Make your own free website on

The Staks


The DANG-DInGIE American

aka,,The Evil White Man

The Staks


Main Site

My Blog

The Evilution of Abortion

That 'alledged' English national who apparently identifies with New York that goes by the nic,,nybrit,,has seen fit to post a missive alledgedly wrote by someone other than nybrit that seemed to be a response to some preacher ,pastor or priests sermon that the author supposedly attended during some service or other.

This missive is a good example of 'abortion advocates' have 'evolved their' argument to try to use The Bible to defend the acceptance of abortion as 'justifiably defensible'.

It is presented in a 'simply pondering' sort of fashion that,,if one pays attention to it,,very aptly mirrors the kind of reasoning Lucifer used on Eve.

Now,,whether or not it was writ by nybrit,,it has some serious 'glaring' logic flaws that deserve a response to.Especially since it is highly doubtful,,IMHsmellyO,,that the 'unnamable' preachers response would be posted and shared,,even if there really is a preacher as presented.

So,,in light of that,,and also because I think nybrit wrote it with nybrits own ten digits,,(I am assuming nybrit can type according to how someone taught to type would type,,with all ten fingers.I only use 6 to 8 on average.In short,,I am self taught.),,I decided to hit it a few times with 'The Log of Logic' to see how it held up.

Well,,if you are familiar with the Excite Political Boards regular posters,,you can probally guess how it turned out,, especially if nybrit wrote it,,but maybe some will enjoy reading it anyway.

The original thread can be found here:

This is the link that nybrit presented the 'material' as being from.


~I know what I'm "supposed to" believe as a good, Bible-believing Christian -- but when I look into the Bible myself, I see something very different. ~

Which 'kind' of Christian would that be?

A Catholic?

A UCC acolyte?

Which 'Bible' would that be?

A Catholic Bible?


I'll just go with that since there in no more than the above to determine which 'ideology' the author follows.

~I'm writing this because I agree with you that it's important for Christians to take a definite, strong stand with integrity and honesty. We shouldn't bend to cultural pressure--but on the other hand, we shouldn't just go along with the "party line" we hear in church. ~

I have to agree with this,,yet I have to ask,,which 'church'?

~The Bible does talk about the "soul" ('nephesh' in Hebrew) -- but animals apparently have "nephesh" too ~

And yet,,there is a difference in the destinations.

The animal soul goes down.

Mans soul goes up.

According to Ecclesiastes that is.

(yet I do believe the animal souls that were 'loved' by humans are present in that persons 'heaven'.)

~It seems to me that for the Christian there are two essential questions, namely 'Does God HATE abortion?' and 'Does God PROHIBIT abortion?' ~

IF God 'hates' something,,it's 'abominable' to Him,,right?He 'prohibits' acts of abomination.No?

~ Virtually all Christians would agree that God hates abortion ~

All would,,some are only claiming to be when it's convenient for them to.Still others are the reason for the phrase,,"My people perish for a lack of knowledge',,like those kids that are aborted because their parents don't 'know' any better.

~ but a significant number do not believe that God absolutely prohibits it.~

And that matters to God,,how?

~This would put abortion in the same category as divorce~

No.It would not.

God 'allowed' divorce,,for the cause of,,'adultery.'

(which may lead to a 'married woman' aborting her paramours child,,no?)

~--something that Christians are not to engage in,~


God is also a 'divorcee',,and it was 'for the cause of ' adultery/idolotry'.

~Jer 3:8 And I saw 07200 , when for all the causes 0182 whereby backsliding 04878 Israel 03478 committed adultery 05003 I had put her away 07971 , and given 05414 her a bill 05612 of divorce 03748; yet her treacherous 0898 sister 0269 Judah 03063 feared 03372 not, but went 03212 and played the harlot 02181 also. ~

~but also not to compel unbelievers by law to live up to the same standard. ~

Nothing is deemed 'compellable' to any NOT agreeing to 'follow God'.

Except for when God says on one particular day,,'all knees' shall bow.

But He does that Himself.

~On the basis of Psalm 139:13-16, you conclude that God created me, saw me, and planned my days before I was born. This is undeniable. ~

~Hence if you use Psalm 139:13-16 to conclude that abortion is murder, inexorable logic also dictates that birth control is also murder.So where is the Christian hue and outcry against birth control??!! ~

Oh,,maybe you aren't Catholic then.

The Catholics used to raise 'cain' all the time about 'birth control.

Maybe they DID BEND to cultural pressure in order to keep people coming in.

You know,,change the churchs 'party line' to keep funds coming in,,like they have done through out their history.

