Foremost and first of all, all of what is going to be said next depends on a belief in “the Word of God” --that is both the written Word (2 Tim 3:16) and, and as understood through, the Incarnated/Demonstrated Word (John 1:1-5). A perfect anchor stone to having such a belief in both the Bible and Jesus Christ is found in the Biblically, fully Messianically interpreted/understood prophecy of Daniel’s 70 Weeks. (See here).
With that properly and fully done first, the following Gospel Imperatives should be most clearly and sequiturly discerned. And all that Jesus has taught and instructed is for the very best of the believer (John 10:10; cf. 1 John 4:15-5:5)...and Jesus guarantees it. (Luke 21:33)
The Biblical Basis
At the risk of speaking to the choir here, at least in part(s), it is most logically clear that in all but cases of life for life, i.e., there is another life that is innocently at risk, all other reasons for abortions (=99% of cases) constitute an act of murder, violating the Sixth Commandment (Exod 20:13). God is also clear that He greatly cares for the unborn child (Isa 49:1; Luke 1:39-44; Gal 1:15; Psa 22:9-10), seeing it, from conception, -even when it’s a mere (unformed) substance (Psa 139:16 =from a zygote {=Greek for: “joined”/“yoked”}, at ca. 24 hrs, onward), and even before that fertilized substance begins to have (human) form/traits (Psa 139:13-15; Jer 1:5; Job 31:15; Isa 44:2), as a fully equal life (Exod 22:22-25; cf. Lev 24:17). And moreover it is an ultimate, concrete demonstration of “hatred” for the unborn which is the root of murder (Matt 5:21-23); indeed all really borne, at least indirectly, out of an anger as to what that (innocent) child will cost, affect, confirm and/or represent. The Bible is clear that anyone who manifested such hate towards others, even/especially “the least of these” (Matt 25:45) can/does not actually love God (1 John 4:20-21).
Concrete Actions, not Mere Words
To say the least, the anti-abortion “fight”[1] has seen many aberrative extremes, i.e., the ‘abortion doctor killer’ (cf. here), however such actions which have been (wrongly) deemed justified as a life-for-life issue, have indeed been Spiritually wrong because they are marred by a fundamental hypocrisy. Namely: ‘would that individual themself sacrifice in order to sustain that unborn life. It is a tabulated fact that most abortions are directly or indirectly done for economic reasons, from ‘how a child would impact one’s studies and/or career’, to: ‘the costs of raising the child’, among other similar reasons. Even social reasons can have an economic impact if the “image/reputation” of the person is lessened or damaged by that pregnancy.
So the question that must be answered by any and all who claim to be against abortion and pro-life is, and that is inherently because the economic impact is unavoidable, both personally and socially: ‘would they themselves be willing to sacrifice as needed to take proper responsibility of that unwanted child.’ If the answer is “no”, i.e., to put it most plainly, if they would neither adopt or help raise that child through all of their dependent years (i.e., up, or really even through, College/University studies), then they really do not have the right to want to impose that on someone else, particularly, as it is the case with most pregnancies which end in abortions, the pregnancy was not at all wanted or planned. (Of course the issue of non-marital sexual relations is not discussed here, though naturally germane to the issue, yet/for even married couples do have abortions for “unwanted pregnancies”.)
So since the end goal here is to save the life of the unborn, and since the common profession is that ‘every unborn life counts’, then all those in the anti-abortion camp should honestly be engaged in trying to achieve this goal with every case, for, if they only care about doing what is “economically feasible”, and thus letting unborn infants die who could actually be saved, then they are really not at all different than those who use the exact same reasoning and justification to have an abortion.
Moreover, the realistic fact is that in our world which is becoming more and more unBiblical and post-modern in terms of what constitute murder as well as a more and more mainstreamly accepted decadent lifestyle [e.g., there was a day when a person was not praised for not being a virgin before marriage...but of course, not anymore...indeed quite to the exact opposite.] combined with the artificial economic constraints imposed by the spurious economic system of Capitalism where things are subjectively, and not scientifically priced (i.e., what one wants to pay for something instead of what it factually is worth), not to mention the belief that in a “free and democratic society” this all is an issue of “rights and freedom”; there will always be this renewably fueled “perfect storm” to continue to result in abortions.
So a belief that abortion can be, especially, democratically, outlawed, will, as concretely demonstrated by failed “Personhood Constitutional Amendment” attempt(s), mere wishful thinking at best, and, if ever passed, unless society is wholly reformed, this “fuel” which comes to produce most unwanted pregnancies will continue to tangibly push against this ban, and in a democratic framework can easily be overturn when there arises a voting generation in power who was not at all raised on any morally shaping beliefs.
So there needs to be a much more effective and sustainable alternative to oppose the abortion practice, and as Jesus said, ‘the cost must be fully counted’. (Luke 14:28) I.e., what will it actually require to properly support up to 65,000,000[2] new and dependent people on Earth each year, from now on... That indeed is the imperative for true/full Christian Discipleship (Luke 14:25-33).[3]
“Counting the Cost”
So what will it take to support 65,000,000 addedly born infants per year, especially in this here context that these will not be “wanted” infants by their mother/parents/family?? Just tangibly answering the question of: ‘What would the present world be like today if the ca. 1.26 billion infants had not been aborted since 1973?’, (-actually/realistically/normative by now, a grand total of ca. 1.685-2.583 billion as it c/would (most probably) involve between 75%-100% of them being married, -between the possible ages of 18-24, and now them also having children, even possibly, since ca. 2009 for, presently, the first groups of 1973-1976: grand children!), makes it transparently clear what will need to change from our present socio-economics in order to be able to properly sustain these new lives. Clearly a capitalistic approach would not have supported such a socially dependent growth, for the needed socialistic structures, systems and “safety nets” are inherently not present in Capitalism. An entirely different model is needed, and it is the Biblical Socialism model found throughout the Bible where, as seen in e.g., Deut 15:1-11; Isa 58:7, 10; Luke 3:11; 10:25-37; 18:18-27; Acts 2:43-45; 4:32-35; 2 Cor 8:7-15, in such times/circumstances of need, those with money and means generously/adequately, and if needed, even sacrificially, fundamentally/systematically come to the aid of those who are in need.
What follows is a detailing of a concrete plan to accomplish this most urgent of vital needs, and that adequately and most effectively so in order to help save as many otherwise-would-be-aborted infants as possible and help them to then have as normal and adequate upbringing as possible, and all in the context of not being a socio-economic burden or detriment on the rest of society. (This is here stated as succinctly and summarily as proper.)
The Life-Saving Plan
Of course the key to this whole humanitarian ministry is to first save the life of the infant. That most tangibly involves dissuading a pregnant woman from opting to have an abortion. The need therefore would be to make the carrying out of the pregnancy to full term/birth to be as non-inconveniencing as possible and also worthwhile (i.e., “profitable”).
The first part, the “non-incoveniencing” part involves meeting the concrete and actual needs that a, or that, pregnant woman would encounter during the nine months of the pregnancy. This includes pregnancy clothing, compensation for work days lost, any medical treatment costs, etc. The easiest way would be to expend the money needed to meet these various cost, but the most economical approach which will prove to be the most sustainable one for this ministry is instead to set up various “owned and operated” supply and service networks to provide for those needs. One (or a supporting) approach would be to (also) work with various individual (nurses, doctors, counselors, etc) and even institutional (e.g., Hospitals, pregnancy centers, etc) (presumedly Christian) volunteers who would be willing to freely help assist in those areas. And this compensation may in some cases involve a 9-month temporary (or perhaps for permanent intentions) relocating of the woman to another area if social issues are a concern during the pregnancy; and also, if deemed necessary, physical health/shape/fitness recovery training.
The second part of the birth compensation here would be to provide a net profit/pocketable income to the person during the pregnancy. This is discussed in some detail in this related webpage. Basically this would be in the form of 10% of a countries GDP/capita figures (thus for an American woman in 2011/12 this would be 10% of ca. $49,000 = $4,900). This disbursement could be paid in a single payment (with accrued interest over the 9 months) at the end of the nine months, or in installments during each (successful) month of pregnancy (without interest). [The disbursement for a terminated pregnancy resulting from natural causes (e.g., a miscarriage) would be pro-rated to the time when the pregnancy ended.]
Also, for (judicially proven) cases of rape and incest (ca. 1% of abortions, cf. in here), a payout would be doubled (2X), and for non-criminal/consensual cases of unwanted pregnancies of an under age girl, i.e., under the age of 16 (ca. 1.2-2.0% of abortions, cf. in here), a payout would be, (upon the determination of a judicial inquiry by an NJK court to determine if the case is not a scam), 1.5X.
This profiting disbursement/payout will actually be optional to the woman and will balancingly, justly, “incentivizingly” involve that if they so profit for their non-abortion, then they would be waiving any right which evaluatively/judiciously may be later granted to regain the partial or full rights of that infant.
So with a woman here not incurring any costs, or even social detriment for the pregnancy, and then with this all being a financially profitable endeavor (e.g., $544 per months for an American woman in 2011/12), then there will most likely, even surely, be many infants saved from abortions. The issue then becomes to properly care for them in raising up from their “Day 1” of their (preserved) lives.
So with a woman here not incurring any costs, or even social detriment for the pregnancy, and then with this all being a financially profitable endeavor (e.g., $544 per months for an American woman in 2011/12), then there will most likely, even surely, be many infants saved from abortions. The issue then becomes to properly care for them in raising up from their “Day 1” of their (preserved) lives.
Self-Sustaining Plan
Again here, the most economical, and thus sustainable approach would be to have self-sustaining institutions and services, and ideally, from the ground up, thus, following the related economic model discussed starting here, from e.g., raw material mining/producing companies, through construction through operational services. It must be stated that this whole ministry and all of its related supporting aids, be (rightly) incorporated as a not-for profit organization. I.e./E.g., Life Center, Inc. As such it would avoid the added burden of paying taxes, all the while being an organization which does not need to receive burdening governmental assistance. The qualifying term “burdening” is key here, for if, and as planned, Life Center comes to provide a service to government and/or society which results in considerable tax savings from the government, it would only be fair and natural for the tax disbursement being saved would be given in at least part, to help support this tax-saving effort/aid. So tax payers would get a tax reduction and the Life Center would get some financial support/compensation. Thus all sides would be benefited through such actions and the receiving of tax money here would not be “burdening” to society.
Living Space
A most foundational need for the group of new people born to the Life Center Ministry is having an assured place to live, and ideally for (at least) their whole developmental/educational life. So the purchasing/owning of land which could then be developed into a full-fledged community, town, even city would need to be done. It will of course not be logical to have e.g., up to 65,000,000 each year all live in the same location, and so, having several locations around the world where this could be done is the ideal way. This will be in-line with the proposed/planned 4000+ global Mission Campuses stated on this webpage. For just feasibility reasons, having 4000 locations for up to 65,000,000 infants results in 16,250 being at each location. And in turn, over a lifetime of the 24 years during which each of those children will live in those places, thus through their College/University Education, this would result in up to ca. 400,000 of them living in one location. That also is still a manageable number for each location.
Following their educational years, for those who chose so, other independent living spaces, formally a new country, could be built up by these now professional adults as, and where, proposed here in the NJK Project.
Housing
If affordable, high end construction services, or the needed raw material cannot be obtained, the ideal and economical form of housing for those growing infants will be as mobile homes. Such housing units are already utilized in many communities, and can be quite respectable by being quite adequate, and that for any climate. (See e.g., this development near my home. (You can also see a scaled ground plan for mobile home campus on pages 112-113 of this document.).
For the Life Center, this type of housing would also be including “dormitory” arranged/assembled/joined homes for children who will be in their early years (of course with each unit having a full caring and watching/supervising staff), then for small children to senior high school age, e.g., 4-occupancy mobile homes (i.e., 2 bunk bed in two bedrooms), and then from senior highschool age through university, the typical double occupancy, here also mobile home, housing.
