A Surrvey of the Old Testament Law--Numbers 5 (Part 4)

Numbers 5:11-31—11 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 12 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, 13 and a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—14 if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he becomes jealous of his wife, who has defiled herself; or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he becomes jealous of his wife, although she has not defiled herself—15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. He shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, because it is a grain offering of jealousy, an offering for remembering, for bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD. 17 The priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, uncover the woman's head, and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 And the priest shall put her under oath, and say to the woman, "If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be free from this bitter water that brings a curse. 20 But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has lain with you"—21 then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman—"the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; 22 and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make your belly swell and your thigh rot." Then the woman shall say, "Amen, so be it." 23 Then the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall scrape them off into the bitter water. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her to become bitter. 25 Then the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman's hand, shall wave the offering before the LORD, and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the offering, as its memorial portion, burn it on the altar, and afterward make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall be, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, that the water that brings a curse will enter her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, her thigh will rot, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself, and is clean, then she shall be free and may conceive children. 29 'This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, and he becomes jealous of his wife; then he shall stand the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute all this law upon her. 31 Then the man shall be free from iniquity, but that woman shall bear her guilt.'" The pro-abortion crowd loves to bring up this passage, as if it is some kind of “Gotcha” for the pro-lifers. There is just one problem with that. Well, more than one, but we will examine all the problems.

First of all, they only read from the NIV, the only major translation that relates any kind of miscarriage in this passage. Numbers 5:22 (NIV)—[the priest shall say] ‘“May this water that brings curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries”. Then the woman is to say “Amen. So be it”’. No other major translation uses the word “miscarry”. Why? Because it is not in the Hebrew text. Why?  Read the entire passage again, and tell me where a pregnancy is mentioned. I’ll wait. Okay, time’s up. Not in there, is it?

And second, if she is pregnant, doesn’t that kinda blow the whole “concealed” thing out of the water? Because when a woman is pregnant, what happens to her belly? But here we see if she has been unfaithful, this test will make her belly swell. And she will become barren, and a curse among the people. There is a Hebrew word that translates as “miscarry”, and that is שָׁכֹל (shâkôl), and it means, literally, “to miscarry”. But that Hebrew word is nowhere to be found in this passage. So, why the 2011 NIV uses the word “miscarry” here is a mystery. Just one reason I don’t particularly care for the NIV. And really, when one of the abortion advocates latch onto this passage as an approval from God for abortion, they really show how clueless they are about the Scriptures. Because in Numbers 5:28 it says But if the woman has not defiled herself, and is clean, then she shall be free and may conceive children. So it is clear, from the surrounding verses, that the punishment is not a miscarriage, but barrenness.

So many on the side of abortion get so angry when you say you’re opposed to it. Even if you are not argumentative, they will lash out at you for all they’re worth. And they will defend Planned Parenthood almost to the utmost.  Even though Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, an outspoken eugenicist and friend of the KKK. Planned Parenthood, in 1964, admitted that abortion ended a life. In an ad for birth control ad in 1964, Planned Parenthood themselves said the following:

An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it.

It kills the life of a baby. But they have changed their tune over the years and now they will tell you today that it is not a baby, that it is merely a clump of cells. It is no different than having a tooth pulled. Why have they changed their tune? I can tell you in one word, and that word rhymes with “Money”. They want to make more of it, and they will have less of a chance to do it if you know that you are killing a baby. Interestingly, at the Democratic Party Convention in 1964, a document entitled “The Population Crisis:  A Program for Action.  Statement to the Committee on Resolutions and Platforms of the 1964 Democratic Convention” stated:

In  the  United  States,  population  growth underlies and  contributes  to  the  three  major  domestic  ills  which the Johnson Administration and the Democratic Party have pledged to eradicate – poverty, discrimination and unemployment.