Anyway,,as pointed out by 'nephesh',,the 'known' element is the persons soul.

So this 'line' reasoning the author has built is a great basis for arguing against 'unmarried sex' since without the idea of an 'inconvenient or unwanted' pregnancy the birth control and abortion question is moot.

And that indicates,,'continence'(self control) since being 'incontinent' is not how God wishes His people to be.

(Please note,,the massive majority of abortions occur without the fathers knowledge.)

As in,,the KJV said it just fine,,unless one WISHES to be like someone said Onan was showing when he DID NOT impregnate his brothers widowed wife since,,"Stubborn and selfish resistance to God is sin."

Exd 21:22 If men 0582 strive 05327 , and hurt 05062 a woman 0802 with child 02030, so that her fruit 03206 depart 03318 [from her], and yet no mischief follow 0611: he shall be surely 06064 punished 06064 , according as the woman's 0802 husband 01167 will lay 07896 upon him; and he shall pay 05414 as the judges 06414 [determine].

Now,,is there any way to honetly 'construe' this as anything other than 'the death of the child'?So what's 'problematic' about it?

(what punishment would I as a father dispense for the killing of my unborn child?Death,,if it was clearly his fault.)

Exd 22:22 Ye shall not afflict 06031 any widow 0490, or fatherless child 03490.

Now,,as pointed out above,,the unmarried mother is killing a 'fatherless' child,,no?

And Onan was 'afflicting a widow' by NOT 'raising a child to his brother',,by the way.

~There is a solid Scriptural principle: Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses shall all matters be established. The moral or social laws which God establishes all have multiple Scripture references. Where are the multiple references to the unborn's right to life? ~

They aren't hard to find,,unless one is being impeded by a,,"Stubborn and selfish resistance to God".

Or if they are suffering from cultural pressure to question what they know a 'good Christian' should know is right or wrong.

~When you come right down to it, the Old Testament says precious little about the rights of children born or unborn. There are no laws against a parent abusing his/her own child, for instance.~

On the contrary,,the admonishion to correct and chastise is at the heart of NOT abusing a child by NOT teaching them that such as,,oh,,say 'abortion' is WRONG.

That way,,the child DOES NOT sin from not 'knowing better' but rather through a 'lack of honor for their parents' which is,,"Stubborn and selfish resistance to God" since not doing such is violating a 'commandment'.

IOW,,'spare the rod and spoil the child' does NOT mean 'to spare' the rod in order to 'spoil' the child.

And the way the word spoil is used means the 'spoiled' become 'prey or captives' of an enemy.

IT means,,'being slack with the rod will cause the child to be taken captive by the enemy'.

And would one consider trating their child any less bettre than a 'slave/servant'?

What does the Bible have to say about how Hebrews should treat their slaves?

And,,how would the golden rule apply?


~Abraham's offering of Isaac is not treated as attempted murder;~

You're right,,it was treated as 'obedience to God' and 'faith in Gods pomise'.

IOW,,he wasn't showing a,,"Stubborn and selfish resistance to God".

~neither is Jephthah's offering his own daughter to the Lord in Judges 11.~

You are correct again,,even given that his daughter probally went to live at the temple,,not killed.There is a provision for 'substituting that which was hallowed' with a price,,it was treated as 'adherence to his vow'.

Of course,,this is something one should do,,'if one vows a vow to God' and does not wish to show a,,"Stubborn and selfish resistance to God".

~2 Kings 6:26ff. tells of a mother who openly confessed to eating her own baby, and apparently was not afraid of being prosecuted for murder.~

To conclude such is to assume that there is NO more to this story of how some Hebrews dealt with this issue.After all,,the Hebrews,,Israelis would be the most accurate representation of a society following Gods laws in the Old Testament,,yes,,even though the Kings and assorted leaders did show,,"Stubborn and selfish resistance to God" on occasion and were appropiately punished,,unforunately,,the people often suffer from the misdeeds of the King.

So,,with that in mind,,let's examine the 'context',shall we?

2Ki 6:22

And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite [them]? shall I smite [them]?

2Ki 6:22

And he answered, Thou shalt not smite [them]: wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master.

2Ki 6:23

And he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel.

2Ki 6:24 ¶

And it came to pass after this, that Benhadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria.

2 Kings 6:25

And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was [sold] for fourscore [pieces] of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five [pieces] of silver.

2Ki 6:26

And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king.

2Ki 6:27

And he said, If the LORD do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the barnfloor, or out of the winepress?

2Ki 6:30

And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes; and he passed by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, [he had] sackcloth within upon his flesh.

Do you notice that there was no judgement call about any either of the issues?