Food
Properly feeding those dependent infants will of course be most vital. The key here would be for this campus to grow its own crops/food to fully meet its needs. It is planned that more than natural methods will be used, such as hydroponic and greenhouse farming, as this are in terms of space, resources and efficiency quite economical means of “agriculture”. Particularly in regards to the next discussed issue/need of potable water.
Fresh/Potable Water
For some areas of the world, also providing adequate clean potable water will be a tangible endeavor. Various freshwater tapping, collecting or producing means can be implemented, and passive methods of ocean water desalination can also be implemented. While this latter method would be costly in terms of infrastructure, it could be easily afforded if the resources and work to build it up are all internally provided by this ministry.
Energy
The key to provide adequate and economical energy for a Life Center Campus/Community will be to invest in Renewable Energy Systems. Energy economical, preservation savings will be done as much as possible and all with the overall safety of the community in mind. (As an example for that latter point, whereas it would be deemed most economical to have people used candle light instead of electric lights whenever possible, due to the risk of fires, an alternative system can instead be used where the wax of those candles is used to power a central steam turbine generator which provides electrical power to those mobile homes. It may not be more efficient, but it will paramountly be the safest, for with the Life Center Ministry, “Life” is indeed paramount.)
Raising and Education
Children under school ages will of course need most dependent care and this will be provided by volunteer and pertinently trained/educated caretakers. This will later be for “Day Care” type of a caretaking.
Personal Effects
The children of these Life Center communities will of course require the basic needs to life for proper development, education, and frankly a normal life. While having the latest items/gadgets will not be the best way to meet this need, (and, in particularly our day and age, it is actually a luxury to have the latest items/gadgets as recent/used models can be just as beneficial), having either self-produced and/or sanitarily safe used/second-hand goods will be the pursued norm for supplying this need.
“Self-production” could involve simple manufacturing (provided for themself, later on, by working age youngsters from those communities), such as clothes sowing, shoe making, etc. As later discussed, this could also serve when economically feasible as an actual business.
Schooling
Schooling from the Primary through Tertiary levels will be fully supplied by these Life Centers. And this is indeed key for the full lifetime valuableness of each of this children, it will be done at the highest and best level as possible. Ideally there will be dedicated school buildings for each School Levels, however, in extreme cases, a system, (though probably for high school aged students and above), of networked/teleconferencing supervised Home Schooling can be implemented where each students takes their classes remotely (and also interactively).
The popularity of online schooling including e-books and e-textbooks show that this is a quite viable, even more efficient way of providing even advanced education.
Health Care
The safety net of Health Care will fully be available at each of those Life Centers in the form of Clinic and Hospitals staffed and operated by volunteers.
Supplemental Income
Various not-for-profit enterprises can also be set up in those communities to provide both for internal needs as well as for various needs in the region or other places. As with the issue of taxes discussed above, a compensation for any societal saving provision will be duly expected and such income will help cover the costs of various incontrovertible financial needs that the community has. Thus it would be not-for-profit.
Included in this Income planning will be the implementation of Christ’s Gospel mandate to give and help others in need. (Luke 6:38). And so, the many life supporting and sustaining means that these Life Center communities will be implementing and using for itself can also be used to help assist other people around the world who are in the similar needs of food, water, education and health care. In return it will be expected that benefiting governments/countries will provide at least a part of any financial saving/benefiting that such assistance will provide. And in the case of rich countries who typically provide financial aid to such developing and poor countries, they could help fund these various outreach projects.
Future Living
As stated above, ultimately providing a secure and permanent home country for all of those infants saved from abortion will most likely be a most tangible and necessary need. And so the priorly proposed NJK Project which is calculated to cost only ca. $3000 per capita to establish according to the NJK’s Raw Materials Costs Economic System, will serve to do just that. And, as also stated earlier, its upbuilding can be done by then the professional adults from those Life Centers.
Summary
So, all in all, while the actual saving of infants from abortion will tangibly require much more than words and admonishment, these tangible requirements are quite feasible in terms of available resources human resources, material and living space. So it is really just a matter of having the will to do so and, as the saying goes, ‘putting one’s money where there mouth is.’ (=Luke 12:34) In the end action will always speak and do much more than words.
...And to, pertinently enough here, at this point put this project into initiating, feasible perspective, if only the ca. 46% in North America alone who adamantly variously state/express that they are against abortion would: “put their money where their mouth is”, these ca. 158 million people alone could easily fund the first few years of the entire (i.e., global) initial annual disbursement which will buy these infants from abortion as that total, using updated figures, (cf. the calculations on this page), works out to: ca. $266 per such (capita) supporters per year, which is merely $22 per month. Surely North Americans with such Christian convictions can afford to “somehow” make a present ca. $5 per week savings in their weekly budget to initiatingly fund this life saving work!![4]
Notes
[1] On a thematically related optic, speaking of ‘fighting’ here, I have found the following “180” Movie video documentary (see a related (viral) incident & discussion) by Christian Jew, Ray Comfort to be quite “eye-opening/jaw dropping”/psyche-paradigming to this abortion issue as it rightly compares it to the genocidal atrocities during World War II by Hitler and his Nazi Regime.
That is indeed, (as seen in my profile comment in regards to the moral lesson that can be found in the Schindler’s List movie (see this (poignant) segment [16:10ff])), the comparable extreme which I have personally always considered the, in fact tens of times annual more murderous, human life slaughter done by abortion to be, and that despite the vacuous/mindless objecting of certain people, (e.g., the insubstantive retort by “vastergotland” during the Forum Discussion reposted in this webpage (Part 1 - page 83 = starting at his 01/12/11 06:08 AM comment in response to what I had said in my 01/11/11 03:50 PM just above it.)
See also the poignant, (to say the least), first-hand/personal abortion experience testimony and the related later Spiritual paradigm shifts of (actress) April Hernandez-Castillo from here.
[2] While estimates of Global abortions are said to be between 40-50 million per year, this figure of 65 millions is in order to account for any potential unknown/unofficial instances as well as provide a cushion for any increase of “unwanted” pregnancies due to the payout allure of this “Aborting Abortion” plan. In any case, it actually is not detrimental at all to overestimate the figures here, and the end results may indeed be, even much, less, including the pregnant woman suddenly deciding, towards the end of their pregnancy, or after the birth, to keep their baby.
...And to, pertinently enough here, at this point put this project into initiating, feasible perspective, if only the ca. 46% in North America alone who adamantly variously state/express that they are against abortion would: “put their money where their mouth is”, these ca. 158 million people alone could easily fund the first few years of the entire (i.e., global) initial annual disbursement which will buy these infants from abortion as that total, using updated figures, (cf. the calculations on this page), works out to: ca. $266 per such (capita) supporters per year, which is merely $22 per month. Surely North Americans with such Christian convictions can afford to “somehow” make a present ca. $5 per week savings in their weekly budget to initiatingly fund this life saving work!![4]
Answer to Certain “anti-abortion Scriptural” Objections
The Adultery-Jealousy Law & Test of Num 5:11-31 is cited by some (skeptics/atheists/heathens [see e.g. the ignoramus, novice & confused (a.k.a. idiotic & moronic), (“agnostics”) bamboozling-Beelzebub-fool (John 8:44+Psa 14:1ff), -(also Criminal, btw), over here & here [5]] as a supposed Bible evidence that ‘God allows for/does abortions. But reading that text/context carefully...and unbiasedly, -(cf. a similar exegetical refutation here), shows that it does not at all relate to an abortion, as made evident from the fact that the common technical Hebrew word/term for “being pregnant/with child” (#2029|#2030 e.g. Gen 16:11; 38:24-25; Jdg 13:5; 2 Sam 11:5; Amos 1:13) is not at all used in this passage. Nor is the stative/substantive expression of/for “miscarriage” (#05309 =‘to fall’ e.g. Job 3:16; Psa 58:8; Eccl 6:3) And while the related verbal/fientive expression of “to fall” (#05307) is used (Num 5:21, 22, 27), -{which apparently influenced the very low minority [8% -i.e. 4 out of 51 major/common English translations/versions] mistranslating and misinterpreting take of the New International Version (NIV) scholars [for/in their, moreover, merely 19%-used Bible*]}, that verb is used in reference to the woman’s “thighs” (#03409), -or more specifically the “sides” area (e.g. Exod 40:22, 24; Lev 1:11; Num 3:29, 35; cf. Exod 32:27; Jdg 3:16; Psa 45:3; Songs 3:8) around the “sockets” (Gen 32:25), and thus the ‘upper thigh” (Gen 24:2, 9; 47:29), at the pelvic area, or the “hips” (Gen 32:32; Songs 7:1). This area was understood to be related to child birthing (cf. Gen 46:26; Exod 1:5; Jdg 8:30). And from all of these indications, it can thus be seen that the undergarments design specified for the priests in Exod 28:42 was actually to be more extended than normal, towards the “sides”, rather than lengthwise towards the bottom. Therefore it was not no only cover the “loins” (=the groin area), but was also the cover the upper thighs towards the sides right around his hips.
* Almost 3 times as many people (= 55%) prefer/use=trust, -for various reasons, the KJV/NKJV, which is less “interpretive” than the NIV and thus is less susceptible to erroneously biased rendering as done here by these (liberal) NIV translators. For serious Bible students, the New American Standard Bible (NASB 1995) is the best Bible translation/version.
Now, as it is well known that one of the main developments that a woman undergoes to be able to bear children is a widening of her hips (cf. Songs 7:1) Pointedly and explicitly speaking of: “the falling of her thighs”, is much more likely to specifically mean that her hips would no longer be widened. Thus she would not (even if she could later conceive) be able to (at least easily) birth a child.
* Almost 3 times as many people (= 55%) prefer/use=trust, -for various reasons, the KJV/NKJV, which is less “interpretive” than the NIV and thus is less susceptible to erroneously biased rendering as done here by these (liberal) NIV translators. For serious Bible students, the New American Standard Bible (NASB 1995) is the best Bible translation/version.
Now, as it is well known that one of the main developments that a woman undergoes to be able to bear children is a widening of her hips (cf. Songs 7:1) Pointedly and explicitly speaking of: “the falling of her thighs”, is much more likely to specifically mean that her hips would no longer be widened. Thus she would not (even if she could later conceive) be able to (at least easily) birth a child.
That drunk supernatural holy water was also supposed to ‘cause the woman’s “abdomen” (#0990) to swell’....which could either be from her ‘belly/stomach’ (e.g. Jdg 3:21-22; Job 20:23; Songs 7:2) (and/)or from her ‘womb/uterus’ (e.g. Gen 25:23-24; 30:2; Jdg 13:5, 7; Job 3:10-11). Now, you’d think that, if as those who are claiming that the woman in Num 5 is pregnant, then that would be from a visible observation of her husband, (especially as this cheating would could have easily been hiding the fact that she “was late”, but after a certain time, could no longer conceal a baby bump). So her womb would already be “swollen”, so such a test result would not be showing anything visibly determinative here. But a woman merely suspected of having cheated on her husband and/but is not pregnant, as indeed is the deliberate premise of this Priestly-Administered Testing, would not have a swollen womb. And so the Test here producing that, would produce a most striking visible sign that the woman had cheated.
Also the enduring curse of Num 5:27 is in the woman not being able to “conceive children” (Num 5:28), and again, without ever involving a miscarriage or an induced abortion. Indeed if the water mixture was inherently harmful then whoever drank it, whether pregnant or not, would likewise not be able to conceive children afterwards. But women who had not committed adultery were able to have children afterwards. Also the term “conceive children” (= #02232 + #02233) in Num 5:28 literally means in the Hebrew: “sow seed” (see e.g. Gen 1:11, 12, 29; Lev 26:16; Deut 11:10). For a woman that was an expression used to refer to the fertility stage before becoming pregnant, which is medically understood today as ‘producing eggs’.