In other words, they believed we need to kill more babies in order to obtain a state of Utopia. Have they really changed their beliefs over the years? No. But their tactics have. Remember when I said that Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was an enthusiastic eugenicist? It’s true, she hated blacks.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

And the quote that still resonates today, and is the reason many liberals want abortion on demand is this:

“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children…”

Abortion is a practice this country has exported around the world, promising women they can live a happy life if they just kill their child while it is growing in the womb. Their mantra is “Keep abortion safe, legal and rare” or “My Body, My Choice” (of course, if they were to be truthful, they would say “Your Body, My Choice”). Of course it’s never safe, and where it is legal, they don’t want it to be rare. If a pregnant woman says they want to keep her baby, depending on the circumstances, she will be verbally assaulted with the most hateful speech you could imagine. Of course, our mantra, we on the Pro-Life side, is “Abortion: One Dead, One Wounded”. It is the only “medical” procedure that is successful if a death occurs.

When he has made her drink the water, then it shall be, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, that the water that brings a curse will enter her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, her thigh will rot, and the woman will become a curse among her people. Just one more thing before I wind up this passage. First, this would be an example of what the writer says in Hebrews 6:16—For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. These days, when a person is on the witness stand during a trial, they place their hand on a Bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And if it is found out they lie, they are charged with perjury. And maybe they get convicted and sentenced, or maybe they don’t. That was not the case here. The husband and wife go to the priest, he makes some bitter water, he puts her under oath to God Himself. Now, at this point, if she has gone astray, she should say so. Because if she has been unfaithful, and she lies about it, her unfaithfulness will become obvious and not only will she bring upon herself a curse, she will actually become a curse. She has sworn to Almighty God that she is not guilty, and if she is, God will not let her escape. So before she drinks the water, she should examine herself if she has done what she is accused of doing.

We should do the same thing when we partake of the Lord’s Table. We should examine ourselves to see if there is any sin in our lives and get rid of it before we take the brad and the wine. 1st Corinthians 11:28—But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. Because when we take the bread and the wine we are not simply eating, we are proclaiming Christ, and we are saying that we belong to Christ. And if we do partake of the bread and the wine when we have sin in our lives, we run the grave risk that many suffered in Corinth. 1st Corinthians 11:29-30—29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. Does this mean we have to be perfectly sinless when we come? No, of course not, for who can be sinless except Christ Himself? But we must look at our lives, and decide if there is some persistent sin that we must get rid of , or even if we think we have no sin, which thinking actually is sin (see 1st John 1:10). This not only makes God a liar but is also a product of pride, something that should not dwell in us who know Christ. We should be the humblest of all creatures, knowing that we are saved from an eternity on Hell because God has shown us His grace and has extended His mercy to us, in sending His Son to pay the penalty we should have paid ourselves. So let us examine ourselves as the unfaithful wife should have examined herself before she drank the bitter water. I will end with the words from John Calvin on 1st Corinthians 11:28:

You see here a method that is most easily apprehended. If you would wish to use aright the benefit afforded by Christ, bring faith and repentance. As to these two things, therefore, the trial must be made, if you would come duly prepared. Under repentance I include love; for the man who has learned to renounce himself, that he may give himself up wholly to Christ and his service, will also, without doubt, carefully maintain that unity which Christ has enjoined. At the same time, it is not a perfect faith or repentance that is required, as some, by urging beyond due bounds, a perfection that can nowhere be found, would shut out for ever from the Supper every individual of mankind. If, however, thou aspirest after the righteousness of God with the earnest desire of thy mind, and, trembled under a view of thy misery, dost wholly lean upon Christ’s grace, and rest upon it, know that thou art a worthy guest to approach the table—worthy I mean in this respect, that the Lord does not exclude thee, though in another point of view there is something in thee that is not as it ought to be. For faith, when it is but begun, makes those worthy who were unworthy.

 

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Amen.

A Survey of the Old Testament Law--Statutes Concerning Murder

We saw last week that the commands that God gave the people concerning how they were to treat their slaves were much more humane than what took place here in the United States in the years before and during the Civil War. Let me read for you this list I found of just a few of the differences between how slaves were treated under the OT Law and how they were treated here in America.
• Runaway "slaves" were not to be returned to their "masters" (Deuteronomy 23:15).
• If a Jewish male was attracted to a conquered female slave, he was required by law to treat her with dignity. If he had consensual sex with her, but decided not to marry her, she was to go completely free (Deuteronomy 21:11).
• If a Jewish male was attracted to a conquered female slave (or soon to be slave), he was permitted to marry her, but she was to be treated as a wife, not as a slave (Deuteronomy 21:11-14).
• "Slaves" were to take the Sabbath day off, just as the Jews were required to do (Exodus 23:12).
• "Slaves" could buy their freedom (Lev 25:47-49).
• The Jews were constantly reminded by God that they had been slaves in Egypt, and were NOT to treat foreigners as they had been treated in Egypt.
Although so-called corporal punishment was permitted by owners on disobedient slaves…even the loss of a tooth by a slave was to result in his/her immediate freedom (Exodus 21:26-27). (Full article here)


