JOHN LOFTON / PLEASE WATCH..COMMENT…THANK YOU….
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=160300130660738&ref=mf
This is part of the final words of Hans Frank after his conviction in the Nuremberg Trials. It proves Santana’s warning if we don’t avoid the actions in history, we will endure the results.
POST ABORTION DEPRESSION 1 of 7 Carl G. Oehling 8 May 2011
Every woman talks about post partum depression. But
nobody talks about Post Abortion Depression (PAD). There are
many articles by women and even books on the problem. The
women who write relate they are left to solve the issue on their
own. This article is a desire to help each and every woman with
this issue.
I am a father. Obviously I have children so I might have a
little personal experience. Our first birth resulted in my wife
having severe post partum depression. It lasted about five
months. At the second birth she knew we could handle the
problems of marriage and children. This goes along with the
study and logic I have found in order to write this article. We
were paying our mortgage, utilities, and eating enough
nutritious foods. We had a constructive future. The percent
of women in an ethnic group who have PPD are in lower
Post Abortion Depression 2 of 7
socio-economic straits, have little family support, possibly
no spouse, and are already responsible for other children.
There have been some studies on the hormone changes.
But the responses to therapy have not proven successful. They
do not explain PPD of the husbands involved. True, husbands
have lesser and shorter problems, but they can and do have
PPD. They don’t have hormonal changes.
There is another issue called the baby blues. It is shorter
term and seems to be more related to the fact of the increased
work load, interrupted sleep patterns, colicky baby, change in
diet needs and house hold tasks. The organizational ability of
the woman and advice from friends solves most of the blues.
But I think the problem of Post Abortion Depression is
moral problem. My logic is based on my acceptance of the
Christian moral position of a righteous God and sinful humans.
I personally accept the Old and New Testament as the writing
of the same God and of equal authority.
Post Abortion Depression 3 of 7
Everybody in the world lives in a country with a law against
murder, stopping a human life. God included it in His Ten
Commandments. Murder in the Bible includes more than just
stopping a life. We can kill a fly. We can kill a cow and eat the
meat. That is stopping a life. But the death of a human includes
the separation of a body and its soul per biblical information.
Well, what about self defense and capital punishment you
That is a proper question. The Old Testament (OT) records
two instances of a killing. Self defense is illustrated in the
story of an individual entering through a window at night. The
owner of the house is allowed to assume the intruder is entering
with malicious intent. In the defense of the home, if the intruder
dies, the home owner is not to be accused of a murder.
The second is in Ex. 21:22-25 and it is included in the
account of an abused pregnant woman. God seems to give
two principles we should live with in this account. One
Post Abortion Depression 4of 7
principle prescribes equal punishment for comparable crimes, a
‘soul for a soul, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. But
secondly, the separation of the soul of one of the victims must
result in God also receiving the soul of the person who caused a
death. That would reinforce the command of Gen. 9:6 where God
commands the shedding of a man’s blood be followed by the
shedding of the killer’s blood. Other places indicate there must
also be a public court case to prove guilt for such human action.
So now that we indicated an authorized separation of a body
from its soul, killing, there must be an unauthorized instance,
murder. The explanation is more involved and starts at the
creation.
The Bible takes the existence of Jehovah as a given. Then at
creation He gives Adam a “living soul” which makes him special
and different from the other living creatures. An important concept
is the adjective and the noun. The soul is a real thing. God gives a
few rules to the new couple. The critical one being, “rebel and I
Post Abortion Depression 5 of 7
will take back my “living soul” (My paraphrase). They rebelled
and God kept His promise, continuing death to each of us. It is His
promise so God doesn’t allow sinful humans to usurp His deity or
when He decides to carry out His promise. He calls that a murder,
a short word for an ‘unauthorized separation of a body and its
soul’. The soul of each individual was given at the same time as
the sperm joined with the egg according to Psalm 51. It is a new,
special creature, a human being.
Now we are getting into the cause of PAD. Most people
believe there is a god. I didn’t capitalize the word because many
have a vague definition with no specific god in mind. However, the
Bible claims He has a name, Jehovah, and has written a book they
are to read, understand, and follow. That book claims everybody
has inner knowledge of the God mentioned in it.