The Hebrew in this Num 5 passage also does not mention/involve the understood, quasi-technical term for a woman bearing a child. I.e. it does not say that: “the fruit of her womb will fall” (Gen 30:2; Deut 7:13; Psa 127:3; Isa 13:18; Luke 1:42; =‘offspring of your body’ Deut 28:4, 18, 53; Psa 132:11). If Num 5 was focusing on an already present “fruit”, i.e a conception (of a man and woman’s “seed”) it would speak directly to that. But it rather speaks of the woman’s reproductive organ and capacity: namely her womb/uterus and her widened hips.
Plus given that a person in God’s Israel guilty of adultery was supposed to be put to death, it was probably due to the fact that no (human) witnesses were present (Num 5:13), then, as it similarly occurred in John 8:1-11 by Jesus, the woman could not be lawfully given a death penalty for there, no righteous witnesses could condemn her. (John 8:10-11). And given the ample empirical evidence today that lawlessness, even murderously so, is much more present in broken and unbonded homes where children are raised with a parent, especially when it’s a missing father, it can be seen why God, for the greater good of His Righteous Society, acted to prevent a woman who lawfully was to live from being able to have (likely bastard) children.
Significantly enough, the two signs here are rather quite symbolic of the penalty of the cheating woman. Her womb swelling up would be representative of her becoming pregnant, which thus would be a clear indicator that she had had sexual intercourse (even though she had not become pregnant). Then the other sign of her widened hips “falling” back to a pre-puberty state, would be for the fact that from then on, she would not be able to birth children.
One more nail in this coffin, -aborting the New Atheists’ wishful desire to, ironically enough, have/find Biblical support for committing abortions, as stated before, Num 5 speaks of a supernatural action by God. “Holy Water” is used and mixed with “some dust from the floor of the Tabernacle” (Num 5:17) and also he was to write the curses for this act of secreted adultery on a scroll and then tear up the scroll and put it in that water (Num 5:23). Now the New Atheists are suppose to explain how that concoction is suppose to naturally induce an abortion. It of itself could not. There isn’t even anything remotely ‘toxic and poisonous’, thus, nor abortive, in such a naturally benign concoction. So, at worst, it would be God Himself inducing an abortion....but the woman in such a case was not even pregnant.
And furthermore, for this to be applicable to New Testament/Covenant, Christians, and as a method, or even basis, for abortion, it would (1) in terms of method: require them to “fundamentalistically” go through that exact same procedure involving: a Priest; the Israelite Tabernacle; Holy Water; some Tabernacle floor dust; a scroll with curses written on it; etc; and (2) in terms of basis, it would only be (a) a married woman, who (b) had cheated on her husband, and (c) as per the false claim, become pregnant; and (d) her husband (e) objected to this; not to also mention that (f) at least the husband had to be a Bible Believer/Christian who then would be forced to have that supposed abortion. So the vast majority (ca. +83%) of abortions done today, would not even be warranted by this supposed “Biblical basis”; indeed certainly not an unmarried woman who “made a mistake” while sleeping around...
And most determinatively of all here, in terms of Christian Theology/Belief, as Christians are under the New Covenant, which is based on Faith and no longer on any ceremonial or Earthly Sanctuary works, -with, as the book of Hebrews explains, all of those OT Sanctuary Services being fulfilled by Christ in Heaven (cf. Rev 8:3-5), in the ‘original/antitypical Sanctuary’ (e.g. Heb 9:11-14), then a Christian husband suspecting his (“pregnant”) wife of having cheated on him would simply pray in faith to Jesus Christ and He would supernaturally respond with the appropriate consequence if she had been unfaithful. Him having his unfaithfulness suspected wife have an oral/"medical" or surgical abortion would not at all be within his prerogative to do. It would have to be God’s determination and Supernatural act.
It is not at all surprising that the tactic of the “New Atheist” is to “wisen up” like their lying & murdering mentor/father the Devil (John 8:44) and, ignoramusly and/or outrightly guilefully/deceptively, mis-/mal-construe Scripture in order to try to get Bible Believers to sin. (=Matt 4:1-11|Luke 4:1-13|DA 114-124-131; -see here).
-About Andrew’s citing of the Divine Judicial death penalty of the adultery-conceived, newborn first son of David & Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:12, 13-23), see the Theologically Just explanation within here.
Notes
[1] On a thematically related optic, speaking of ‘fighting’ here, I have found the following “180” Movie video documentary (see a related (viral) incident & discussion) by Christian Jew, Ray Comfort to be quite “eye-opening/jaw dropping”/psyche-paradigming to this abortion issue as it rightly compares it to the genocidal atrocities during World War II by Hitler and his Nazi Regime.
See also the poignant, (to say the least), first-hand/personal abortion experience testimony and the related later Spiritual paradigm shifts of (actress) April Hernandez-Castillo from here.
[2] While estimates of Global abortions are said to be between 40-50 million per year, this figure of 65 millions is in order to account for any potential unknown/unofficial instances as well as provide a cushion for any increase of “unwanted” pregnancies due to the payout allure of this “Aborting Abortion” plan. In any case, it actually is not detrimental at all to overestimate the figures here, and the end results may indeed be, even much, less, including the pregnant woman suddenly deciding, towards the end of their pregnancy, or after the birth, to keep their baby.
[3] In this Sep. 16, 2012 sermon John MacArthur of the Grace to You Ministry presents an overall sound sermon on (mainly) the Biblical view which is in opposition to the present, reigning Abortion Culture in the ‘so-called’ Christian nation, the United States of America, which is furthermore staunchly upheld by professed Christians. I agree with most of what was presented in the sermon, except for, as I had initially, observationally, mentioned here, the presented view on the role of God in conception. According to MacArthur, he holds the belief which can be summarized as: ‘all conceived life is out of a direct/personal act of God’. And that is one of the main points that he uses to oppose abortion. As he cites, (starting at 21:01ff), many Bible passages to support that view, then the truth about this claim lies in whether or not those Biblical texts do actually substantiate that view. So these verses will here be duly examined ‘to see if they are so’ (=Acts 17:11).
Psalms 127:3
MacArthur: ““Behold, children are a gift from the Lord”; “children are a gift from the Lord”--“from the Lord.” How more simply could it be said? “Children are a gift from the Lord.””
Exegesis: While it may surfacely “simply” seem that the verse would mean that ‘God acts to give children’, the question is, is this speaking in a literal/technical way, or in a general way. In other words, is the word “gift”, which is actually better translated as “possession/inheritance”, saying that: ‘God gives children’, or: “it is (generally) a blessing to have children, i.e., a posterity”. As the next phrase in Psa 127:3 states, in what manifestly furthers and explains the prior thought: ‘The fruit of the womb is a wage/reward.’ In other words, (and that is indeed most pertinent to the issue of abortion), ‘it is not a curse, burden or (economic) detriment to have children, for it is God’s blessing, reward and wage’. Indeed it resolves the futile efforts presented in the wider context of that Psa 127 which relates people literally ‘trying to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps’, and in that context, these may see it as better/best for their survival, and also for their defense/protection, to not have dependent, weak/defenseless and vulnerable children. As the sudden, shifting and emphasizing: “Behold” (Strong’s #02009) which opens up that 3rd verse shows: ‘having children in this context of trying to get ahead and survive is actually a blessing from God.’ And so, as Psa 127:4-5 go on to say in completing that ‘novel/paradigm-shifting’ thought: ‘Those children will actually be a sort of “weapon” for their parents, (and even when they would choose to have them at an early stage in their marriage (=“in one’s/their youth”), -thus not only “later” when those parents have become settled in their economic affairs), for these children will actually meet the man/father’s (and wife/mother’s) enemies in the gate [which was the official location to settle legal disputes, -the court of Israel], and evidently by (capably/energetically) taking on the defense of their father and mother, and evidently by the aiding direct supervision, instructing and guiding of God Himself, and provide victory for their parents.’
So, in summary, that passage is not actually saying, in a literalistic/technical way, that ‘God acts to conceive every child’, but more generally that: ‘it is a blessing, and not a burden, to have children, and that as early as possible in a marriage.’ That admonition in regards to the blessing and value of children does indeed speak against a thinking, as prominently seen today, where children are effectively, indeed literally, thought to be a curse, punishment, hindrance, and are therefore either aborted, or some may choose to wait until they have “fully established their career” before having them (e.g., today, wait until their late 30's and early 40's). God says that the converse is actually much better. And that was indeed a very important ‘national asset” for Israel as it provided for its strong and populous growth, and thus its survival of Israel. (In a conversely similar way, that is the chief reason why the United States has been big on immigration from its founding, particularly of skilled/educated adults and/or (potentially solvent) families.)
Genesis 20:17-18
MacArthur: “To look at that negatively in some passages along that line, Genesis 20, “The Lord had completely closed all the wombs of the house of Abimelech.” The Lord can close a womb so none can be born.”
Exegesis: The immediate question/point that comes to my mind here in the light of that claim/argument is: ‘if it is foundationally/generally believed that it is only God who can ever cause a woman to conceive, (i.e., no matter how much a couple tries, if God does not want her to have children, then she will not be able to conceive), then why would God be “acting” to close a woman’s womb.’ In other words, if the default state of a woman is “no conception enability”, then an “act” is only needed in order for her to be enbaled to conceive. And in that case, it would qualify as a super-natural act, thus a miracle. As an illustration: if I have to flip a switch to the on position lighten up a room, then it would defaultly be in the off position and thus no “action” is required to keep the room dark. So, in such an understanding, saying that God closed the womb would be redundantly and non-sequiturly illogical, indeed as in a double negative which yields a positive.
The curse given to Abimelech here was that God would cause the death of Abimelech and his household (Gen 20:7). It actually seems that this would not necessarily be an instantaneous killing off, but, as was the curse of Adam and Eve (Gen 2:17), an eventual dying off, but most significantly, a loss of posterity, by his wife and their maids not being able to have more children. So the royal household/lineage of Abimelech would eventually no longer be found on the earth, (which was actually a just, corresponding punishment for the harm that would be done to Abraham and God’s future people Israel, if the wife of Abraham, Sarah, who was supposed to bear that promised child, was taken away from Abraham). So apparently the women in Abimelech’s household could have children before, but now they would not be able to. And it actually took a “healing” by God (Gen 20:17) to restore that birthing ability, which sequiturly implies that they priorly, naturally could do so. So the only “act of God” here was to damage that inherent, natural ability of theirs to conceive.
This point here also delves into the issue of miscarriages. Scientifically, they are all subsequent to successful conceptions, and only some time later fail, during the gestational development. What then would be the “Biblical” explanation here if it is claimed that ‘only God can produce a successful conception’?? Did God make a mistake at conception, and later decided to scrap, even “abort”, the whole conceived life??! I think the fact that, when God was going to (justly) punish David for having committed adultery, but mercifully spared his own life, (but certainly not the consequence, [and in that case God had to choose between not having an otherwise, much more than less, exemplary and foundational reign of David or not, -more on this later]), and the infant that was actually allowed to be born was thus only killed after their live birth, shows that God probably never causes a miscarriage or an “abortion”. He instead, normally, “contraceptively” prevents conception altogether. (And in that case of David, this timing for a live death of the child was probably to represent the fact that Uriah had been also killed, of course, after being born.) [God’s statement in Exod 4:11 has been cited as the proof that God does create/malform certain people from conception, but, exegetically speaking, by using a Hebrew perfect tense to first say: “made man’s mouth”, and then an imperfect tense to say: ‘make man deaf or mute’, and then ‘blind or seeing’, which in that latter examples, involves ‘making a blind person see’ or vice versa, it is seen that these are all actions that God does after the initial condition fact, corresponding to what He judiciously needs to do (=Deut 32:39; e.g. Gen 19:11; Deut 28:29; Isa 37:36; 2 Kgs 4:32-35; 6:18). And that was the point to Moses: i.e., since He can do/inflict these things (to benefit Him), He thus can indeed healingly undo them when they have occurred, and are hinderingly present (indeed especially to also benefit Him). So this passage is not saying that God Himself, inherently whimsically, is making infants have these handicaps. It indeed is a natural potential consequence due to sin. (cf. Matt 13:27-28)].