So we can see from this list—and there are many, many more commands along these lines—we can see from this short list that slavery under the OT Law was much more fair and much more lenient than what took place on these shores.


Now, whether we realize it or not, we are all slaves. You, me, the fellow down the road, your mom and dad. White folks, black folks, Asians, Puerto Ricans, you name it. Every single person from every single nation and every single family is a slave. But there are really only two masters. You can be a slave to sin—or you can be a slave to Christ. Romans 6:16—Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? From the time we were born until the day we came to know Christ, we were slaves to sin. We were, so to speak, the property of sin. Romans 7:14—For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. BUT, Romans 6:17-18—But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. How were we set free from sin? 1st Corinthians 6:19—You were bought at a price. Who paid that price? Galatians 3:13—Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. Christ bought us from out of our slavery to sin, so that Romans 6:18—Having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. And one last thing before we move on from this subject—listen to how far the Word of God descended on our behalf, Philippians 2:5-8—5 Christ Jesus, 6 being in the form of God…7 He made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a slave, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 …He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.


Well, not only was slavery much different than what took place here, even the way they dealt with matters of what we call criminal law were much different. And we’re gonna breeze through these statutes today concerning murder. Let’s start with Exodus 21:12-19—“12 He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. 14 But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die. 15 And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. 16 He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. 17 And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. 18 If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, 19 if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.” I do want to mention a couple things. First, we will not be studying every single commandment in the Law. If we did, we could get really bogged down and it could become quite lengthy. Besides, many of these statutes and commands are quite simple. Some, though, require a lot of background study. We’re gonna kinda hit the ones that need some explanation but not a lot of deep digging. Second, we know that the Law points to Christ, but I do want to make one thing clear—not every single command in the Law points to Christ. Let me just be clear on those two things.


Well, with that said, let’s get started. Exodus 21:12-13—“12 He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee.” Today, if someone gets charged with murder, they get arrested, booked, fingerprinted, and then there is a looooong, drawn out trial, and if the person is found guilty there is a loooong drawn out appeal, and it is very rare that a convicted murderer—or any other convicted criminal, for that matter—ever serves the full sentence pronounced upon them. Again, much different from what we see under the OT Law. There was no appeal; there were no “mitigating circumstances”; there was no question of whether you were “competent to stand trial.” If you committed an act worthy of punishment, you were punished. If you committed and act punishable by death, you were put to death. Period, paragraph, end of story. Leviticus 24:17—“Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death.” Hebrews 10:28—Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. This was nothing new; God told Noah the same thing hundreds of years prior to this, in Genesis 9:5-6—“5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man. 6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.” Why does one deserve the death penalty for killing another human being? Because man was made in the image of God, and when you kill another man you are striking at the image of God.


Now, the first statute is quite simple. I hit Richard upside the head with a brick. He dies—I die. The second statute has to do with what we would call “criminally negligent homicide” or “involuntary manslaughter.” You committed and act that led to another person’s death, but you did not mean to. Deuteronomy 19:4-5—“4 Whoever kills his neighbor unintentionally, not having hated him in time past—5 as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he shall flee to one of these cities and live.” The ‘cities’ referred to here were called “cities of refuge.” When a person was killed, the nearest relative was the one to avenge his brother’s blood. And for the man who kills his neighbor unintentionally, there were six cities where he could run to, and if he got to one of those cities before the avenger could catch him. Numbers 35:9-12—9 Then the LORD said to Moses: "10 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, 11 select some towns to be your cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone accidentally may flee. 12 They will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that anyone accused of murder may not die before they stand trial before the assembly." According to the ISBE,