Reading between the lines of articles written by women with
PAD, a Christian has a perspective of befuddled individuals
Post Abortion Depression 6 of 7
hunting for salvation from God’s justice. They sense they have
murdered their own flesh and blood. They are afraid of the coming
Judgment and the Hell God has promised. It is a lifelong turmoil.
Unfortunately, I know of no Christian Church or its adherents
who are publicly advertising they know the solution for PAD.
They are proving a poignant and common complaint of these
suffering women who are left to suffer alone in silence.
Personally I am available to help. I will explain in as simple
terms as I know of the fall into sin. The picture of the unblemished
lamb which shed its blood to pay for sin was written in the OT.
The final shedding of blood by the unblemished Lamb of God,
Jesus Christ, paid for all sins. The result is a future life with God
after repentance and acceptance of Jesus’ blood as payment for the
sin of murder and subsequent forgiveness. The life time
commitment is the personal part, and sharing with others is
reassurance and joy.
My email is coehling@sbcglobal.net and the website is
Post Abortion Depression 7 of 7
www.michigandersforlife.com, my telephone is 1-269-
468-7110, 6314f, and I can be contacted at 330 E. Center St.,
Coloma MI 49038. I will provide Luther’s Small Catechism. It
contains the doctrinal basics in Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
form focusing on Bible passage answers. Acceptance and belief is
up to the individual’s personal commitment to Jehovah. I can try to
connect individuals to other Christian women. You are not alone.
1164 words
DR. EIDSMOE’S DEFENCE OF EX. 21:22-25
April 15th, 2011
Does Exodus 21 Provide Legal Protection for the Unborn Child?
Today, 13 April 2011, the Health Committee of the Alabama House of Representatives held a hearing on the Alabama Personhood Amendment, a proposed amendment to the Alabama Constitution that would recognize the personhood of the unborn child from the moment of fertilization and at all times thereafter until death.
A rabbi spoke in opposition to the amendment, arguing that the Mosaic Law does not recognize an unborn child as a person. To prove his point he cited Exodus 21:22-25, in which a man who causes a pregnant mother to deliver a child prematurely is liable only for damages, not murder or manslaughter for causing the death of the child.
I respectfully disagree. I make no claim to be a Hebrew scholar, although I did study Hebrew in seminary. But my study of this passage convinces me that the rabbi’s interpretation of this passage is mistaken.
The passage reads,
If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (NKJV).
The passage presupposes that the pregnant woman’s husband is in the right and that the other man is the aggressor. As the men fight, the pregnant wife is struck (possibly she had entered the fray to help her husband, or they rolled in her direction), and “she gives birth prematurely,” or as the King James says, “her fruit depart from her.” Some have interpreted this passage to mean that the woman has a miscarriage, but I’m convinced that is not what the text says or means.
The term that the KJV translates “depart from her” and that the NKJV and other translations render “gives birth prematurely” is yatsah. In every other Old Testament passage in which yatsah is used in connection with childbirth, it refers to a normal and healthy childbirth with the possible exception of Numbers 12:12 which may refer to a stillbirth but not a miscarriage. If the author of the Book of Exodus (whom I believe to have been Moses) had wanted to speak of a miscarriage, there are at least two distinctive words for miscarriage that he could have used: shakol, which he used two chapters later in Exodus 23:26, and nephel, which is found Job 3:16, Psalm 58:8, and Ecclesiastes 6:3. But Moses did not use shakol or nephel in Exodus 21:22. He used the normal word for childbirth, yatsah. I believe Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said exactly what he meant and meant exactly what he said.
Some confusion over this passage resulted from an early version of the New American Standard translation which rendered the passage “miscarriage.” But the 1995 edition of the New American Standard corrects that mistake and renders the passage “so that she gives birth prematurely.” Thus the New American Standard is now in harmony with most other translations. Brown, Driver & Briggs, the most authoritative Hebrew lexicon, lists the passage as “untimely birth.”