Also what is the “act of God” in effectively validating and sustaining the conception of children out of wedlock and adultery (e.g., 2 Sam 11:27) and even in the most abominable incestual circumstances, as it was done by the daughters of Lot (Gen 19:30-38)??! God here would thus self-contradictingly be actively approving/endorsing something which He most strictly/strongly (Lev 18:1-18) condemns in His Law.
So if God actually has to adversially act, and then by even tangibly inflicting a disease, to prevent a woman from being able to conceive, that sequiturly means/implies/involves that a woman defaultly, and barring a reproductive dysfunction/disease, is created to normatively and naturally be capable of conceiving.
Genesis 16:2
MacArthur: “We find the same kind of thing in Genesis 16:2, “Sarah said to Abraham, ‘The Lord has restrained me from bearing.’””
Exegesis: Here the issue really is that it is an exegetical fallacy to assume/believe that everything that is said in the Bible is outrightly, prescriptive truth (vs. descriptive/dialoguing recording). The examples can be numerous here that people in the Bible, including “believers”, at times make claims which are not necessarily God’s truth. And this instance of Sarah’s statement is, in context (Gen 16) a prime example of this. She was most manifestly “opportunistically”/subjectively/self-servingly trying to convince Abraham to go and have the promised child with her maid Hagar instead. And clearly, in order to convince Abraham, she here was claiming that ‘it was God Himself who (now) was preventing her from being able to conceive.’ Indeed Sarah, who was always barren, and as the promise had been made that she would have as son (Gen 15:2) yet she was still not able to, therefore assumed that it was (now) God who was (actively/deliberately) preventing her from having a/the (promised) child.
The actual fact most probably was that Sarah just could not have a child and it was here just that God had not yet chosen to miraculously intervene so that she could be able to. (=Gen 17:16's “blessing”)
And relatedly, given the fact that Abraham sinned when he accepted to have a child with Hagar, and also that God probably knew that He would have to, in some way, honor that birth by also promising that child, Ishmael, to become a great kingdom (=Deut 21:15-17), which would most likely, indeed surely, enduringly, rival, also God’s nation of Israel (see Gen 16:11-12), then it would not make much rational sense for God to “allow”, or “act for”, Hagar to conceive that surely most closely problematic offspring. The actual fact is that God could have intervene to prevent this from happening but chose not to “unjustly” do so and let nature take its course, which all speaks to the fact that God does not prevent conception in contexts of sinful circumstances, which in some way, speaks against the moronically perverse popular glib belief and practice today that: ‘sexual relationships outside of marriage is okay as long as the couple is using contraception.’ Indeed some girls/women are only “morally” reprimanded, chastised and/or punished if they become pregnant. Sort of an “as long as you don’t get caught” justifying warped mentality/morality.
1 Samuel 1:5, 6
MacArthur: “Or 1 Samuel 1, with regard to Hannah, “The Lord had shut up her womb,” and it says it two times in that chapter.”
Exegesis: As stated before, it is not outside of the possibility and act of God to cause someone to be barren. So with the Bible here rather “objectively” (versus Sarah’s “opportunistic”/subjective/self-serving) stating that: “God had closed the womb of Hannah”, (which indeed seemed to be the case for she later was able to have a child in a direct answer to her prayer and an apparent healing miracle, or simple allowance, by God, as Eli had encourage her with (1 Sam 1:17)), it very well may have been the case that it was God who was deliberately preventing her from having a son. Perhaps God wanted her to come to the point where she volitionally offered her son to be a priest from his youth (1 Sam 1:11).
As relatedly discussed starting here, as odd as it may sound, God did allow, even in legal stipulation (Deut 21:15-17; cf. Lev 18:18), for a man whose wife could not have children to simultaneously, if he chose not to divorce the first “defective” wife (Deut 24:1), have a second wife. That was the customary case throughout the Bible, especially patriarchal days, as seen with Jacob and his 4 wives, for mainly those reason of (supposed and/or sudden) barreness. That was also the case in Hannah’s situation (1 Sam 1:2ff). [Gideon’s (probably later in life) polygamy (Judges 8:30) was probably not legal]. So if it is God who is ‘actively preventing a woman from conceiving’, why, instead of allowing for a second wife, which typically/usually proves to be problematic, would He not instead perform a miracle and allow that barren woman to conceive, as He indeed can do?? I see that the answer lies in both the natural fact that barreness naturally occurs as a health issue, and is not necessarily, though certain people in the Bible would straightly assume so, an “act of God”; and secondarily, out of the “economically-restricted Divine energy” issues discussed here, God may see it as better to allow for a second wife during those actually naturally occurring circumstances, than to expend the inherently required “healing/restoring” (=“re-creating”) power/energy to super-naturally heal that barreness issue.
So, just like it was at times implied in the Bible that ‘God Himself did something’, when it elsewhere more detailedly/awarely distinctly/explicitly reveals that someone/something else (e.g., the Devil) had directly done it, and God had simply allowed it to be done (e.g, 2 Sam 24:1 vs. Chr 21:1; cf. 1 Kgs 22:20-23; see exegetical exposition from/in here), and even in circumstances where God had actually/tangibly worked through His own angels, I am actually inclined to see here that the writer of 1 Samuel (who was probably also the one of 2 Samuel), just went by the belief that God had actively caused Hannah to be barren. But that was not actually the case. And so, I am more perceivingly seeing here that in her vow in 1 Sam 1:17, Hannah came to spontaneously make God ‘an offer He would not refuse’, in that, by having Samuel be dedicated as a priest from his childhood (vs. merely later in adulthood (20+) as Samuel was born in the lineage of the Levites (1 Chr 6:27 - [got that reference in MacArthur’s Study Bible on 1 Sam 1:1!]), it adequately compensated any “Divine power/energy” that God would otherwise have to outrightly expend in healing Hannah and allowing her to conceive.
So here too, God simply only “supernaturally” acted to heal Hannah of her naturally incurred barreness and was not really causing her to be barren, as she, and/or the author of (First) Samuel, thought/assumed. So to say that ‘this is a general statement on how all conceptions occur’ is an (exegetical) over-generalization.
Genesis 25:21
MacArthur: ““Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord was entreated by him and Rebecca, his wife, conceived.” She conceived because the Lord allowed her to conceive. The Lord created life in her.”
Exegesis: The apparent understanding here is that Rebecca was naturally barren, and despite the fact that she would have to one day conceive a child so that the line of Abraham could continue, it actually took this ‘“entreating” prayer which managed to “entreat” God’ for that to occur. Furthermore, Rebecca was literally hand-picked by God Himself as a wife for Isaac (Gen 24). So on one hand, it would seem somewhat rather odd that God would pick a “barren woman” who would only be able to have a child in answer to an entreaty, unless that all was the natural situation that He would have to miraculously deal with. In other words, that just “came with the package”. He was more concerned in picking the, relatively, “perfect” wife for Isaac than for merely picking a woman who was not barren. (It was also self-evidently outrightly worthwhile for God to expend miraculous power/energy for that conception to occur given the overall ‘nation of Israel’ implication here.)
Also, when Rebecca did conceive, she conceived twins. As it was stated here, I am also of the further belief that conception not only defaultly naturally occurs except in cases of reproductive dysfunction, but whether one or more children are conceived is also entirely left of to the course of nature. And so, in this case, nature “rolled the dice” of a twin conception, and God therefore had to now work with that natural development. In fact He had to instruct that it would be the second-born, Jacob, who would be the inheritor of the Israel promise (Gen 25:23). Manifestly Jacob had (or had been “formed” (=Jer 1:5) with, the right temperament that God could work with to produce the type of character He wanted to literally found His People (cf. contra. Gen 9:22-27|PP 117.2-118.3). It certainly would have been much, much less problematic for ‘God to “act” to only have a single conceived child, -Jacob’.
Ruth 4:13
MacArthur: “In Ruth chapter 4, verse 13, “Boaz took Ruth; she was his wife. And when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception and she bore a son.” “The Lord gave her conception.” I mean, the Bible speaks about every conception as a work of the Lord.”
Exegesis: It would indeed “seem”, from particularly this circumstance of a simple conception versus the more significant ones related elsewhere in the Bible, (such as the ones which involved the birth of Israel’s founding patriarchs (e.g., Gen 30:1-24)), that saying in ‘simple Ruth’s’ case that: “it was God who caused her to conceive” would seal a general understanding that “the Bible speaks about every conception as a work of the Lord”. That is however factually not the case. Many times the Bible says a woman ‘conceived a child’, without claiming that “God directly did it.” -E.g., Gen 4:1, 17; 16:4-5; 38:1-5; Exod 2:2; 6:25; Judges 11:2; 1 Chr 7:16; 23; (Hos 1:3). What was evidently the case in the situations where a woman would directly attribute the conception of her child as a “act of God” was either if she thought or knew that she was barren, and/or that child was prophesied to be a special instrument in the hands of God. And so they then made the spiritual claim that it was God who had done or allowed this.
Now in Boaz and Ruth’s case, the circumstances were in themselves extraordinarily “special”. In that Boaz was marrying a foreign widow, and moreover for the purpose of providing a posterity for her deceased husband Mahlon (Ruth 4:10). While such a posterity-assuring measure was allowed for Israelites (Deut 25:5-10), it was indeed an extraordinary/ special case to do so with a foreign wife, as Ruth the Moabite was. So Boaz took that special circumstance to Israel’s court, and all of the witnesses and presiding elders gave their full approval of it, even praying that it would be as fruitful, blessed and significant as Rachel and Leah childbearing were. (Ruth 4:11-12). And it is pointedly in relation to that legal and spiritual motif and implication that Boaz and Ruth’s later conception is spoken in terms of being ‘approved/directly done by God.’ (Ruth 4:13ff).
In fact, Ruth 4:16-22 clearly show that the book of Ruth was retrospectively written sometime after the birth, anointing, enthronement and/or reign of Boaz & Ruth’s descendant King David, and, as implied, that this account was actually serving as an anecdotal proofing that the lineage of David was one that was specially/directly blessed by God because, by allowing, or not preventing, that foreign widow to have a posterity in Israel, the birth of this great King had come. So the conception of Ruth giving her that lineage posterity, was indeed being seen as a miraculous, fully-approving, intervention/act of God.
So it is really only births in what are known or understood to be special circumstances which are said to be ‘the Lord’s (direct) doing’. In reality some of those instances may not even be miraculous in themselves, but merely, through a non-prevention, as theologically expected, or duly possible, as it was for Boaz and Ruth’s special circumstance. That was thus (tacitly” claimed as a sign of God’s approval and (active) blessing.
Other Verses
Succinctly said in responses here to other passages cited as proof by MacArthur:
John 1:3; Acts 17:24; Psalms 145:5-6 -These verses do not actually mean that: ‘God directly also first-handedly created every single thing has come to subsequently exist in the world, particularly every born human life.’ That would have to involve that God also created everything that intrinsically is harmful, bad, detrimental and sinful (cf. Matt 13:28), e.g., as some want to belief and claim: naturally occurring drugs (e.g., tobacco, marijuana, opium, cocaine). God did indeed create the basic components, elements and species found in this world, but He also equipped the living things to be able to naturally reproduce on their own. And in regards to harmful vegetation, as with certain weather events, it most likely is a product of the nefarious laboratory and/or orchestration of Satan himself, though passively permitted by God. (e.g., Job 1:12-19)) So is the case with Man. If that is not the case, and it is God who ‘directly creates ever single life’, then the Theological question must be asked as to: ‘why would God continues to actively “create” so many people in countries, cultures, societies and families who are so opposed to believing in, and obeying, Him??!’. It would seem righteous that God should instead be solely “actively” be working with making only families, (and that Biblically married families), who also strongly believe in Him, have children. To not do so, and as it was in Israel’s case, later would require that Israel, or even God Himself, entirely blot out such pagan and debauch nations (Deut 20:16-18; Gen 19:24-26), would be most sickly sadistically bi-polar on His part. God does generally provide the very basics of life for wicked people (Matt 5:44-45), as e.g., correction facilities are similarly required to do for even the most abhorrent convicts, but it makes no Theological/Theodocical sense for Him to be actively “fuelling” the growth of evil doers. In fact, rendering them childless, and thus posterity-less is something that God actually does when judicial circumstances warrant it. (e.g., Isa 13:13-19; Hos 13:13-15; cf. 1 Kgs 19:15; 2 Kgs 8:10-13) It makes much more cogent Biblical sense to understand that only in special and needful circumstances does God directly intervene to enable an otherwise defaultly naturally not possible conception.