“Upon reaching the city he was to be received by the elders and his case heard. If this was satisfactory, they gave him asylum until a regular trial could be carried out. They took him, apparently, to the city or district from which he had fled, and there, among those who knew him, witnesses were examined. If it were proved that he was not a willful slayer, that he had no grudge against the person killed, and had shown no sign of purpose to injure him, then he was declared innocent and conducted back to the city in which he had taken refuge, where he must stay until the death of the high priest. Then he was free to return home in safety. Until that event he must on no account go beyond the city boundaries. If he did, the avenger of blood might slay him without blame. On the other hand, if he were found guilty of deliberate murder, there was no more protection for him. He was handed over to the avenger of blood who, with his own hand, took the murderer's life.”

And there was no getting off on a technicality.


Then, Exodus 21:14-17—“14 But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die. 15 And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. 16 He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. 17 And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” These are pretty simple. Premeditated murder; cursing or striking your mother or father—all worthy of death. The command forbidding the kidnapping a man to sell him as a slave would have brought slavery in America to a screeching halt. These are the qualities of a person who has no regard for human life, or for the order that God has established for the home, and therefore they need to be removed from society post haste.


Now, Exodus 21:18-19—“18 If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, 19 if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.” Again, I smack Richard upside the head with my brick. He doesn’t die, but he is going to be out of work for a while. And they didn’t have AFLAC beck then. Therefore, since it’s my fault that Richard has been out of work, it is my duty to compensate him for the time he lost from work, and to pay for all his medical bills until he is able to go back to work. Jesus repeats this principle in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Luke 10:33-35—"33 But a certain Samaritan…when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds…set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day…he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’" Now, let’s think about this a moment. Whose responsibility was it to make sure this man was taken care of for his injuries? But, look at the compassion the Samaritan shows. Jesus is saying that loving our neighbor means going beyond what we need to do, and going on to the point of what we are not even required to do—and help our neighbor whenever we can “Sorry, pal, that’s not my problem” is not a phrase that should be in any Christian’s vocabulary.


Next, we see that a man who owned a slave had to be careful as well. Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27—"20 And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property…26 If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth." Again, pretty simple. You beat your slave and he dies, you were punished. I don’t think the punishment would be death because if it was, God would have probably said it. I'm just speculating here, but it was probably likely to have been 40 stripes. Deuteronomy 25:2-3—“2 If the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence, according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. 3 Forty blows he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these.” If the slave did not die from the beating, however, the owner was not to be punished, as it says, because that slave was the property of the one to whom he had sold himself, and the owner would have brought enough harm upon himself by losing that slave’s labor. If, however, you knocked out one of their eyes or one of their teeth—so long, my friend, you are free. What recourse did slaves have in this country if they lost an eye or a tooth?


Then we get to Exodus 21:22-25—“22 If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” In verse 22, where it says “if no harm follows”—the KJV actually gets closest to the real meaning of the Hebrew. The word translated here as “harm”, the KJV translates it “mischief.” This word is only used 5 times in the OT—twice here, and three times in Genesis. And each time it is used it refers to some kind of grave danger. Listen to these verses from the KJV. Genesis 42:4—But Benjamin, Joseph's brother, Jacob sent not with his brethren; for he said, “Lest peradventure mischief befall him.” Genesis 42:38—And he said, “My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he is left alone: if mischief befall him…then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave.” Genesis 44:29—“And if ye take this also from me, and mischief befall him, ye shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave.” Every time the Hebrew word (אָסוֹן, acown [pronounced ah-sone], mischief) is used, it carries with it the connotation of the potential for death. So what this command is saying is that if two men are fighting, and they strike a woman with child, and death follows, then you shall give life for life. Now, the command is rather ambiguous because, is it talking about the death of the mother or the death of the child? And as Pastor Phil would say, the answer is “Yes”. God does not make a distinction here because both the mother and her child are living human beings. And if two men fight and hit the pregnant woman and either she or her baby is killed in the process then the one who hit her shall be put to death. Now, of how much more punishment is a man worthy if he intentionally rips a living human being out of a mother’s womb? Abortion, under the OT Law, would have been punished by death for at least one of the parties, if not all involved.