The king said nothing about what the woman complained about.Why not?

Since he didn't,,should we draw a definitive conclusion about what else he said nothing about,,in this case,,the eating of the child?

Let's backtrack to see what the setting of the event was.

2Ki 4:38 ¶ And Elisha came again to Gilgal: and [there was] a dearth in the land; and the sons of the prophets [were] sitting before him: and he said unto his servant, Set on the great pot, and seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets.

There was a famine.So there would be nothing on the barnfloor nor winepress,right?

(btw,that chaper has the story of Elisha,the unfailing cruse of oil and the bringing of a womans child back to life.Of course he had been born a while before that.)

2Ki 3:1 Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.

2Ki 3:2 And he wrought evil in the sight of the LORD; but not like his father, and like his mother: for he put away the image of Baal that his father had made.

2Ki 3:3 Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom.


And there we find out who the King of Israel in Samaria was.And we find out he wasn't following Gods ways.He was following the sins of Jeroboam.

What were those?

We find it here:

1Ki 12:26 And Jeroboam 03379 said 0559 in his heart 03820, Now shall the kingdom 04467 return 07725 to the house 01004 of David 01732:


1Ki 12:32 And Jeroboam 03379 ordained 06213 a feast 02282 in the eighth 08066 month 02320, on the fifteenth 02568 06240 day 03117 of the month 02320, like unto the feast 02282 that [is] in Judah 03063, and he offered 05927 upon the altar 04196. So did 06213 he in Bethel 01008, sacrificing 02076 unto the calves 05695 that he had made 06213 : and he placed 05975 in Bethel 01008 the priests 03548 of the high places 01116 which he had made 06213 .


1Ki 13:1 And, behold, there came 0935 a man 0376 of God 0430 out of Judah 03063 by the word 01697 of the LORD 03068 unto Bethel 01008: and Jeroboam 03379 stood 05975 by the altar 04196 to burn incense 06999 .


1Ki 13:4 And it came to pass, when king 04428 Jeroboam 03379 heard 08085 the saying 01697 of the man 0376 of God 0430, which had cried 07121 against the altar 04196 in Bethel 01008, that he put forth 07971 his hand 03027 from the altar 04196, saying 0559 , Lay hold 08610 on him. And his hand 03027, which he put forth 07971 against him, dried up 03001 , so that he could 03201 not pull it in again 07725 to him.


1Ki 13:33 After 0310 this thing 01697 Jeroboam 03379 returned 07725 not from his evil 07451 way 01870, but made 06213 again 07725 of the lowest 07098 of the people 05971 priests 03548 of the high places 01116: whosoever would 02655, he consecrated 04390 03027 him, and he became [one] of the priests 03548 of the high places 01116.


1Ki 13:34 And this thing 01697 became sin 02403 unto the house 01004 of Jeroboam 03379, even to cut [it] off 03582 , and to destroy 08045 [it] from off the face 06440 of the earth 0127.


~This certainly does not mean that this was the right thing to do, or that God was pleased with that state of affairs.~

You are right.God was plainly displeased with something,,and that was idolatry.A real no-no,,,no?Do you think that would qualify as showing a "Stubborn and selfish resistance to God".

~However, it does imply that Old Testament law does not give a strong foundation for a stance against abortion. ~

Upon examination of the 'illustration' you used,,you are wrong.The illustration used does NOT even have the 'straight' rules being applied by the king that was appealed to.

Your fourth point was that "Unborn children" cannot be said to "possess distinctive human traits", and refer to Elizabeth's statement that the unborn John the Baptist "leaped for joy" in her womb then go on to claim that IF hills don't have HUMAN feelings of joy,,HUMAN children can't 'Possess distinctive human traits'.

That is literally comparing 'humans' to 'hills',,isn't it?

To conclude on the basis of this verse that the unborn can't feel joy is erroneous at best,,and blatantly deceptive at worst.

~Compare 1 Chr. 16:31ff, "Let the heavens be glad, let the earth rejoice … let the fields rejoice …"; Psalm 68:12-13 says, "… the hills are clothed with gladness, the meadows are covered with flocks and the valleys are mantled with grain; they shout for joy and sing."~

(And btw,,if there is validity to a 'nephesh' being possessed by animals and men and that is used to signify similarities enough to be used to buttress the concept being advanced,,how come it doesn't also provide reason to think there may be qualities possessed by 'hills' or the earth that would be analogous to such.After all,,science says both 'humans' and 'hills' have 'magnetic fields',,,how do we know for certain those fileds are NOT elements of a 'nephesh'?)