Zecheriah 12:1 - Presumably/Manifestly here, MacArthur is working from the view that the “spirit” here is a distinct entity in man (a.k.a. an “immortal” soul [as he later claims in his sermon: “You’re not a mortal. No life is mortal. May I say this quickly? Every life conceived is immortal. Every single child conceived lives forever…forever” which, ‘quickly debunked’, is not what the Bible teaches (e.g., 1 Tim 6:16; 2 Tim 1:10) cf. more here]) when in actually this is only speaking of one’s “psyche”. And if this is to mean that ‘God shapes every single character/psyche’, then, with the vast majority of people, He is clearly not doing a good job. Instead that is more widely involving that God can, and will, work in cooperation with a willing man to gradually shape a God-like character in them (cf. Pro 4:18). And in that pointed circumstance of Zech 12:1, this proper understanding is actually saying/revealing that ‘God will be adversarily acting to cause the spirit of the enemies of Jerusalem to be so fearful of it that they will see it as necessary to attack it, all so that God can utterly destroy these approached enemies’ (Zech 12:2-5; cf. Ezek 38:4ff). And, e.g., Psa 104:29 compared to 104:30 (discussed below), speaks of man having his own “spirit”, which however actually simply comes to exist when they begin to “breathe” (become alive), hence the symbiotic correlation. As the Bible actually teaches (Gen 2:7), man does not have a soul, but, when alive, wholistically is a “soul”, literally “a living being”, which is actually technically distinct from one’s “psyche” (=spirit).
Acts 17:25 (Job 33:4) - The statements in these verses are simply general statement on the ultimate source of life, and not necessarily how this technically occurs. The oxygen that human breathes from their very first breath, indeed starting within the womb, actually technically comes from the element that God has placed in abundance in our atmosphere. Just seeing that we cannot survive long in the atmosphere of space, or any other astronomical body outside of our specially created (from water) atmosphere (Gen 1:6-8), is a self-demonstration that God has indeed specially and enduringly “given” this breathing element to man. However, there is nonetheless a supernatural element seen from the fact that God Himself had to breathe His own breath into Adam for Him to come to life. While this could be claimed to have simply been a mechanical act of “mouth-to-mouth resuscitation”, I actually see and believe that a supernatural element from God was needed to be injected with that first breath into Adam in order for his flesh and bones to have vitality and viability and him to become alive, and also that that supernatural element contained in God’s Breath of Life oxygenatingly propagated throughout Adam’s body/blood, and also became encoded in his genes, and from then on has been naturally passed on to all men who were, uncircumventibly, born of Adam and Eve after this (with Eve, probable case in point, actually simply made from the genetic and biological material in the extract of Adam’s flesh and bones Gen 2:21-23). Indeed Eve herself may not have required that God also directly breathe His own breath of life in her, as He had done with Adam, for that life-activating element was already found in the bone/flesh/genetic/DNA extract that God had deliberately taken from Adam.
So Eve was actually an initial representation/example of how “naturally” all other men and women would become alive through, natural, then ingestational, conception and birth, i.e., without God’s own default direct action or intervention. And with this understanding is Acts 17:26 best viewed as it speaks of all men actually, naturally, coming from Adam himself, versus/and not ‘each being a direct act from God’.
And so the real sense of the statements then made in Acts 17:28-29 is not that God ‘actively created every single person who ever lived’, but, because God had directly created Adam, and we all are offsprings of Adam, then we thus, at least ultimately, ‘all inherently owe our existence and livelihood to God Himself’.
Related to the cited passages in the section just above, Isaiah 42:5 is also best understood in that “special circumstance” versus ‘a default one’. In that God (1) ultimately provided breath to all by (a) what He self-perpetuatingly did at Creation in a single instance, and (b) in the atmosphere of abundant oxygen that He created; and (2) God can overruling give someone whatever spirit He needs them to have in order to accomplish His purposes, -which for evil people would “sealingly” (cf. 2 Thess 2:11-12) be a detrimental one (fear, depression, irrationality), but for righteous people would, also “sealingly” (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30), be one that aids them (e.g., courage, intelligence, even, as with prophets: ‘His own Spirit’.)
Psalms 104:30 - Succinctly said here, as the Bible states that God created all things by His word (Heb 11:3, see here), and as discussed in here, it was the handed-over energy of God the Son which (sceintifically) “sustained” and/or “materialized” into that tangible Creation, I would see here that the contribution of God’s Spirit, =the Holy Spirit, in Creation is being explicitly mentioned, and that would be, in keeping with His pervasive role, as the Agent through which God’s expressed and commanding word was sent throughout this unformed planet as it carried and disseminated with it that incarnationally-“bequeathed” substance/matter producing and work-sustaining energy of God the Son.
Psalms 139:12-16a - Simply said here, with David beginning this expounding on ‘how he was so skillfully formed’ by speaking of ‘how God can visually see through anything, even darkness’, it is clear that he is trying to quasi-allegorically show that God can even see in the “darkness” of the womb, even furthermore, into the subsequent/further darkness of his own inner parts while within that dark and hidden womb. The whole point of David was that, (probably retrospectively writing at the zenith of his reign): “God has most evidently had a “close eye” on him and his life, and even from while he was in his mother’s womb.” While David may here, (as most today asssume), be feeling that ‘God had all of those great plans for him from before his conception/birth’, it really is not the concrete/actual and theological case. In terms of actuality, God did chose Saul, and not David’s father Jesse, to be the first king when Israel, as expected (Deut 17:14-15), forced His hand (1 Sam 8:7-8), and Samuel told Saul that he and his household (of the tribe of Benjamin) would have been kings of Israel forever if he had not so capitally sinned. (1 Sam 13:13-14)). In fact since Saul reigned 27 years before Samuel judicially acted to anoint the then 17-year old David to be Saul’s replacement, David was not even born/conceived when Saul was initially chosen. So it may have been that perhaps 10 years after Saul had begun his reign, that God may have actually actively worked, as he would later do with Jeremiah (Jer 1:5), to “form” in David the ideal character for future King for Israel, particularly if manifestations of serious prideful waywardness began to ominously (=Pro 16:18) show with Saul within those first 10 years. (Cf. 1 Sam 15:17; 9:21; 10:22)
So David here may have had a revelation from God that He had actually been, specially, again, as it was later done for Jeremiah when God would then need ‘a prophet for both Judah and all of the nations’ (Jer 1:10), hands-on “formed” by God in order to be that necessary founding “King after His own heart” for Israel. That view would then give a much more acceptable reason as to why God made David’s first child with Bathsheba pay for David’s own sin (yet, and most costly, again not without added consequence to David and his immediate descendants (=Exod 34:7)), instead of, manifestly, ‘losing all that He probably had variously “invested” in David from conception, even during those gestational days. (Much like the claimed beneficial practice of expecting parents speaking/reading/singing to their unborn child). At the very least, it would advantageously help that child readily ‘recognize the voice/things of God from very early in infancy and childhood,’ thus fast tracking their spiritual maturity and growth in those key formative years. (cf. Pro 22:6). And that was actually all because God had ‘placed all of His eggs in that one basket,’ probably all due to the future Messianic, “Son of David”, kingship implications here. God had probably shaped/placed His Spirit/Heart, and any other necessary trait, in/with David from the womb (see Isa 11:1-2ff; cf. Isa 42:1ff; Luke 1:41). So ‘scraping the whole “David” thing and starting over’ was evidently not a good option here, if an actual option at all.
So I do not see the statements of David here being general ones, i.e., that applies to everyone and every conception, but actually all speaking of a special situation with David himself, which God probably prophetically indicated/revealed to him.
Judges 13:3 - Summarily said here, in the light of the similar discussions above, the birth of Samson to his barren mother, was clearly out of a miracle by God and also because the child was going to be a special child.
‘All/Any Conceptions are God’s Will and Act - Again, to pointedly speak to MacArthur’s claim here, it would be contrary to God for Him to directly bless adulterous, sinful and criminal sexual instances with the would be inherent “miracle” of conceiving a child out of that intercourse, for in even not sinful and criminal circumstances, God would be directly responsible for propagation of evil in this world. Not that children conceived in sinful or criminal circumstances are inherently evil, -“defaultly” far from it, but if God was acting to have someone conceive in those circumstances, instead of preventing it, that would mean that He would be ordaining such sinful and evil acts as acceptable ways for children to be conceived. And God did not even want evil people to be physically close to His people so as to not influence them to do evil, even, justly, ordering and mandating their “default” eradication (Deut 20:15-17), so why, in societally sinful contexts where adulterous and sexual unions out of wedlock, would He be actively “blessing” them and making them be fruitful and multiplying, which all is more than likely to result in the perpetuation of this unGodly behavior in those children..
Job 10:8-12 (cf. Job 31:15)- That was most likely, actually, Job’s personal/general/generalizing view of how he was ‘special to God’, indeed to serve to stress that: ‘since God, as the Almighty Creator, was so well knowledgeable of his being, then He would surely know that he, Job, was not guilty as “charged”’ (Job 10:3-7, 13-16). As with many other subjective candid statements made by Job during his ordeal (such as, just earlier: ‘God oppresses the widow and favors evil people’ Job 10:2-3), the statements here should be viewed as skewedly hyperbolic, though not in essence entirely untrue. They were just Job trying to make a point by slight exaggeration and pointedness. In fact, he does preface these sayings by stating that he will indeed ‘now speak freely/frankly/candidly, -“in the bitterness of his soul” (i.e., a “poisoned/spoiled” state of mind).’ (Job 10:1). Job’s basic, straightforward and unembellished, actual point manifestly was that ‘God knew him well.’
Job’s friend Elihu expresses the same belief in Job 33:4, 6, and this may simply be from a glib repeating/restating of what the known-to-be wise Job had priorly said, and also to diffusingly make a point: I.e., ‘If you were so hand-crafted by God directly, well so was I... but I actually have an opposing view about your situation (i.e., ‘you must have sinned’ - Job 33:12ff)’.
Conception of Jesus - It is most logical that it would be God the Father Himself, through the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20) who would have actively/directly conceived, and then also formed the Spirit of, Jesus in the womb of Mary. And that was in keeping with the fact that Jesus was, of course, a special child, indeed, the most Special of any other “specially”-birthed child in Biblical History. In fact, in keeping with the prophetic fulfilment stipulation given in Isa 46:11, it seems that when God cannot find a “man of His purpose” after a thorough search of the Earth, (i.e., a man who has already developed and cultivated the character He is now needing), He then sovereignly acts to Himself provide, with all Free Will contingencies and risks still involved, that ideal option.
Deformed Babies - To say, as MacArthur does that ‘we are all, to some degree deformed’ does not actually resolve the issue here. The two categories in this issue here are actually, distinctly: (1) “imperfection” vs. (2) mal-function, even vitally so. So it would certainly not be of God’s doing to purposely, directly create life which actually, defaultly malfunctions, with many of these lives dying in their childhood and causing much, at time unrecovered grief. Basic Theology strongly shows, and also as further discussed and differentiated in the next section, that God is not the author of such systematic wanton and pointless sadness and grief.
