Are you not asking why something that Moses couldn't even DREAM of was not PROHIBITED by Moses?
He certainly dreamt about embryos from Exodus and concluded that the fetus wasn't a human being and shouldn't be given the same value as the mother. Those are the simple facts.
and concluded that the fetus wasn't a human being and shouldn't be given the same value as the mother
There is another school of thought that claims "if mischief follow" does not refer only to the death of the woman, but the death of the infant as well.
That one doesn't make any sense in actual life experience. It assumes that the fetus can be alive after a miscarriage which is just ridiculous. A fetus that is miscarried usually ends up dead. ( i suppose there may be very occasional exceptions.)
The mischief is talking about the mother, if she gets hurt then "an eye for an eye". Otherwise there is only a fine for a dead fetus. The fetus is not thought of as the same value as the mother. This is confirmed in Jewish theology, otherwise they'd ban abortion because if the fetus were life, like the mother, it would be murder and they'd have to ban it.
That one doesn't make any sense in actual life experience
it does to me. The few women I know who had an abortion, or even miscarriage.. have mourned the event for years afterwards. If it isn't a death, it's the next closest thing.
The thing I find dispicible, in a way.. is that while the men argue the doctrinal intricacies and details, some in some attempt to justify it, they are not the ones who must endure the lasting consequences.
What I have a real issue with.. is some mog wanabe thinks that he should simply be spared some embarassment with a doctor's scalpel..
I don't think it has to say it is permitted for it to be permitted. In other words, everything is permitted unless it is prohibited. On the other hand, if it says it is prohibited, it definitely is not permitted. That is the very definition of what the law is. (don't do this, don't do that, etc.)
I guess it depends on your pov Oldies. There are a number of things that are not permitted on the sabbath or certain holidays that are not expressly forbidden in the O.T. They are in the Midrash but based on the OT - they relate to things that fall into the category of work, for instance.
Another way to look at it, doesn't Romans say somewhere that all things are permitted but not all things are not expedient? I guess that could be applied to abortion as well. One could argue based on that verse alone, that abortion is permitted. One could also argue, based on that verse alone, that an abortion may not be expedient.
I am not arguing against abortion overall in this thread. I have made my opinion on abortion clear enough in the political forums and I am a pro choice person. But I would certainly say absolutely no one should ever, ever pressure a woman into such a huge decision.
until the fetus can live outside the womb, on its own, it is not thought of as a living soul or human being. -- (unless or until the fetus is viable, around third trimester). But that piece by Dave Craley was excellent too; teaching that the fetus is "the potential" to life and not life itself.
Oldies
Let me boil this down for you.
The basic premise taught in TWI( in "the good old days") was that a fetus is not alive until it takes its first breath. Period!
No "viability", no "trimester demarcations"----Just a simple statement that life begins with the first breath and ends at the last.
You can dance around and play semantic games all you want but it won't change the fact that this is what TWI taught.
Dr. Wierwille taught essentially the same thing( though it was somewhat veiled) in the PFAL class.
It was also presented this way in the *Christian Sex and More Sex* class.
As I stated earlier, I am not posting to take a pro or anti stance.
I am posting to confirm, once and for all, The Way's stance on abortion was that a fetus is not alive until it takes its first breath. Wierwille himself said as much.
It's hard to believe that someone such as yourself who cherished his every word and phrase, somehow did not hear this. ( Or at least " read between the lines".)
Personally, it matters very little to me how you stand on the subject.
But I do feel quite strongly that you should acknowledge that the "first breath" concept is what was taught.
edited to add: For me, at least, this is not about abortion but about accepting that this is what was taught,
NOTabout trying to rationalize and second guess the message that was clearly proclaimed.
The basic premise taught in TWI( in "the good old days") was that a fetus is not alive until it takes its first breath. Period!
No "viability", no "trimester demarcations"----Just a simple statement that life begins with the first breath and ends at the last.