The term the KJV translates “fruit” and that other versions render “child” or “children” is yehled. This word is found 89 times in the Old Testament, and in every other passage in which it is used in relation to humans, it is translated as a child, children, a boy, or a young man.
The picture this passage presents, then, is that of a pregnant woman who is struck by an aggressor and who as a result gives birth to a child prematurely. Now let’s look at the result.
If “no lasting harm follows” (the word ahsohn translated harm is a broad term meaning harm in general), meaning there is no injury to the mother or to the child, then “he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” Again, the text presupposes that the other man is the aggressor and at fault. He is to be punished for starting the fight, and he is to pay restitution for any damage he has caused to the husband.
The text continues, “But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” If there is harm – and nothing in the passage limits the harm to injury to the mother only – then the offender is to be punished according to the lex talionis or law of like punishment: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. If the offender causes the death of the unborn child, the crime is to be treated as murder, “life for life.”
Correctly translated and interpreted, the passage cited by the rabbi strongly supports the personhood position by providing legal protection for the life of the unborn child.
Share
2 Responses to “Does Exodus 21 Provide Legal Protection for the Unborn Child?”
Rebecca YeHyung Lee says:
April 14, 2011 at 10:51 am
Dear Professor Eidsmoe
Thank you for pointing out that. I was at the hearing with the Bible with me, but could not think about the points. Blessings, Rebecca
Carl G. Oehling says:
April 15, 2011 at 9:27 am
Dr. Eidsmoe, I read of the examples of men of God like Nathan, Elijah, Jonas, John, etc. who spoke God’s words with the meaning (Neh. 8:8) so the people could understand. They spoke against the sins of the day. John spoke of repentance of the sins of the day and little of the coming payment for those sins. What is wrong with “Go and do thou likewise”?
Property Rights
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010
Many people are aware of the woman from Connecticut who was force to sell her house to the City to a chemical company. The rational was the city would get more tax revenue so the confiscation was moral. Yes it was moral, but not to my standards! Was it to your standards? I thought a mall in Detroit had a good idea. They bought a lady’s house that was in the parking area, but only at her death would it become a parking lot.
Eminent domain can be used for almost anything that will remain as public property. This might be a road, a sewer system, or public building.
Perhaps the bigger problems are zoning, government regulations and debatable definitions. Some words defy a reasonable definition. Just how can flood plane be defined. There has been several court cases in Michigan lately which claim the DNR has been too subjective. Land which has been farmed for years does allow water to seep into the under ground water, and after a heavy rain it may sometimes have standing water in it. Does that make it a flood plane and thus cannot be used for other development?
Deuteronomy 19:14
Recently Coloma schools had a incident with a bus driver that was driving inebriated at a 0.16 level. That is twice the legal limit for DUI and 4 times the amount for the chauffeurs license.
Grand Rapids had a school teacher incident of DUI for the second time in two years. The individual seems to be an excellent educator because the foot ball team went to the State finals again.
My question in both instances is: Does society, the local school board, and each parent want that kind of adult as an example for their children?
The woman I married had the high moral qualities I thought important in rearing children. Parents are the primary peer group for the kids in a family. She was also intelligent because I didn’t want any dumb kids. I’ve been told by many, I got a good wife.
The point I wish to make is the MEA, the local teachers union, and the contract must not inhibit the removal of such individuals from the close peer group of our children. Drug addiction must not be accepted as a constructive life style and accepted as an adult in any minor’s peer group.
I’m a Christian and I try to follow the State’s constitution and its laws. What most people commonly refer to as “abortion” is really murder. “How is that Carl” you ask? “Abortion” is a medical term that refers to ending a pregnancy prior to natural labor, or in more formal terms (from MedTerms dictionary): “Abortion: In medicine, an “abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus”. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why or how that pregnancy was ended. The adjectives in the medical dictionary add that information. The difference is that in an abortion of convenience the intent is to stop an innocent child from living. And that is more legally called “murder”.