In Exodus 4:11 God is simply, generally pointing out to Moses that He has to power to do such deficiencies in men, if it serves His purpose, but that does not generally mean that every case of human deformity and deficiencies is of God. As Jesus said in regards to the woman who was crippled, ‘it was Satan who had been binding her all of this time’. (Luke 13:16)
This dovetails into the cited, “blind from birth man” that Jesus healed in John 9. In that case Jesus, most likely by God’s own prophetic indication/revelation, states that that man had been blinded from birth by God’s doing, and for the glory of God (John 9:3). That is neither impossible, nor a general case, for if God did indeed want to set up such a situation for the Messiah Jesus to heal a person who everyone clearly knew had been blind from birth, then it is indeed within His sovereign power to do so, indeed to His own glory (i.e., a general, beneficial purpose). Indeed just like God had, in instruction to Jesus, orchestrated things so that Lazarus would suddenly become gravely ill and die, all so that Jesus could demonstrate another great and unprecedented example of God’s power through Jesus. (John 11:4, 40). And the fact that that blind man’s healing explicitly made it into the ‘selective’ (John 21:25) Gospel accounts from among thousands of other miracles by Christ (cf. Luke 4:40), shows that it indeed was to have a most significant impact in Christ’s ministry. Probably, that Sabbath day, God pointedly told Jesus to “heal this man” and exactly why, which manifestly was to jointly address the grand rabbinical beliefs/teachings here that: ‘a sickly person must be a sinner’, and if from birth, then ‘he is cursed by the sins of his parents’; and also that it was sinful to heal and do good works on the Sabbath day. (Matt 12:12 = Isa 58)
So in Moses’ case, it may have actually have been by God’s deliberate doing that he had a speech impediment, or that he continued to have on, so that God’s power and glory could be made more manifest in Moses (-as it similarly was the case for Paul (another specially chosen vessel of God) 2 Cor 12:5-10). So here too, this direct action and intervention of God occurs for “special situations”, -hence the pertinent context for God to mention to Moses that ‘He has this optionable power to intervene in the conception and development of every, even physical, facet of man in order to do such things.’
Psa 51:5 - As already exegetically, detailedly explained here, David was actually expressing the influencing reality for his great sin that he was actually an illegitimate/“bastard” child. And as this fact would cost the life of his father Jesse, it is understandable why the matter was concealed, though likely not unknown by David’s family/siblings.
Summary
As it is common with Biblical subjects, due to the fact of people far removed from an original context and understanding trying to figure out what was said and meant by Bible writers and people, a proper view on a topic usually can only be done through responsible and comprehensively exhausting “reconciliation”/harmonization. And so, the template theological view which best harmonizes certain seeming or actual expression in the Bible of: “direct conceiving, birthing, forming, (mal-forming) acts of God, and the wider issue of: ‘why would God deliberately, pervasively and systematically engage in such nefarious works’, which is actually Biblically said to be the consequence and/or opposing work of Satan (Matt 13:28), is the view which sees that God only does such things, either way, in “special” (vs. default) situations, all to actually advance His own righteous cause. (cf. Isa 45:7 -discussed midway in this post; cf. here & Deut 30:15-20). In fact, at times, in order to even be able to have a successful campaign and rightly attributed, and total victory, God has to literally “break/break-down” even His chosen instruments,... even Christ (Heb 5:7-10 = Isa 52:14-15 -i.e., God initially deliberately not answering Him in Gethsemane Matt 26:36-46; Luke 22:43; and then on the Cross Matt 27:46).
And so, when even more widely, contextually/exegetically/theologically studied out, it is seen that the Bible actually only makes (valid) claims of such direct acts and intervention by God in human conception and/or development only when a, actually known/stated, situation variously requires this to be the case. And really, only in the above-examined case of Job’s statements, who was literally psychologically “besides himself”, and according to the judgement of his not-so-reliable/spiritually knowledgeable friend Elihu, that such claims are seen to not have had an actual or accurate/full application/validity. (I.e., while Job did ultimately, indirectly come from the handiwork of the Creator God, he was not actually literally “hand-crafted” by God.)
So conception by default occurs as a natural, and also defaulty unchecked, biological process which God has so ordained, yet this possibility is all ultimately, and duly so, attributable to the Creator God due to the fact that He has initiatingly engineered it so in the very beginning (cf. Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7). Also, the real valuation of human life is not really, theologically: ‘because it is God Himself who is actively, expressedly creating it’, but merely because that is a distinct Life, a Person, who, once conceived, is inherently/defaultly/“unalienably” is entitled to live their life.
[4] P.S. It is most emblematic that as medical science continues to advance, conceived life becomes more and more “viable” outside of the womb earlier, including past a premature infant stage where for over 30 years now, a just conceived/fertilized egg (=zygote) can be extracted from a woman {cf. here} and, (and if necessary, including an embryo freezing-storage), successfully/viably transferred/transplanted into the womb of another (or even the same woman later)....but the equally Satanically-deluded murderous, on one hand, licentiously selfish, neo-Molech-deifying, ‘this-time-around’-(supposedly)-“scientific”-hippy heathens -(“whose god is their belly/(sexual) appetite/womb, and glory: their shame” (cf. Phil 3:19a)), and, on the other, the selfish, Babylonian, Jealousy-Egyptian-Tammuz-Sun (Ezek 8:1-16) & Mammon idolaters (Luke 16:13) -(“who set their minds on earthly things” (Phil 3:18, 19b)); both just symbiotically want to moronically prefer to most primitively keep sticking their variously willfully, selectively and/or subjectively, “worse-than-animalistic”, moronically-stupid little pot-tery heads in the sand (=2 Tim 3:7; cf. Rom 1:22-23; e.g. Isa 44:9-17ff), [and/or wherever else it doesn’t belong], and callously, neo-barbaricly, discard unwanted unborn life. (John 9:41; 15:24) Contrary to, especially these neo-hippy liberals/ “progressives”, the opposite of “love” is not their glib “hate”, it componently is such, moreover murderous, selfishness & indifference!!
It’s has long past been time to “abort” (Rev 19:15, 21) all of these unrighteous ones (2 Thess 2:12), (tellingly enough, as many of them (“mistakes/accidents”) would have been had not their own (most likely more moral) parents/mother resolutely/courageously/self-sacrificially chose life instead)
-Just admit it you all equally/jointly meet in the middle to worship your ‘father the Devil’!!! (Gen 3:15|John 8:44; cf. John 10:10a)
[5] Indeed like a good “son of Satan” and “Satan’s (other) vicar on Earth” (Rev 17:5), Cenk Uygur, -since his beloved Papacy is busy on the other lit end of Satan’s deception onslaught spectrum, does what Satan has thought him best to do: Pretend that he knows the Bible and that he knows how to accurately translate and interpret it, twisted things out of their context (Gen 3:1-5|Rev 12:9-12ff; Matt 4:1-11|Luke 4:13[see here]) and of course moronically citing whatever misleading/Babylonianly “confused” translation (e.g. her the NIV) harmonizes with his “culture of death” agenda. (2 Tim 4:1-4) As said above, Num 5:11-28 did not mention, nor involve, the woman suspected to be cheating, to have become pregnant or have a miscarriage at the other end. That testing only ends in the woman supernaturally becoming infertile. As stated above, the Bible is also clear that God engages, and thus values, life from even before the conceived infants body begins to form. Past pagan generations (e.g. Molech worshippers) surely tried abortions and when it killed too many women, they just offered their birth children as burnt offerings to their gods. (Lev 18:21; 20:1-5: Jer 32:35)
The Bible lays out the various principles for Godly living (cf. Isa 8:20) which applicable to subsequent generations as there really is “nothing knew under the sun.” (Eccl 1:9; 12:13) God just does not care to restate things which can easily be understood for each moronic (= “foolish” e.g. Matt 23:17), self-important generation and individual which spring up later (Isa 28:7-13)...So Cenk and his heathenistic crew and keep sinning against clear natural, as well as and moral law (=Rom 1:18-2:16), in the light of a conceived life, -which if not interfered with will birth a person, and double down by, indeed “blasphemously/abominably”, claiming that this is what God also requires (Psa 50:16-21), and face that double/proportional guilt and penalty of Hell in the end (Luke 12:48; Eccl 12:14; 2 Cor 5:10), which moreover, as with his guru the Devil and other false teachers out there, including within Christendom (2 Pet 1-19-2:3ff;; Rev 18:2-5ff), will involve being held responsible for all those who they guilefully and lying, deliberately/resolutely led astray (Matt 5:19; Luke 17:1-2; Rev 18:21-24)....Keep stoking your Hell Fire (Luke 12:49-53; Matt 10:13-15; Acts 17:30-31)...you’ll actually need it....just to unsear that Satanic conscience!!! (Rev 14:9-11; GC 662-678; cf. Luke 11:49-51|Matt 23:33-36)
...And the conditioned moronism and lies continue e.g. here[04:53-05:13] cf. this website now trying to claim that passages like Lev 27:6 (cf. Num 3:15-16) and Hos 9:14 mean that God is pro-abortion and the [elective] killing of infants in [or (non-judicially) out of] the womb....and let’s examine all those ‘Bible supports abortion’ claims in that Skeptic’s website:
-First of all, about Lev 27:6 & Num 3:15-16, the Law of Exod 21:22-24 (and in the more accurate translation of the NASB; i.e. versus the erroneous, manifestly self-translating ignoramus/lying SAB one (really = Satan Annotated Bible since it needs to lie&deceive) cited there, -and FYI unbelievers: you would need to cite which actual version you are quoting from, if any) easily debunks that as ‘the punishment for an adult who injures or kills a fetus in the womb was to be exacted in kind upon them’ just as in any other case involving birthed/grown people (Exod 21:12-14, 16, 18-19, 20), unlike for a (justly punished) slave (Exod 21:21, 26-27).
But Lev 27:6 & Num 3:15-16 is about making vows to God (Lev 27:1-2) and doing the (potential and present) Priestly Census of the priestly tribe of Levi (Num 3:14). The first instruction simply means that God wanted infants of one month or less to be excluded from Vow valuations; and the second instruction meant the same in regards to potential priestly duties (cf. Num 3:28) and manifestly because they could likewise be involved in (ransoming) valuations (Num 3:40-51; cf. Num 18:15-16). So it may have been because a birthed infant of less than a month was still in a post-birth recovery state, and could also be much more likely to die from natural causes during that crucial time, that God instructed that they be left out of any process which involved a valuation of them, which could actually be tangibly acted and transacted upon. So God was actually protecting their relative greatest of coalescing innocence from conception and the womb through one month post birth. It certainly does not mean, as is the insinuated lie here, that: ‘God wouldn’t care if they were aborted, or killed within one month after birth’.
God here simply imposes no such implications/obligations on infants when they are one month old and less.
-Num 31:15-17 - Again more lies. Num 31:9 clearly shows that it was women and their born children who had been captured. But they had been instructed to kill all of the women who had had any sexual relation (Num 31:17-18) as these are likely the ones who had committed the prior harlotry debacle (Num 25:1-3ff). And male children were also to be killed as they could grow up and be an opposition militia within Israel (Num 31:17a). There is no indication here that these women were killed because they were pregnant, or that they were even pregnant, but because these sexually active women had been involved in seducing some Israelites to sin...who, by the way, themselves had already been punished with death by God for that sin of adultery (Num 25:5-9).
And God is here would not be acting kill a fetus, but to justly kill the mother of that fetus for her sinful action, which is all contrary to what heathen today advocate: i.e that a fetus should be killed for her mother’s sins. The woman/mother is indeed to be held responsible of/for the life of her conceived fetus.
-Hosea 9:14, 16 - Hos 9:14 - A miscarrying womb is a inflicted as a general and pre-existing condition prior to a conception. So it was not a specific and direct attack on someone who was actually already with child.
Hos 9:16 - Being “dried up” and ‘not bearing fruit’ is idiomatically the same as being infertile and thus barren, and not a post-conception, abortive process. Then the passage speaks of someone who actually gave birth and had children (not a “fruit”), but God will also execute judgement on them. This passages does involve God causing the death of a child, but it technically is not the specific aborting of a fetus. So no example of an abortion by heathens in this passage also.