Now,,when does a 'fertilized egg' develope it's own independant 'em' field?

Upon conception?

~In fact, Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 seems to indicate that the unborn have no knowledge or feelings: "A stillborn child … comes without meaning, it departs in darkness, … it never saw the sun or knew any thing." ~

No,,it says a 'stillborn' doesn't experience anything,,because it is stillborn.

As in it died without being born,,not that it could not feel anything IF or WHILE it was alive.

It is actually more analogous to an aborted child as regards the 'sadness content' in the passages that one is found among.

~We cannot on the basis of these verses conclude that hills, fields, etc. have human feelings of joy-


Yet,,we can conclude that they have feelings of joy that their 'kind' of thing can have.

Can one logically conclude the same by saying since a 'dog' can not have 'human feelings' that human children can't have the same feelings as human 'adults'?

I think not.

~-neither can we conclude from Luke 1:41 that the unborn feel joy.~

What kind of joy?

Human,,or 'hillian'?

Now,,to use:

~Romans 9:11, which speaks of Jacob and Esau: "before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad … " Again, the verse is not at all describing the condition of life in the womb. ~

AFTER clearly stating understanding of 'God knowing folks (nephesh) before they are born into the flesh is to 'deny' the thing previously aknowledged.

IF these verses can be used to prove anything,,they can be used to 'prove' the existance of 'nephesh' without flesh body,,not that the child in the womb doesn't have a soul and therefore qualifies as a human being.

~If abortion is truly equivalent to murder, then we must not hold a double standard. If we celebrate as heroes the Underground guerilla fighters in World War II who resisted the Nazi's attempts to exterminate the Jews, then why not celebrate the abortion-clinic bombers and abortionist-shooters as heroes and executors of God's justice? If the former are heroes, then why not the latter? ~

Now,,that seems like purposeful obfuscation to me.

Did not the author admit we should NOT bend to cultural pressure?

~We shouldn't bend to cultural pressure--but on the other hand, we shouldn't just go along with the "party line" we hear in church. ~

Is not equating someone 'waging war' with someone following a 'legally allowed' practice exhibiting a desire to convince someone to conclude the 'cultural pressure' exerted on our laws from those 'vocally adamant' to having any form of Cristianity influence our laws and are actively advocating such things as 'convenience abortions' and 'easy to obtain drugs to kill children' are the folks who 'have the right idea'?

BTW,,please keep in mind that Hitler advocated abortion under the guise of 'racial superior blood lines being kept pure'.

Yeah,,he wanted to do like God and 'breed' his own people.

Now,,considering God had allready 'made the races of man' and said it was good,,wouldn't deciding to breed or restrict such in any 'directed way' by any rules of men,,that be synonymous with showing,,"Stubborn and selfish resistance to God" since the way He made it did NOT satisfy Hitlers desires?

~My own conclusion is that abortion, like slavery or divorce, is a societal evil which God hates but does not explicitly prohibit.~

Please reconsider.Since it has been laid out plainly that the path you took to arrive at your conclusion was rife with logical errors,assumptions and presumptions to continue to hold that conclusion would make you appear to be succumbing to 'cultural pressure' that is forcing you to show "Stubborn and selfish resistance to God".

~I believe the most constructive way of dealing with abortion is not to focus on the act itself, but rather on the heart that leads to the action.~

Given that,,is it assumable that you believe someone murdering someone in the third trimester or any point after that should NOT be illegal and the focus should be on the 'heart' of the perpetrator???

~Why is the woman having an abortion? Is she trying to escape the consequences of sin?~

Obviously.And btw,,IF it's legal,,how much more likely is she to committ the sin knowing she can just 'eliminate' the fruits of it because it is inconvenient to have a child?

And how does it being legal and taught as ethical and morally acceptable as the 'cultural pressure' is attempting to make it contribute to 'His people perishing from a lack of knowledge'?

ASsin,,the prescription is leading the nations astray:

Rev 18:23 And 2532 the light 5457 of a candle 3088 shall shine 5316 no more 3364 at all 2089 in 1722 thee 4671; and 2532 the voice 5456 of the bridegroom 3566 and 2532 of the bride 3565 shall be heard 191 no more 3364 at all 2089 in 1722 thee 4671: for 3754 thy 4675 merchants 1713 were 2258 the great men 3175 of the earth 1093; for 3754 by 1722 thy 4675 sorceries 5331 were 4105 0 all 3956 nations 1484 deceived 4105.

Now,,use that number,,5331,,go here:

And read where Thayers says it is NOT just,simply and only 'witchcraft' that the word 'pharmakia' means.