I must clarify the meaning of murder from what I consider is God’s definition. Murder is the unauthorized separation of a body from its soul. I read in the Bible a human becomes a sinner at conception. Thus at that time he gets his a soul, which is what distinguishes humans from other organisms. God’s covenant with Adam was if Adam rebelled against God, God would take back the soul. He did 930 years later. That agreement is still in effect with each human being. Authorized separation is the death caused by self defense. It is also a command of God that society send a murderer to Him for His final judgment. Humans, and even animals at times, must not interfere with God’s personal agreement with each individual.
For instance, the abortion during an ectopic pregnancy is covered by the adjective and definition of justifiable abortion. The woman is allowed to take the baby’s life or both die of hemorrhage. A criminal abortion is defined as ‘unjustifiable’ since neither life is in imminent danger.
I’m not against abortion. I’m against murder. I am part owner www.michigandersforlife.com, a website for Michiganders For Life, Inc. We have a bill board in Benton Harbor and are looking for more members so we can man tables at fairs to give info and gain donations to make Michigan a society that is against murder at any age. The “Right to Life” is not limited by skin color, religion, sex, age, etc. in the Constitution. I do not agree we can ignore the murder by focusing on irrelevant ideas of abortion, choice, emotions, convenience, etc. I am of the opinion we should impeach any Justice who doesn’t support the “Right to Life” written in the Constitution he took an oath to obey. Thus I consider any member of the House of Representatives a pro-abort who doesn’t publicly support an impeachment.
Michiganders for Life, Inc is looking for bumper sticker ideas. What do you think of ROE vs. WADE EXPLOITS WOMEN. coehling@sbcglobal.net
Ex. 21:22-25; Deut. 5:17; Gen. 9:5&6;
Tags: abortion, murder, personhood, pre-born baby murder
Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | No Comments »
Hello world!
June 8th, 2010
I was running for the 79th district of the Michigan House of Representatives because our current crop of politicians seem to need a direction in their leadership. There is no need for this because we have a rudder for our ship of state called the Constitution. I intend to bring back the principles embodied in that document.
Editor, 12 Nov. 2010
I wish to thank the people who supported the principles I consider important to a society by their vote on Tuesday, Nov. 2 for 79th district, House of Representatives.
I think if someone assumes he has the right to take a life, society has the right and duty to take his life. Also, that is the justice the God of the Bible declares is proper and expected since He writes: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life”.
Further, if elected I would have promoted adding to the law against murder the definition of a human by its DNA. That would separate it from other organisms. That too is Biblical because Psalm 51 indicates the soul is put into a human at conception, just like the DNA. The Constitution seems to agree since it gives a human the “Right to Life” without consideration for color of skin, ethnic group, quality of life, sex, age, and other things.
On another principle, I think the officials in the Legislature and the Executive Offices are trustees and not owners of any of my tax monies or other property. Therefore, they had no right to give my money to the bankers or businesses. My Mommy taught me that principle when I took my sister’s toys. I have property rights and they did not go through courts and determine right of eminent domain. It is also a principle of the KING of kings who went to a far country and gave each of us stewardship of a part of His Kingdom. What will we report when He returns and demands an accounting?
Another principle is parental rights and duties. Court precedent somewhat indicates a daddy is supposed to care for his children. Almost all home schooled kids have both parents unlike many of the general public. The kids of school drop-outs average at the 86th percentile on state tests where the public school average is a 50 percentile. As adults they are twice as likely to be involved in little league coaching and other social needs. This indicates the positive influence of parents. However, the Bible gives the duty and all the responsibility to the father. This tells me we need a lot more social pressure to educate parents that conceiving a child is only the beginning of 21 years and 9 months of rearing the result. The Government must not usurp the rights and duties of a parent.
Six hundred thirty two people voted for these principles.
Carl G. Oehling <’)=><, 6545 E. Center St. Lot 33B, Coloma MI 49038, 1-269-468-7110
Michigan Capitol Confidential Mackinac Center for Public Policy Like what you’re reading? Consider a donation today.