By the way, even if this passage was an abortion, it would be God Himself doing the life termination..So at the worst, this, and other similar passages in the Bible clearly are saying that if God wants someone to kill their fetus or born child, He Himself, out of Just Judicious reason, -(which will all be examined in God’s allotted Judgement Review of Him time) will either do it or He will explicitly and clearly tell that person to do it. So if people today want to know if they are permitted to kill their fetus, just pray and passively let God decide... Indeed even the ritual test of Num 5 involved a special supernatural action of God which actually merely rendered a woman infertile and did not actually terminate an existing pregnancy as lying claimed by heathens.
And God has no obligation to multiply the population of unrighteous and adjudged people, and that can include their children, which in turn can include the prospective “fruit of their womb”. When God, always justly, orders a nation to be eradicated, it logically also is to involve their offspring, at whatever stage of life. And, as still seen today, national/ethnic identities can be most paramount to how people behave and act and give their loyalties to, and that definitely was the case back then in those tribal eras. So that is why such a judgment from God, and its extent, was fully warranted. And with all of the tribes of the Earth having come from the same source of Adam, and then Righteous Noah, any tribe/nation which had veered and fallen into paganism and violence were inherently guilty of having refused to either follow the Will of God that they knew of, or the natural laws which they inherently knew of. (=Rom 1:18-2:16)
Still God will be fair enough to actually defaultly save all of these then killed or aborted innocent little ones (cf. Luke 12:47-48; Acts 17:30 & here on EW 18.2) where they, in Heaven, then the renewed Earth, will be able grow up without any of those prior detouring wrong influences and allegiances to evil.
-Hosea 13:16 - That is all what naturally, and most gruesomely/rawly happened in war then, and here to God’s own apostate people who will be given into the hands of ruthless heathens, namely the Assyrians (cf. Hos 14:3; see 2 Kgs 17:5; Isa 13:6; Amos 1:13; Nah 3:10)...And because God was allowing it, since these 10 Northern tribes just wouldn’t repent (Hos 14:1-4ff), this would all be like God Himself was doing that to them (Hos 13:6-9)
-2 Sam 12:14 - The killing of David and Bathsheba’s first child instead of either or both of them was really God having to act with no good other option, except for the best one here that the child would thus surely be saved. Bathsheba probably could not be held guilty because it was David’s authority over her as her King which probably constrained her to do this sinful act. And in regards to David himself, despite that gravest of sins, -the worst in all of David’s life (1 Kgs 15:5; cf. 1 Kgs 9:4; 14:8), God evidently had first ascertained that he was none the less the most righteous and devoted person in all of Israel who, otherwise, had a heart according to God’s own. So for the good, and even life, of millions of others in Israel, God spared the ultimately very repentful David (Psa 51). Still that did not shield him from the consequences of this sin, including with his own family and children, and perhaps that (sacrificial) judgement death of that firstborn of Bathsheba was to hopefully serve as the greatest caution against such future unrighteousness in David’s own family.
-Gen 38:24 - As with sinning David who subsequently, further compoundingly ordered the arranging of the killing of Uriah in order to cover his sin (2 Sam 11:5, 14ff), the call of the adulterous Judah (Gen 38:15-18) for Tamar and her fetus to be both burned alive is not to be defaultly assumed to be an approved and prescribed command from God Himself. Judah was here acting on his own, (and justly enough, that death sentence was not carried out (Gen 38:25-30))
These cited passages by the Skeptic-Heathens give the perfect demonstration of their common deficiency in relation to the Bible. They either/and:
A) take passages out of their immediate or wider (including Theological) context, mistranslate them and/or misapply them and thus claim all kinds of deliberate or ignoramus lying things about them.
B) operate from a base premise that God takes, especially capital punishment actions, for no valid or justified reasons at all, when that is just not the case (cf. Gen 18:21-25ff). And again, if when God wants someone, or a fetus to die, He Himself will order that it be done or will naturally cause it Himself. So no prescription in those passages by God for humans to do elective abortions.
C) ignoramusly and/or deliberately obfuscatingly, or merely as the natural result of their moronic and incompetent reading comprehension foundation: think or claim that everything found in the Bible is prescriptive. While the truth is that many things in the Bible are just candidly, journalistically descriptive and God sooner or later pointedly judges such occurred sinful actions. So these descriptive actions are not to actually be followed by Bible Believers, but serve as a lesson against what should be done, -including the object lesson of how even the most faithful followers of God can commit the most serious of sins and only by the great mercy of God can they be spared....which in turn, if they are spared of a capital penalty, only speaks to the even greater worthlessness of the other, less faithful, professed followers of God.
So Skeptic-heathens don’t need to ‘learn to read’ they need to learn a reading comprehension that is way beyond their present, conditioned and/or indifferently deliberately, moronic Third Grade+Dr. Seuss, comprehension level one...
General Comments Note:
For reasons of time and efficiency necessities, the comment section below will include some (non-thematically) editorialized and anonymous postings of some pertinent email responses and/or exchanges that I have received/had. This is to avoid having to repeatedly deal with the same questions, topics or issues. These special postings are indicated by the bold & italicized heading: From a responding email:
-If I make an major additional clarifying insertion or statement that was not made in the original email, it will be made in parentheses {...}.
I agree with a certain amount of your commentary, but I'm struck by how socialistic your "solution" is. As sure as our fallen nature, there would be thousands taking advantage of this public money, as opposed to taking accountability for their actions and respective futures. While I applaud the grace that is vested in this article, the solution does very little to teach or to encourage the responsibilities that are a necessary component of changing the mindset of those who would simply abort as a means of avoiding the consequences of their actions. I would rather see tax deductions for single parents than such centralized planning. And I'm a Canadian...
ReplyDeleteHello David. I can understand your “first/surface impression” here, but the plan here is the thoughtful end result of variously thoroughly processing/testing this endeavor to see where it could fail, and the end result is this Socialistic planning (all derived from Biblical principles and models (see in the NJK Project website), for anything short, including imposing by law a tax-burden on all of society, will result in this endeavor failing from it true purpose, which is saving lives. To be viable, this project needs to be up to 100% socio-economically self-sustaining and independent, i.e., not involving any mandatory/imposed support from the rest of society.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to people trying to take advantage of the payout here, as discussed here, this would on one had increasingly not be as beneficial for them, but also, and you must agree, the nine months of pregnancy, and then the ordeal of childbirth would be quite a price to pay. Indeed the experience of just one, especially unwanted child bearing is a sobering experience for most who became accidentally pregnant. I think that this would be a quite strong self-deterrent for all but the inevitable irrationally reckless few.
In regards to helping people understand their responsibilities, that will also continue to be done, but quite obviously, given the ca. 65,000,000 annual abortions today, it is not the best of, especially when sole, options. (Case in point: formal couples also have abortions, and for similar “economic” reasons than a single parent would, for, for them, and on an double vs. single income basis, (accidentally) having, e.g, more than 2 children can be just as “costly” as a single parent having more than one.) People can and will freely make whatever decision they think is best for them, I just am endeavoring for the sake of the life of the unwanted infant to not have abortion be considered as a top option, especially out of socio-economic reasons. When all else is failing or is sure to fail, that then is the direct responsibility of the follower of Christ (e.g., James 4:17; Matt 25:45).
So the overall, and, other than this here plan, inevitably so, societal impact must be keep in mind and factored in when evaluating the worthwhileness of this alternative. ...And this is all one of several points where Christianity and Canadian values (however commendable many of them are) do not fully/congruently harmonize. So I am choosing to fully fulfill the expectation of Christ here.
From a responding email:
ReplyDeleteSorry Sir.
with all the requests and scam going on... I just do not have enough info and reference about you..at this time
come again
[name]
PS if this is legitimate ???? looks like a fishing expedition to me ( my personal IMPRESSION AT THIS TIME)
Hello [name],
DeleteI can understand the concern, though I was not expecting such a take on my communication, particularly as I am not requesting any funding. This endeavor depends on, as most any other thing, human resource support, and that in the volunteering type, and when such a group of people will have agreed to help this endeavor, then the various legal framework needed for this ministry/organization, e.g., incorporation, organization registration, etc, will be done. At that time, full and formal pertinent information disclosure from both me and any who joins this endeavor will also be done.
So, again, I was not at all looking for any funding support, but mere expressed interest for others with a similar life-saving burden. SO do let me know if you yourself are interested and if so, do help spread the word, again merely at this point to gauge interest.
Nonetheless, thanks for the evidently sincere expression/feedback, and if you don’t mind, for the benefit of any other who may share your concern, I will be anonymously, publicly posting this exchange in the comments sections of my blog post. (If you do mind, let me know and I’ll delete your statement.)
Sorry, this reply just sent was meant for the originator of this blog.
ReplyDeleteDear........
May I suggest that you visit one of the many Crisis Pregnancy Centres across Canada. Caring individuals at these centres already provide pregnant mothers with the means needed to bring their child to full term, as well as after-support, and they do so within the existing community.
As it can be seen in the above detailed blog post, the whole raison d’être of this Life Centers Ministry is because such “crisis counselling” efforts are quite evidently not doing the job, i.e., saving lives, as there are still ca. 65,000,000 abortions per year. This project aims to address this undone work as it will indeed take much more than various form of “talking”.
DeleteFrom a responding email:
ReplyDeleteThank you,
May God bless you and reward you for your pro-life efforts.
From a responding email:
ReplyDeleteHi,
I just have a lot of questions...which I am not going to discuss here at this time with someone that remains anonymous.........unless I meet You personally and if I do not know you or you me ..solid references are a prerequisite to any continuance of this discussion.....I am sorry about the tone...I try to filter out many emails ......I like what I read about your project ......have you been involved with profife before? where is your residence? Do you know prolife leaders? What is your position on Abortion....rape ...incest... weeks of gestation.....?
Thank you
Hello. I can understand your concern, however only to a logical/realistic sense. E.g., I don’t see that I would have to e.g., give you my social security number for you to simply ‘ask question/have a discussion’ on this project?? Do explain if I am missing something. Also, I have not ‘anonymously’ communicated with you, though I could have by not include my full name as I did. And I was expecting, as others have, that you would look at the other posted “profile” information on my blog for more info about myself and my ministry.
DeleteJust as there are dangerous extremists on the anti-abortion, there are also extremists on the other side who, {and that mindlessly, and moreover “religiously”, pompously so}, oppose the planned socialistic measures that will be needed to make this project functional and sustainable.
In terms of references, since I am basically starting this ministry independently and on my own, pulling away from my own/former Church for its indifference and contributing harm on this abortion issue, (and if you check out the bio blog post references cited in my profile you’ll find much more info on this independence), then I would not be able to give you any pertinent “references” on this matter. Nonetheless, I think that my project’s worthwhileness stands on its own and could, indeed should be independently tested and evaluated on the related Biblical, Economical, Social and even potential political merits presented there.
I also do not know any pro-life leaders per se. Though I know many people who are against abortion, yet, as with most political “conservatives” are opposed to any socialistic solutions to the problem, but as I said, that would be the only solution if their anti-abortion message was ever fully heeded.
As for my positions, I think it is clear that I am against abortion...
-rape and incest cases: Since it would take more than 6-9 months to investigate, arrest, charge, try, convict and potentially fully exhaust a defendant’s judicial appeal options, then I see this claim as inherently moot. Even in cases of confessions, since the legislative situation then would be that having an abortion would be murder, then due process would have to be fully exhausted before it can be decided that it would be “lawful” to abort that infant. A rapist, even an incestuous one, can easily “confess” rape, even (possibly discreetly) pleading to a lesser penalty all so that they won’t have to care for that infant if later found guilty and responsible.
-(By the way, if it was not clear enough, even without this judicial reality, I am against this taking of the life of the infant because of the sins/crimes of others. Again the best solution here is to have a viable adoption option for that infant.
-As stated on my blog post, I belief that life begins at conception.
By following the links on my blog post, you can find out much more on my views and my reasons for them as I have discussed such issues with other people before.