Yeah,,it's the word we get pharmaceuticals and pharmacy from.And the word 'prescription' which is 'advice' ,suggestion,seduction or ensorcellment even,,is explicitly associated with it and thing.

That indicates 'witchcraft',,which is,,'rebellion' and implies a "Stubborn and selfish resistance to God",,is something a 'doctor' and the 'medical community' can be guilty of.

Have you noticed how the 'medical and pharmaceutical industry' is firmly behind advocating 'convenience abortions'???

A lack of knowledge can cause people to perish,,even before they are born,,no?

~The Bible says, "Be sure your sin will find you out." (Numbers 32:23).~

And if so,,what do you do?Repent?

Or,,become,,"Stubborn and selfishly resistant to God"?

Is yours finding you out?

Are you being "Stubborn and selfishly resistant to God"?

Is that why you are trying so hard to 'justify' thinking God doesn't care about convenience abortions?

Or have you been ensorcelled by certain 'deceptive prescriptions' backed by 'cultural pressure' and therefore do not know what you do and are risking 'perishing through a lack of knowledge'?

~On the other hand, is she married, and simply feels overwhelmed with the prospect of coping with another child?~

Does it matter if she feels that way and doesn't allow the husband to have a say?

Does that mean she can 'murder' his child while fullfilling her own 'self serving' desires?

Again,,knowing the way things work,,and not abstaining if one DOES NOT want another child,,is a sign of 'incontinence',,isn't it?

Are 'humans' animals,,or can they choose to not risk having an inconvenient child by NOT having sex,,even tho THAT would be inconvenient to their own desires to have sex?

~Then where is the Church, which God has appointed to be champion of the poor and overburdened?~

Somewhere you refuse to look,,evidently.

Haven't you read or seen or heard the news about churches world wide 'championing' against the 'murder' of those poor children whose mothers feel overburdened from fulfilling their lusts but get blocked at most turns by 'cultural pressure' from advocates of abortion,,backed up by very liberally minded acadaemic humanists,atheists and assorted pagans and even 'medical and even psychologic proffesional' who have insinuated their ideologies into contemporary educational policies and curriculum?

~Such an abortion is a judgement on the Church not living up to its responsibility,~

Wrong,,such is a 'judgement' on how Gods people perish from a lack of knowledge and are led astray by 'cultural pressure' from those who 'prescribe' abortion as a 'guilt free and ethically,moralistic,reasonable' tool for them to use to NOT have to deal with a child they got from choosing to indulge in the 'pleasure' of sex.

~Or does the woman abort from convenience, because a child would interfere with her career or self-centered life-style?~

You know that's the case and that's the cause so many want it legal.Ask them,,they say it plainly.

~Then the abortion is merely a symptom of distorted values, and focusing attention and energy on abortion entirely fails to deal with the fundamental spiritual issue.~

It is a symptom of 'distorted values' that have been enabled by 'cultural pressure'.

It is energised and assisted through the 'attempt to seperate church/religion from state' being committed by atheistic,humanistic and assorted followers of certain religions,in the politics,education and medical industries.

Why do I say that?

To remove 'church' from state you have to FIRST remove 'religion' from the minds of those htat make up 'state'.

Here,,I laid it out in this piece I wrote:

And,,my proof of it happening,,is,,the way the writer of this,,

,,tries hard to use 'what they learned from school' to argue against the things they 'know' are right.

Unfortunately,,that can easily lead the writers 'nephesh' into 'perishing from a lack of knowledge' regarding the 'prescriptions' which lead the 'nations astray'.


By developing an attitude which,,shows a,,"Stubborn and selfishly resistant to God" mindset when they succumb to 'cultural pressure' to murder their own children for 'the sake of simple convenience' rather than refrain from showing incontinence regarding curbing the 'lusts' of the flesh in order to not risk having an inconvenient child.

And then,,on top of them thinking it's okay for them,,they even go try to convince others it's okay too and try to 'wholly seduce' others into following that ideaology 'instead' of Gods.

With all due respect to all on this planet,,

Roy L.Harbin

The DANG-DInGIE American

aka,, The Evil White Man


Don't get me wrong,,even if nybrit wrote it,,I think nybrit has a fine mind,,it's just full of the corn husks nybrit was forcefed in school.Like 'The Prodigal',,the good place is still there,,and the welcome mat is out.All that needs to be done is walk in that direction.

Father will see you coming and meet you before you get all the way there.Then there will be a cookout!YeeeeHaaw!!!

(And you even get some new clothes!)

created on: 2/25/08

Excite Boards

The Staks

Main Site

My Blog


The Evil White Man