Now, to finish up this section, we’re going to look at a couple of statutes that deal with the presence of a known danger that the guilty party knew about and did nothing to fix. Exodus 21:28-36—“28 If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. 29 But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. 31 Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. 32 If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. 33 And if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his. 35 If one man's ox hurts another's, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it; and the dead ox they shall also divide. 36 Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall be his own.”


First, you were responsible for your animal. If your ox killed someone, it was killed and destroyed, but nothing was done to you, if you had no prior warning of this ever happening. Animals are animals. Sometimes they do things you don’t expect. IF, however, you KNEW that your animal had “thrust with its horn in times past” and you didn’t do anything about it, and it killed a person—the animal dies, and you died. You were responsible, you knew it was not under control, you knew what kind of an animal it was and you did nothing about it, it’s your fault that it killed someone. Today, if a person owned a vicious dog, and they knew that dog was vicious, and they kept it anyway and it mauled a little girl who happened to be walking down the sidewalk—You, the dog owner, would be tried, convicted, and executed. If your animal killed a neighbor’s animal, they divided the dead animal, sold the live one and split the profit. But again, if you knew it had “thrust with its horn in times past” and you did nothing about it, you gave your neighbor one of your oxen to make up for his loss—but you keep the dead one as a parting gift.


Finally, if you were digging a foundation, or a cistern, and you did not put up any fences or any kind of warning, and your neighbor’s animal fell into it, you paid him for the loss of his animal—but again, you got to keep the dead animal. And I think the reason these statutes had the guilty party keeping the dead animal was as a way to remind them not to let that happen in the future. Today we would say “You break it—you bought it.” That dead animal was of no more use to the one who was wronged; it was now only a nuisance and burden to dispose of, so the one who was in the wrong was saddled with the responsibility of disposing of it.


Jesus is Lord Amen.

"It's not really a person"

The following is a very disturbing story out of Virginia. A story that shows just how depraved the human heart truly is. And, how some politicians don't care, just so long as they get re-elected. And, if this story gets enough national attention, it may just give us a glimpse into the mindset of many. From HotAir via Ingrid Schlueter at CrossTalk:

This may be the worst story of the year, at least in reference to domestic policy and crime. How bad is it? When Matt of Creative Minority Report tipped me to it this morning, I had to track it down to make sure it was on the level. A woman in Campbell County, Virginia smothered her newborn infant, and police are powerless to do anything about it:

That's right. Even though this child had fully exited the womb. Even though this child was fully capable of living on its own. Even though this child, by all rights, should have been protected like any other human being. The fact that the umbilical cord was still attached and the placenta had not been expelled means, in the minds of some sick, twisted, perverted minds, that this was not, in fact, a human being. And so this woman gets away with murdering her child because of a loophole in Virginia law. And this was not the first time something like this had happened there:

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly.

And since this was not the first time, the state legislators and other law-making bodies in the state would have been more than quick to close that loophole......or not:

Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

The reason this loophole is still in place can be summed up in one word: VOTES. These greedy politicians who are so ensconced in their thrones that they couldn't fathom losing their power and going out to actually get a real job, have allowed an innocent baby to be destroyed by a woman who didn't want to be "punished with a baby." Thank you, Earl Warren and company. Thank you Planned Parenthood. Thank you Margaret Sanger.

And the downfall of civilization continues.

President Obama makes good on his promise to Planned Parenthood

President Obama marked the 36th anniversary of the most bone-headed decision in Supreme Court history by confiscating more taxpayer dollars to send overseas in the fight to kill as many babies as possible. From FOXNews:

President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-govermental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States.

Obama will sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

The policy, known in governmental circles as the "Mexico City policy," requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

The language was announced at the United Nations International Conference on Population in 1984, and was approved by President Reagan and originally drafted by his assistant secretary of state, Alan Keyes. Keyes ran unsuccessfully as the GOP nominee against Obama for the U.S. Senate in 2004.

President George Herbert Walker Bush continued Reagan's Mexico City policy.

President Bill Clinton issued an executive order lifting the ban on Jan. 22, 1993. President George W. Bush issued an executive order re-instating the ban on federal dollars for NGOs that discuss or provide abortions on Jan. 22, 2001.