Hope this was satisfactory,
I do welcome any other questions/comments
Thanks for the interest,
From a responding email: (of one of the ca. 25 people who had received CC copy of the above email exchange).
DeleteIt is an important topic, to be sure. And it's a good thing to be thinking of various ways to solve it. I guess I'm one of those anti-socialist "extremists" [;-)] who happens to believe that any pro-life process/system that ignores personal responsibility is not going to be complete enough. I would also want to warn against any undue "independence" from other pro-life Christian believers who would and could partner with you in philosophical terms, in not necessarily in organic terms. We're going to need an awful lot of people pulling in a similar direction if this tragedy is to be solved.
In any case, the Lord bless you…
Grace to you, in Christ Jesus,
...Seriously stated, given what I actually said and meant, I hope you are actually not an “anti-socialist “extremist”” because that is radically different/distinct than merely ‘having an anti-socialism view’. Like the abortion-doctor-killer, the “anti-socialism “extremist”” (like any extremist for that matter, e.g, the so-called “patriot”, the racial supremacist, etc), they believe that their cause needs the use of unwarranted, wanton and/or terrorizing force to win. That’s what I am leery of, from both sides here, particularly as such reactions are typically merely based on drummed up, knee-jerk “phobic” fears, and nothing truthful or factual.
DeleteIn regards to my independence/separation from my Church, particularly here, that is all because of terms that we cannot agree upon here. (cf. Amos 3:3 - “agreed” in this case to the same “zero” non-vital abortions view.) They believe that abortion is justified in cases of incest and rape, or, ambiguously enough, when the woman will be psychologically affected. There is also, at least anecdotal claims that they also do abortions to maintain “business” as, ‘if they refuse to do them in their hospitals, people will just go to other hospitals who do them and they themselves will thus just be losing money.’ These are all irreconcilable spiritual/biblical differences for me. So I don’t see how any partnership can be possible with those who are actually supportive of abortions for any, even economical, reasons. They indeed would not be providing any help here, but just acting to shed more innocent blood. And people with such a mindset will surely not be volunteering any help or assistance in this area. Such people of such difference will only ever manifest their willingness to help in concrete actions that they would do to help such an endeavor.
As stated in this comment response, I am not “ignoring” the personal responsibility side of the issue here. I just don’t see that it will be observed any way and so won’t let the life of the infant depend on what that choice will be. I had also forgotten to include in my blog post a policy which helps to balance the issue here: (See this addition in the “The Life-Saving Plan” section in the blog post).
So if the reason was that they could not take care of the infant then, a responsible mother would still later have the option to regain the rights to the infant later on when they would be capable of caring for them, and of course, would not have actually profited from the provided assistance and care.
Hope this helps,
Just to further clarify or better express my viewpoint here, I am seeing the action of ‘the typical Political conservative’ (e.g., U.S. (Right Wing||Moral Right) Republicans) to, in the absence of a democratically passed constitutional “Personhood” amendment, “force” a woman to undergo an ultrasound and/or ‘watch its results on the screen’ or even ‘wait 24 hours’ after they have already chosen/decided to have an abortions, among other such coercive tactics, to legally indeed all be forms of ‘unwarranted force’ and thus types of “extremist”, or at least “extreme activist’, actions (vs. mere ‘cause-advocating’). However, I was not at all considering your view as such extremism.
DeleteI would relatedly say, due to the inherent fact/issue, that, as suggested here, forcing by taxation law the rest of society to care for those non-aborted infant does constitute a use of force as those who do not support abortions, which could be nearly half of a typical Western Countries’ population would have to go along with this against their will to the threat of taxation fines/penalties, even imprisonment.
The only truly “Democratic” solution is to let people freely support such endeavors, indeed through the most likely successful way of, in terms of actually saving lives, -and that “freely” so, profiting financial incentive. Indeed there presently is quite demonstrative empirical evidence that people will be “freely” moved by an “informational/awareness” approach. Case in point, woman today are clearly not flocking to any “responsibility awareness” centers before, or instead of, having an abortion. So, to now be successful, that approach would only have to be a coercively imposed process/requirement.
From a responding email:
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing to tell us about your ideas. Sadly, I have to say your plan is very complex and difficult to read; I confess I couldn’t get through it all. Some of it, I think we’re already doing.
We are a small staff, and we have a very specific mission and vision. Our board has set out for us what we should do and we must remain faithful to that. We’re not looking around for ideas. We believe we are following the Bible and making biblical decisions on what the Lord would have us do.
Also, from what I read on your blog, you are Seventh Day Adventist, correct? That would make it difficult, if not impossible, for us to join efforts. You might want to join with an SDA pro-life group before launching out on your own. I always advise people to first find out what is being done already, get involved, and then propose new ideas (if they’re needed).
For Christ and the unborn,
Thank you for your tangible consideration and response to this ministry proposal. To address your mentioned points/reasons:
Delete‘Project/Plan Complexity’
-I am not at all responsible for the actually and indeed inherent complexity of this plan because this goal of saving the life of ca. 65,000,000 per year and then sustain all of them for the next 20-24 years of their life, and all without being a burden on society and the rest of the world is a most complex tax and requires the fitting plan to achieve it.
‘Material Comprehension’
-In regards to understanding the material for the plan itself, I think that all the would concern any partnering ministry/organization is found in that in that “Aborting Abortion” blog post itself and the lone web page on my NJK Project website which addresses this ministry. Anything else is really just tangential material and information and by the time that one of those proposed new, independent cities will have to be built as the lifetime home of those then grown infants who had been saved from abortion, then they will not be dependent on any aid/support from any priorly aiding pro-life ministry or organization for they will then be entirely on their own to provide for their life and future, and as I plan then, even for the saving of other infants from abortions then. So any partnering here will really be for a relatively limited time period of up to 24 years until a first generation (of potentially up to 65,000,000 infants), will be old enough to fully take care of themselves and also of others peer generations coming up behind them.
So if there is something directly pertinent to the carry out of the Aborting-Abortion plan itself/specifically that you are finding incomprehensible, then let me know and I’ll clarify it as/if necessary. In all reality, not every blog post on my blog is intended for the prospected partners for this Contra-Abortion Ministry.
‘Already Doing Some things’
Given the specific endeavor of this ministry to: if necessary/wanted, pay for a mother to not have an abortion but instead carry the unwanted pregnancy to term in order to give the infant up to adoption’, I would like to see where/how you are doing such things, i.e., anything related to this specific end. Counselling a mother not to have an abortion is actually a parallel work, but not the same thing. My ministry aims to provide, of course in order to save the life of the infant, a most alluring alternative for women who have chosen, and in many cases, despite any counselling not to, still have an abortion. With 65,000,000 abortions per year around the world, it is most clear to me the much more has to be done to prevent abortions.
“Small Staff...”
I am not asking any single ministry to take on all of the responsibilities involved in this project. There is only strength in numbers here, and it will take the coordinated and cooperating efforts of several such ‘small ministries with small staffs’ to provide the large organizational framework through which such a life saving endeavor can be accomplished. Christ’s commission is unequivocally clear and it is that we should be working to ‘reach/help/save even the very least of these’ (Matt 25:40, 45). So I think that seizing such cooperating opportunities to achieve this desire of Christ should not be spurious, shallowly and/or artificially limited.
(cont’d)
(cont’d)
Delete‘Denominational Issue’
I actually state on my blog profile, as it is detailed throughout my blog that I am ‘of SDA background”, which means I used to be an SDA but have since moved on. As seen in my blog posts, there are many things which I presently Biblically believe that they do not. However, I do not see how a denominational affiliation would ‘make it difficult, if not impossible’ to work to save the life of otherwise would be aborted infants. Seriously you’ll have to explain/detail the reasons to me here. The reason why I myself am reaching out to any Christian, in fact anyone, who has a pro-life belief, is that I am not at all seeing out denominational/doctrinal differences will be an issue in such a cooperation.
And, if applicable here, I don’t think that the possible future religious education of one of those children should determine if they should priorly be help to live or not. And if that is the concern here, then I am actually a believer in letting the truth prevail, whoever may be actually teaching it. So if you think your denomination has this truth, then do substantially prove so. Yet all of this has no determinative on whether these aborted infants should be helped to live or not.
‘SDA Prolife Group’
My blog posts and my personal efforts have been to try to work with SDAs (since 2006 I have contacted over 15,000+ mainly pastors and leaders, and ministry workers and lay members) but have found no interest from them for they all typically believe that: ‘telling people that the Second Coming is near is was really matters’. So for them it is okay to let people who would actually be helped if they wanted to, die of preventable, curable and/or intentional causes (such as abortion) die. (Contra e.g., the Spirit of Deut 15:1-11). So I cannot, and will not, wait around for them before endeavoring to do something in this urgent cause.
‘First find what is being done...’
As I said earlier, if your ministry or another ministry is aiming to literally buy unwanted children into abortion, then please, do let me know about them. I have not come across any such ministry/organization. That is a needed work that is to be done because of the concrete reality that millions of infants are still being aborted. This Aborting Abortion ministry will, overall and specifically, provide the best opportunity to prevent these deaths.
From a responding email:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the proposal. We get these all the time from people who mean well but have never done one moment of pro-life work professionally. I suggest that you consider joining an existing organization instead of creating yet another small (as in one person) group which is pursuing yet another wildly implausible, utopian scheme (as in the thoroughly discredited socialist economic model). We already have a massive welfare state with all the benefits any pregnant mother requires to bring a pregnancy to term and raise her child. We don’t need to create a parallel socialistic universe. Neither is there a single serious word of explanation on how this idea would be funded. That lapse does more to invalidate your proposal than its dizzying complexity.
Lord bless,
Thanks for the response [...], but I do not think/see that you read my proposal either seriously or thoroughly.
DeleteAs I say on the blog post, the current “pro-life counselling” approach is obviously not preventing the ca. 70,000,000 abortions per year. Hence this distinct incentivising approach. Women who have abortions do not want to spend any money on raising up that child, so government subsidies is definitely not attractive to them as they still have to partly financially contribute to these expenses. If you actually know of a government program which fully pays for the raising of a child, i.e., pregnancy through high school, even college, then let me know, I have yet to see it.
My proposal is substantively fully thought through as see in the links provided on that page to the supporting infrastructure that will be necessary for this project. Calling it by any names does not change nor discredit those thought through facts and plannings. Only willing participants who are serious on obeying Jesus Christ (i.e., Matt 25:31-46) are needed now. And where God guides, He provides, but as usual, it is the coldness and hardness of hearts of, especially professed people who prefer to not have faith that He will stand by what He has commanded, that is the common hindrance.
So do the linked to pertinent informing readings and you’ll find Biblical, Financial/Economical and Feasibility substance that you are summarily presuming/assuming/supposing is lacking/‘lapsing’.
From a responding email:
DeleteShow me the money.
“Live Biblically/Righteously” and you’ll have all the tangible means you’ll need to accomplish God’s will!! (Psa 11:3 ) Money is definitely not the god is fear, worship nor obey (Luke 16:13). It all depends on what Christians, presumably like you, really want more. (cf. e.g., Luke 1:71-75; Matt 5:6, 10, 20; Acts 17:31|2 Cor 5:10-11|Rev 14:7)
DeleteAnd like I said, there are multiple most feasible ways in which this project can be fully funded, but all that is missing is the most valuable element in any economy (e.g., +80% of the economy in Western Countries): the Human Resources (a.k.a. “Services”) factor! Everything else (raw Materials, Manufacturing, Agriculture is comparatively/relatively literally “dirt cheap”, even potentially free and/or self-solvent.
[...], I just added to my blog post the following more specific link to the economic model which will be used to self-providingly support this Life Ministry project for its first ~20-24 years. {The elements discussed there had been cited in this blog post.}
Deletehttp://njkproject.info/njk/hc_economy/ecointro.html
(The link is to the first section of several which explain that ‘raw material based’ economy. So follow the “Next Section” links for more.)