Was God not always Pro-life?

[mystic]

I came upon this article guys which I think is worth discussing please:

mystic, I have to redact the link because this group definitely teaches things that go against our SoF here. Whenever discussing things like this it is best to ask specific questions than just to link and artical and open the entire thing for debate in one thread. That way you can quote from it without posting the link. Also answering their many claims can get a bit convoluted when everyone responds to different things in the artical.

My question is does God himself support abortion "in any way"?

I saw a faith movie which showed the exact processes of abortions and it grossed me out. However, I think there are situations when Abortions can be necessary such as rape victims, when a pregnancy endangers the life of the woman so one would need to choose between her life or the life of the unborn, when there would be serious complications with the fetus so would one might need to consider if it would be best to bring a child into this world to suffer greatly throughout it's life?

[alon]

mystic, the site you referenced is an anti religion site, and I will comment on the artical in general. It tries to prove God is ok with abortion because God is evil. In the authors own words:

“It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults.”

And that is not the most egregious claim, by a long shot. This guy seethes with rage towards a God he cannot control; a God who demands obedience instead of being obedient to his petty wants, wishes, and childish demands. I would like to comment on one other thing he said:

"Among those who deny women's reproductive rights, numerous contradictory positions are observed. For example, some prominent politicians who want to overturn Roe v. Wade would allow exceptions for rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality and/or life of the mother. These exceptions necessarily require destroying the fetus, which is the very action they condemn. In other words, the murder of unborn children is acceptable when anti-abortion politicians approve."

Those exceptions were made as compromises to the abortionists who held these as "obvious" cases where abortions were desirable. Now they are being brought back and used against pro-life advocates, saying in effect when it is convenient for us abortion is ok. It exemplifies what I have always said, "NEVER compromise with evil!" 

Dan C

[mosheli]

I often notice that in the prolife and prochoice debate that they don't usually really get to the root issues of why there is a "need" for so many abortions in the first place, and why there is so much rape and incest. They don't address things like promiscuity/eroticism in our culture, etc. They don't consider the intimacy choices of the woman and man and others before the choice of abortion. The things like rape and incest and danger of woman's life and fetal abnormality are not the majority of cases? (Would prayer make a difference?) There are also other options like adoption. Though from a messianic or christian view even that is not the uttermost root issue which is the falleness of man.
There is also the commandment do not murder. And the parallel with sacrifice of babies to Moloch, and Herod's murder of babies.
Though Solomon did say those who are not born at all are better off.
John said the light lightens everyone who comes into the world.
Jesus is the way the truth and the *life*.

[mystic]

Nov 20, 2020 7:18:30 GMT -8 alon said:

mystic, the site you referenced is an anti religion site, and I will comment on the artical in general. It tries to prove God is ok with abortion because God is evil. In the authors own words:

And that is not the most egregious claim, by a long shot. This guy seethes with rage towards a God he cannot control; a God who demands obedience instead of being obedient to his petty wants, wishes, and childish demands. I would like to comment on one other thing he said:


Dan C

Sorry I had not meant that guy's words, I was referring only to the scriptures in it especially this one:

God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).

Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18)

"Give them, Lord, what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry."


Curses for Disobedience

15 However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:

16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.

17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.

18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.

And from Christ himself "And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!"


How can that be explained so show that even God himself [and others] was not against abortion?

[alon]

Nov 21, 2020 4:29:29 GMT -8 mystic said:

God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).

Hosea 9:10-16 (ESV)
Like grapes in the wilderness,
    I found Israel.
Like the first fruit on the fig tree
    in its first season,
    I saw your fathers.
But they came to Baal-peor
    and consecrated themselves to the thing of shame,
    and became detestable like the thing they loved.
Ephraim's glory shall fly away like a bird—
    no birth, no pregnancy, no conception!
Even if they bring up children,
    I will bereave them till none is left.
Woe to them
    when I depart from them!
Ephraim, as I have seen, was like a young palm planted in a meadow;
    but Ephraim must lead his children out to slaughter.
Give them, O Lord—
    what will you give?
Give them a miscarrying womb
    and dry breasts.
Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal;
    there I began to hate them.
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
    I will drive them out of my house.
I will love them no more;
    all their princes are rebels.
Ephraim is stricken;
    their root is dried up;
    they shall bear no fruit.
Even though they give birth,
    I will put their beloved children to death.

Read the whole thing. One of the promises God made to Avraham was his children would number as the stars. But the Hebrews who He had blessed like this turned to worshiping created things- idols, and specifically sex. Ba’al Peor was a phaluc symbol, and it means “Lord of the Door, or Opening,” that last being a euphemism for the female sexual organ. They fell into worshiping the act and not the One who blessed that act when done as He prescribed. So God cursed the fruit of the womb; the produce of that act. God often lets us choose our own path to punishment. Another way to look at it is, as we say “let the punishment fit the crime.”

Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18)

As always, you need to read that in context; read the entire chapter. This is an end times prophecy. It is not what God commands, it is what happens when overcome by a more powerful and ruthless, Godless enemy. The Sun and Moon do not give their light because of the smoke of fires from the destruction of their civilization. And most all prophecy, this happens time and time again throughout history. This is the face of war- not as we and other civilized nations wage it with smart bombs and attempts to minimize civilian casualties. But war as most peoples even today wage it; ruthless, vengeful, the lusts of conquest in their hearts and no boundaries, no accountability.

"Give them, Lord, what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry."

The removal of His protection so that they should be overpowered and again the curse on the produce of their unions were God’s part in the punishment, as this says. The rest they absolutely and completely brought upon themselves. And since God does not punish without reason, they brought His curse on themselves as well.

Curses for Disobedience

15 However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you: 16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.

Which happened in the example above, but as a result of God's removal of His protection from a people who had deserted Him.

17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.

Israel, especially ancient Israel depends entirely on God for their harvest each year. The rains must come at the right times and in the right amounts or the crop fails. This is saying the basket they use to gather their food will be empty, and no grain for flour to be kneaded into dough for bread. They turned from their God, so He removed His provision.

18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.

Again, these were promises made to the Hebrews by God that if they followed Him He would bless them, if not they would be cursed. On the one hand, in that time if God just removed His protection many infants would die either before or shortly after being born. Many women would die in childbirth. A lot of children would never see adulthood. And I have done farm and ranch work. You’d be surprised how many animals die without our intervention. So the “curse” may just be the removal of God’s protection, or it may mean God will multiply these tragedies upon them. We aren’t told which. Either way, He is God, so we must trust He is right in whatever He does.

And from Christ himself "And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!"

Matthew 24:19 (ESV) And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!



This is not a command, curse, or threat. It is a prophecy. Yeshua tells what men will do to other men, not what God will do to us. Again, we should read everything in context before we let some vile crusader for the enemy to use scripture out of context to destroy our trust and lead us away.

How can that be explained so show that even God himself [and others] was not against abortion?

I think I just explained it, and none of it had anything to do with abortion. Adults and children were also wantonly killed in those examples. Does this lead us to conclude God condoned murder? Don’t want a child, just kill it. Don’t like your neighbor? Well, you know what to do about that, and God is ok with it, because He did command that some people be wiped out. But again, He is God, and He has His reasons. And when God does command it, it is not murder. If we just decide to do it on our own, it is murder and we will be held accountable. And killing our own babies is murder. I'm no genius, bit then it doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out.

Dan (kinda slow witted, but not that slow!) C

[mystic]

Nov 21, 2020 9:51:36 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 21, 2020 4:29:29 GMT -8 mystic said:

I think I just explained it, and none of it had anything to do with abortion. Adults and children were also wantonly killed in those examples. Does this lead us to conclude God condoned murder? Don’t want a child, just kill it. Don’t like your neighbor? Well, you know what to do about that, and God is ok with it, because He did command that some people be wiped out. But again, He is God, and He has His reasons. And when God does command it, it is not murder. If we just decide to do it on our own, it is murder and we will be held accountable. And killing our own babies is murder. I'm no genius, bit then it doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out.

Dan (kinda slow witted, but not that slow!) C

Right but would it be murder under extenuating circumstances as in one example given where one has to choose between saving the mother or the unborn?

Attachments:

[alon]

Nov 23, 2020 3:57:20 GMT -8 mystic said:

Right but would it be murder under extenuating circumstances as in one example given where one has to choose between saving the mother or the unborn?

That is far different than just killing the baby for base convenience. In the cases where it must be decided to save one person or the other, such as separating Siamese twins when medically necessary or mother and child for the same reason, many things are considered: who has the better chance of survival after the procedure is performed, wishes of one party that the other be given priority (many mothers last instructions before the surgery is "save my baby, let me go"), religious customs and social mores, etc. But sometimes it becomes our onerous duty to make the decision that one is saved and another is allowed to die. I'd say the main thing there is the decision should be made as impartially and fairly as possible and based on the facts at hand. But this is far different than just deciding a baby must die for your convenience.

Dan C

[mystic]

Nov 23, 2020 6:22:29 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 23, 2020 3:57:20 GMT -8 mystic said:

Right but would it be murder under extenuating circumstances as in one example given where one has to choose between saving the mother or the unborn?

 I'd say the main thing there is the decision should be made as impartially and fairly as possible and based on the facts at hand. But this is far different than just deciding a baby must die for your convenience.

Dan C

Agreed. So let's take this a step further please so "who" do you think should make that decision, should it be left up to the Mother or Society/Governing laws? I ask this because recently i had noticed that most televangelists were pretty much saying the mother should not have the right to choose.

[alon]

Nov 24, 2020 4:08:52 GMT -8 mystic said:

Agreed. So let's take this a step further please so "who" do you think should make that decision, should it be left up to the Mother or Society/Governing laws? I ask this because recently i had noticed that most televangelists were pretty much saying the mother should not have the right to choose.

Well, the doctor will make the decission whether he will participate in an abortion or not. The mother and father would ideally discuss their options and come to a decision. Regardless, the mother should be involved in this decision.

The evangelist might have meant she doesn't have the right to just choose to have an abortion for her convenience. It would be pretty callous to exclude her if one of the options might mean her death.

Dan C