Planned Butchery is hailing this decision, since it will drastically benefit their bottom line.

"Mormon Waffles"--abortion

Starting a new, semi-regular feature today, along the lines of the "Fluffernutter Alert." This one is called "Mormon Waffles," showcasing the ever-changing doctrines of Mormonism ("Blacks are cursed!" "Blacks are our brothers!" "Marry multiple wives or you're damned!" "The LDS church has never taught polygamy!")

Today, we venture into the realm of abortion. Since the LDS church has taught, for quite some time, that killing an unborn child is murder, you would think that the LDS website would have a pretty firm stance on the subject.

Well, they do... sort of. Spencer W. Kimball said,

“Abortion is a growing evil that we speak against. Certainly the terrible sin of premeditated abortion would be hard to justify. It is almost inconceivable that an abortion would ever be committed to save face or embarrassment, to save trouble or inconvenience, or to escape responsibility. How could one submit to such an operation or be party in any way by financing or encouraging? If special rare cases could be justified, certainly they would be rare indeed. We place it high on the list of sins against which we strongly warn the people.

“‘Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightful evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.’ (Priesthood Bulletin, February 1973, p. 1.)”

Boyd Packer said,

"The scriptures tell us, ‘Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it’ (D&C 59:6)."

However, in the same breath they tell us...

Gordon B. Hinckley--

“While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 91–92; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

(You can find all these quotes here, by clicking on "abortion" in the viewing pane to the left.)

How sweet that they do allow for cases of rape or incest. Because, after all, God doesn't love a child conceived in those ways. And in whom are they placing their faith that the child will not "survive beyond birth?" Is that doctor God? How many times have parents been told their baby was going to die, yet allowed the child to live and that child is now a happy, fully functional, successful adult?

Planned Parenthood isn't trying to indoctrinate your children. Really, they're not! Well, maybe they are...

For anyone who doesn't think that the goal of Planned Parenthood is to make sure your 12-year-old girl gets her abortion on schedule, here's proof they do. This video (HT: ReformationNation) was produced by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (San FranSchizo, CA). Watch the video (about 10:00 long), then read below.




Notice how the pro-lifers are evil zombies and sleazy senators, and how PPGG thinks murdering them is just so funn-nnyyyyy!!! And how did you like the girl who said, "I don't plan on getting an STD." Uh, yeah, good thinking! How many kids have said that and woke up one morning with some disease they didn't have before? "I don't plan on getting an STD." Boy, some role model for kids, huh?

And did you notice what the name of the "pro-choice superhero" was? Yeah, that sounds like something Planned Parenthood wants kids to get into. After all, what better way to get them pregnant so they can talk them into an abortion?

Folks, if you haven't figured it out by now, Planned Parenthhod is a sleazy operation run by people who couldn't care less about your children.

How much do you know...

About Roe v. Wade?

Take the quiz here.

Planned Parenthood Express: Killing unborn children in less than an hour

Jill Stanek, writing for World News Daily, details how Planned Parenthood (motto: "More dead babies equals more money for us!") is stepping up their efforts to monoploize the baby-killing business:

Planned Parenthood launched the plan in 2002 by opening Planned Parenthood Expresses in target locations across the country. They now number 42. Expresses are easily established in strip or shopping malls without need to fulfill zoning or building requirements.

Expresses are abortion cullers. They sell illicit sex, sell unguaranteed methods to avoid consequences of illicit sex, sell mop-ups for their anticipated failures, and restart the process.

Expresses can handle STD mop-ups, but they can't handle the Big A. These are handed off to specialized PP clinics that comply with zoning and building requirements.

PP is already the largest abortion provider in the U.S., but that isn't enough. Step 2 of the five-year plan was to build more, for which expresses provided the increased market.

Problem is, once word got out, and the pro-life crowd in many cities strated protesting, PP had to start lying about who they were and what they were doing. Not that PP doesn't know how to lie, they've been doing it for years.

But pro-lifers interrupted Step 2 in 2003. They developed a new strategy. Led by concrete contractor Chris Danze, they initiated a boycott of construction workers, equipment and supplies throughout the building of a $6.2 million Planned Parenthood mill in Austin, Texas.