I trow not, Waysider. Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and read my posts on this thread. Somewhere in there you will find documented proof of some trimester demarcations. :)
What a great thread this is. Seemed to gain even more steam after I thought it had run its course. Thanks folks. :P
snip------ Contrast with TWI's view that when the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, at that time, and not before, man became a living soul. Additionally, Dr. Wierwille expounds from the Old Testament Exodus 21:22-24 showing that the fetus wasn't considered a human being.-------snip
"some of us" remember what it was like coming into this existence.. if a person really knew, or remembered.. I don't think they'd be in such a darn hurry to pull the plug on some poor stooge..
The piece by David Craley that you cited may or may not be an interesting read.
I wouldn't know.
I never read it.
Never even heard of it before.
I venture to say that most people on GSC have never read it either though I don't know that for a fact.
Point is, it's meaningless to cite a work that few people are likely to be aware of and then say," This represents the The Way Ministry's stance on the abortion issue."
It doesn't.
It represents David Craley's stance on the abortion issue.( or at least certain aspects of his stance.)
The Way Ministry's stance on the issue of abortion has been, for many years, been based on the teaching of Dr. Wierwille, that life begins with the first breath and ends with the last.
This line of thinking started in PFAL in the made, formed, created session, was fortified in the CF&S class and permeated countless other teachings of VP Wierwille.
Stated in the simplest way I know, TWI( in the large scope of the entirety of the organization) took the position that a fetus is not "alive" until it draws its first breath.
That is not a pro or con assessment ,in and of itself, of whether abortion is an acceptable practice.
(ie: is it morally right or wrong?)
It's a simple statement that the first breath concept was, by far, the most widely taught and accepted concept regarding abortion among the members of The Way International.
But you asserted there were no trimester demarcations, and I offered written proof that there was.
A magazine like that can't be published without careful consideration, assimilation, examination, back and forth discussion of and with prominent TWI believers. If something contradicted twi doctrine, it wouldn't have been published. This isn't Dave Craley going off on his own trip and teaching his own doctrine. If you saw the magazine you'd see what I mean.
If you like, I would be happy to email a pdf to you.
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
oldiesman
He certainly dreamt about embryos from Exodus and concluded that the fetus wasn't a human being and shouldn't be given the same value as the mother. Those are the simple facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Too simple for me..
There is another school of thought that claims "if mischief follow" does not refer only to the death of the woman, but the death of the infant as well.
http://www.covenantnews.com/cspa990830.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
That one doesn't make any sense in actual life experience. It assumes that the fetus can be alive after a miscarriage which is just ridiculous. A fetus that is miscarried usually ends up dead. ( i suppose there may be very occasional exceptions.)
The mischief is talking about the mother, if she gets hurt then "an eye for an eye". Otherwise there is only a fine for a dead fetus. The fetus is not thought of as the same value as the mother. This is confirmed in Jewish theology, otherwise they'd ban abortion because if the fetus were life, like the mother, it would be murder and they'd have to ban it.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
it does to me. The few women I know who had an abortion, or even miscarriage.. have mourned the event for years afterwards. If it isn't a death, it's the next closest thing.
The thing I find dispicible, in a way.. is that while the men argue the doctrinal intricacies and details, some in some attempt to justify it, they are not the ones who must endure the lasting consequences.
What I have a real issue with.. is some mog wanabe thinks that he should simply be spared some embarassment with a doctor's scalpel..
I think they are cutting off the wrong thing..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I guess it depends on your pov Oldies. There are a number of things that are not permitted on the sabbath or certain holidays that are not expressly forbidden in the O.T. They are in the Midrash but based on the OT - they relate to things that fall into the category of work, for instance.
Another way to look at it, doesn't Romans say somewhere that all things are permitted but not all things are not expedient? I guess that could be applied to abortion as well. One could argue based on that verse alone, that abortion is permitted. One could also argue, based on that verse alone, that an abortion may not be expedient.
I am not arguing against abortion overall in this thread. I have made my opinion on abortion clear enough in the political forums and I am a pro choice person. But I would certainly say absolutely no one should ever, ever pressure a woman into such a huge decision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oldies
Let me boil this down for you.
The basic premise taught in TWI( in "the good old days") was that a fetus is not alive until it takes its first breath. Period!
No "viability", no "trimester demarcations"----Just a simple statement that life begins with the first breath and ends at the last.
You can dance around and play semantic games all you want but it won't change the fact that this is what TWI taught.
