw and martindale and top leadership believed in abortion was so if one of the gals got pregnant they had good reason to say that it was ok with God for them to abort.
I know one friend that had to get one...leadership paid for it and drove her to the clinic. So sad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
I disagree. I don’t believe it’s a good idea for believers to be silent on topics not covered in the Bible.
If believers aren’t discussing issues not covered in the Bible it will remain to unbelievers to discuss and decide for us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let's see if I've got this straight, oldiesman. You're going to call the guy up and ask him if he's privately interpreting the scriptures. And you expect him to answer... what, exactly?
Why don't you call up all those folks who are danged certain they've interpreted John 1 correctly? Why is their word unreliable on John 1, but Rabbi Petasnik is reliable on the Exodus verses? Since when do you leave Biblical interpretation up to "the experts?" Was that a PFAL key that I missed? "Find out what the rabbis think?"
Look uo the history of the word "miscarriage." It didn't always mean the child died. The verse doesn't say "miscarriage." It says "that her fruit depart from her." It could depart from her alive (no harm follows - penalty: a fine) or it could depart from her dead (harm follows by definition). If you disagree with me, fine. You're entitled. But don't ask me to accept men's opinion just because he's got the title "rabbi." Or MOG.
You disagree with me. Afford me the right to disagree with you, the rabbi and Victor Paul Wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Just wanted to bring this one back up to the top, in response to the recent decision to block the partial birth abortion ban.
It's disgusting, isn't it?
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling agrees with abortion rights activists that a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that it is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, as abortion foes contend.
That second part is ridiculous. Can anything be more barbaric than sucking out a baby's brains before they're born? First or second trimester is one thing, but partial birth is so devilish.
I agree with TWI's teaching on this, which has been that 1-2 trimester abortion is not murder, but 3rd is a no-no, so I'm glad twi at least had/has the good sense to teach folks to oppose that barbaric procedure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.