The boycott didn't stop construction, but it significantly stalled it, created a lot of bad press for PP and most eye-opening, revealed pro-lifers wield great influence in local communities.

[...]

Planned Parenthood's response was in hindsight predictable. PP determined to build its other new mills on the sly. It bought property in Denver, Colo., and Aurora, Ill., and who knows where else in secret. It got busted in Denver before ground broke, but not in Aurora.

Throughout and after purchasing land in Aurora, PP hid behind a shell corporation it created, Gemini Office Development (acronym purposeful?).

PP and Gemini lied on multiple Aurora permit documents when entering into the building phase in 2006. As recently as March 2007, Gemini wrote on a permit its tenant was "unknown at this time."

Planned Parenthood doesn't care about women's "reproductive health," or anything like it. All they care about is money. Get 'em in, suck the child out, send 'em home. If they bleed to death, or they die from sepsis or peritonitis a month later, well, that ain't Planned Parenthood's fault because, hey, it wasn't an abortion death. Next please!

(linked at Stop the ACLU)

Because abortionists care. (Of course I'm being sarcastic!)

The only thing abortionists care about is money in their pockets. The following is just one example (via GrannyGrump at Real Choice):

Angela Hall, a 27-year-old mother of five, called to arrange an abortion at Dr. Thomas Tucker's office in Alabama. One of Tucker's employees, Joy Davis, screened Angela and felt that she had risk factors that made abortion in an office setting unsafe. Joy got on the phone with Tucker and indicated that she felt that Angela should be referred to a hospital. Tucker told Davis that "we need the money" and ordered her to prep Angela, who was in the second trimester of pregnancy.

Angela underwent the abortion on June 11, 1991, and started having difficulty breathing. Her blood pressure fell, setting off an alarm on a piece of monitoring equipment. Tucker told Davis to turn the alarm off because other patients could hear it. Angela was sent to a recovery room where she bled so heavily that Davis became alarmed and called an ambulance. Tucker swore at Davis when he learned of this, and he had her cancel the ambulance because they'd already sent a patient to the hospital that day. Angela continued to hemorrhage, and Davis continued to plead with Tucker to take action. Finally Tucker cursed at Davis, telling her to call the ambulance, and he left the building, leaving the untrained woman to cope alone with the critically injured patient.

Angela was taken to the hospital, where she suffered respiratory failure, clotting, and sepsis. She died just before midnight June 14. The autopsy found numerous tears and lesions in the pelvic area, and congestive necrosis in Angela's liver and spleen. The doctors concluded that an amniotic fluid embolism had caused clotting problems resulting in necrosis, septic shock, and cardiac arrest. When Alabama authorities subpoenaed Angela's records, Tucker ordered Davis to destroy some and falsify others. Davis tore up the records, but then taped them back together and provided the authorities with photocopies.

Joy Davis' actions -- trying to convince Tucker to refer Angela to a hospital, her attempts to get appropriate care for Angela, and her refusal to participate in the cover-up -- need to stand as a reminder that abortion workers aren't monsters. They're human beings, many of whom do care about the patients and think of themselves as helping them.

Nah, they don't need to be regulated. They don't need oversight. Because, you know, they regulate themselves. After all, they're just concerned about a woman's reproductive health. They want to keep abortion legal, and rare and safe.

UPDATE: Allow me to make this one point, lest I seem like I'm condemning the people who work at these clinics as receptionists, and assistants. Many of them do indeed care about the women who come into their centers, just like Joy Davis did. Unfortunately, most of the abortionists couldn't care less, and are willing to let a woman suffer, bleed, and die rather than face any accountability (ala Thomas Tucker).

Death Roe: Who decides?

(Possibly a recurring series)

The following is from DeathRoe.com, a pro-life site. They have a page which offers pro-life answers to pro-abortion questions. Here is the first:

Pro-abortion stance--

The issue is who decides, the woman or the state. It’s about freedom of choice.

The abortion lobby has always realized that abortion itself is indefensible. This has forced them to argue that whether abortion is the deliberate killing of a living human being or not, is unrelated to the question of whether it should be legal. In short, they have to divert attention toward the philosophical concepts of “choice” and “who decides” because they can’t afford for the public to look at what’s being chosen and decided.