Dr. Wierwille taught essentially the same thing( though it was somewhat veiled) in the PFAL class.
It was also presented this way in the *Christian Sex and More Sex* class.
As I stated earlier, I am not posting to take a pro or anti stance.
I am posting to confirm, once and for all, The Way's stance on abortion was that a fetus is not alive until it takes its first breath. Wierwille himself said as much.
It's hard to believe that someone such as yourself who cherished his every word and phrase, somehow did not hear this. ( Or at least " read between the lines".)
Personally, it matters very little to me how you stand on the subject.
But I do feel quite strongly that you should acknowledge that the "first breath" concept is what was taught.
edited to add: For me, at least, this is not about abortion but about accepting that this is what was taught,
NOTabout trying to rationalize and second guess the message that was clearly proclaimed.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
that is exactly what was taught
and if i remember donna martindale came up with it and veepee got "excited"
ask sunesis, i'm pretty sure she knows this for a fact
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I can't help but think about this..
What if... hmmm. Just what if..
your "leadership" suggested castration as a necessary "procedure" to keep gawd first, and the work of da ministry..
after all, it's just a *little* piece of flesh, a group of a few cells..
It's not a living, breathing, human being we're talking about, anyway..
I could actually make a pretty convincing argument that this is da will of gawd..
"look at Daniel, what a GREAT man o gawd he was... probably endured this.. and NOAH.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Amazingly, Hamm, this very practice was done in centuries past for a couple of reasons.
1. Maintain high voices of pre-pubescent choir boys.
2. Create a royal security force that could not be swayed by conventional temptations.
OK-- Where were we?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
That's usually MY cue.. "I'm done doing what I'm doing, carry on, nothing to see.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think Rosie took a clue from history. Right, *mr* L*nder?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
you could still walk the walk
http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
bow wow (said in a high pitched bark)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
big mog, i mean big dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Testicular implants on a pooch----
They serve about the same purpose as teats on a boar hog.
Oh yeah, almost forgot---- We were talking about what TWI taught on abortion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Or we're trying, really really trying..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I trow not, Waysider. Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and read my posts on this thread. Somewhere in there you will find documented proof of some trimester demarcations. :)
What a great thread this is. Seemed to gain even more steam after I thought it had run its course. Thanks folks. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You said it, not me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I love the Twilight Zone..
"some of us" remember what it was like coming into this existence.. if a person really knew, or remembered.. I don't think they'd be in such a darn hurry to pull the plug on some poor stooge..
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
"Cut and Paste" must have been God's idea...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I wrote that but wasn't entirely accurate with those statements.
The piece by Dave Craley explains it a lot better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The piece by David Craley that you cited may or may not be an interesting read.
I wouldn't know.
I never read it.
Never even heard of it before.
I venture to say that most people on GSC have never read it either though I don't know that for a fact.
Point is, it's meaningless to cite a work that few people are likely to be aware of and then say," This represents the The Way Ministry's stance on the abortion issue."
It doesn't.
It represents David Craley's stance on the abortion issue.( or at least certain aspects of his stance.)
The Way Ministry's stance on the issue of abortion has been, for many years, been based on the teaching of Dr. Wierwille, that life begins with the first breath and ends with the last.
This line of thinking started in PFAL in the made, formed, created session, was fortified in the CF&S class and permeated countless other teachings of VP Wierwille.
Stated in the simplest way I know, TWI( in the large scope of the entirety of the organization) took the position that a fetus is not "alive" until it draws its first breath.
That is not a pro or con assessment ,in and of itself, of whether abortion is an acceptable practice.
(ie: is it morally right or wrong?)
It's a simple statement that the first breath concept was, by far, the most widely taught and accepted concept regarding abortion among the members of The Way International.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
But you asserted there were no trimester demarcations, and I offered written proof that there was.
A magazine like that can't be published without careful consideration, assimilation, examination, back and forth discussion of and with prominent TWI believers. If something contradicted twi doctrine, it wouldn't have been published. This isn't Dave Craley going off on his own trip and teaching his own doctrine. If you saw the magazine you'd see what I mean.
If you like, I would be happy to email a pdf to you.
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.