To imply that the issue is not abortion, but choice, is to say that what’s being chosen is irrelevant. That is clearly illogical given that all choices are not equal. Choosing whether to buy a new car is vastly different than choosing whether to produce child pornography, and the morality of those choices is not affected by the eventual decision. However, the pro-choice position is that abortion becomes acceptable simply by the act of choosing to do it.

Defenders of slavery also used this same strategy. During the 1858 Abraham Lincoln- Stephen Douglas debates, Douglas said he did not support outlawing slavery, saying, “I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits.”

Just substitute the word abortion every place the word slavery appears, and this statement perfectly defines the pro-choice position in America today. Lincoln’s response to Douglas’ pro-choice position on slavery was, “He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”

Lincoln recognized that there is nothing intrinsically noble about the concept of choice, and that there are choices which a society cannot allow the individual to make.

The fact is, before one can rightly claim that the issue is “choice” or “who decides,” he or she must first examine what’s being chosen. If it’s what color shoes to wear, that’s one thing; if it’s whether to kill another human being, that’s another. Except in self-defense, the decision about whether one human being can kill another one cannot be left up to the individual who wants to do the killing.

Besides, this “who decides, the woman or the state” rhetoric is idiotic on its face. Laws against abortion would not let the state decide who gets abortions any more than laws against rape let the state decide who gets raped. Instead, they establish that certain behaviors are so unacceptable they must be illegal.

Finally, as used by abortion advocates, the term “pro-choice” is both inaccurate and dishonest. In an abortion, at least three people are directly impacted: the mother, the father, and the child. The pro-choice argument is that only one is entitled to a choice. Additionally, it has never been a part of their agenda to protect any choice other than abortion. They don’t lobby for women to have the legal right to be prostitutes or use crack cocaine. Yet these laws, and thousands of others, deny women “the right to choose” just as much as laws preventing abortion would.

What is Planned Parenthood so afraid of?

A few days ago I posted about how Planned Parenthood was caught telling a girl posing as a 15-year old to fake her age so that (1) she could get and abortion, (2) her "boyfriend" wouldn't have to go to jail, and (3) the abortionist could get some more money in his pocket. Well, apparently Planned Parenthood doesn't cotton too well to being PWN3D. According to the Christian Post:

Planned Parenthood, the leading provider of surgical abortions, has threatened to file a lawsuit against an 18-year-old student journalist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

Lilia Rose, who is the student editor and founder of the student pro-life magazine The Advocate, was contacted by the pro-choice organization after she recorded herself going into a clinic in Santa Monica, Calif., posing as a 15-year-old pregnant girl. She went in for an “abortion” with a man named James O’Keefe, who acted as her 23-year-old boyfriend, which would be considered statutory rape.

The tapes reveal that she was advised by employees to invent a birthday, so she did not appear to be 15, making her situation legal. A letter from Planned Parenthood expressed to her that she had no right to tape the incident, and that she did so without their consent.

You know what the irony is here? That Planned Parenthood doesn't think that minors should have to get consent from their parents before they enter into a butcher shop abortion clinic. But, when it comes to exposing Planned Parenthood for the monsters they are, then consent is everything.

The Post goes on to mention:

According to Rose, Planned Parenthood has had numerous incidences in the past.

One such example occurred when Life Dynamics, a Texas-based non-profit organization, hired an actress to make approximately 800 phone calls to abortion facilities across several states, acting as a 13-year-old girl. (Watch the video) She described herself as a victim of sexual assault, but 91 percent of the locations that admitted the action was a crime agreed to conceal it.

And yet none of these places is prosecuted. None of these places is investigated by any governmental agency. Women die every day from abortions. Many more are harmed for life. Butchers who maim these women simply pack up and move on to a new town, set up shop, and start their butchery all over again. And the government isn't doing a thing about it. That's why the world needs more young people like Lilia Rose, who isn't afraid to take on the Planned Parenthood machine, and expose them for who they are.

Planned Parenthood is scared. They and their like are going down the tubes, Roe v. Wade is coming ever so much closer to being overturned, and abortionists are fixin' to see their businesses crash and burn in a fiery heap. And they're scared. And they should be.