* Fiscal
* Labor
* Legal
* Transparency
* Education
* Property Rights
* Science
* Environment
* Elections
* Home
* About
* Contact
* Print Edition
Comment Print Mail Share Facebook Twitter More
88 Percent of New 2011 Legislators ‘Political Careerists’
By Jack McHugh | Oct. 21, 2010
One oft-repeated rap against term limits is that the legislature now consists of inexperienced “amateurs.” In fact, from top to bottom, those who preside over Michigan’s government establishment are political careerists. This reality is illustrated by an analysis of candidates running for the 81 open seats in the state Legislature this year: 72 of the likely winners are already members-in-good-standing of the bipartisan political class.
Here are the details: Of the 78 Democrat and Republican candidates who have at least some chance of winning one of the 52 open state House seats this year, 60 are individuals who have been immersed in government to some degree. Among these 60 are 33 current or past officeholders (five mayors, six city council members, nine county commissioners, six township trustees or supervisors, and seven school board members); eight current or past congressional, legislative or Detroit city council staffers; three relatives of current or former legislators; and one termed-out state senator. Eight more are current or past local government appointees or managers, four are current or past public school employees, and three are former state employees.
Twenty-two of these government-oriented House candidates are virtually guaranteed general election winners in “one-party” districts. In 13 of 26 competitive House races both candidates have previous government involvement, and in approximately nine of the rest the government candidate is the front-runner. That adds up to 44 open House seats where it’s likely the next representative will be a government insider even before going to Lansing. (District-by-district matchups here.)
On the other side of the Capitol, at least 28 of the 29 new state Senators will also fit that description (27 of the likely winners are current or past state representatives.)
The defining characteristic of political careerists is an ambition to avoid the hard accountability of a “real job” in the private sector for the rest of their working lives. Instead, they seek to live comfortably, feel important and enjoy social benefits by progressing from one elected or appointed government position to another until retiring sometime in their 50s with a nice taxpayer-funded pension. (Note that 9-to-5 civil service jobs are not a preferred-part of this personal agenda.)
Most are not out to get rich, and simple cash-for-votes bribery is rare. Almost universal, however, is an unstated quid pro quo: “Go along on the budgets, don’t embarrass colleagues with amendments or statements that expose the general system-serving, and you’ll be eligible for future appointments, political jobs, etc.” Winning elections – and collecting enough campaign cash for them – are certainly high priorities, but not the ultimate goal. For example, if a politically-damaging tax hike vote may lead to sinecures like a Liquor Control Commission appointment or community college officer, it’s a good career move.
The politicians who make a boast of past elective or appointive positions argue that experience means they will be more effective lawmakers. Whether this is desirable depends on the record of the public body they were on: Has the county commission, city council, school board or township contained spending, lowered taxes, reformed employee benefits, strengthened property rights, trimmed-back job-killing regulations and phased-out non-core functions? In almost every case the answer will be “no.” If candidates want to boast of past government “service,” voters should include that record in their assessment, and not automatically give credit just for having received more than half the votes in a previous election. As for the handful of former officials who bucked the big-government trend, they’ll gain from disproving a rebuttable presumption of guilt.
Does it matter that political careerists are the people running our state and local governments? Michael Quinn Sullivan, an experienced limited-government political activist, recently gave a speech in which he described the problem: “When they arrive in the Capitol new legislators are informed by caucus leaders that they can serve the system and get innumerable rewards and benefits, or serve the people and get none of these – and either way no one will tell the folks back home.”
But this actually understates the problem, because most new legislators have already been serving the system: that’s how they came to be legislators. Incidentally, term limits didn’t create this situation, they just make it more visible. Also, the “rewards for system-serving” message is actually conveyed by the entire caucus through psychological and social pressure, not Sullivan’s metaphorical conversations with a leader.
In truth, legislators have always tended to “serve the system,” but in the past this meant holding down the tax and regulatory burdens on business, and, starting in the 1930s, tilting the workplace playing field toward industrial unions. With the explosive growth in recent decades of a massive, government-union dominated welfare/regulatory state, the “system-serving” has evolved into catering to a much narrower special interest group, public employees. Those employees and their unions have also made common cause with anti-growth environmentalists and other anti-business forces, because they all benefit by encouraging the urge of statist political class members to add ever-more regulations – and more regulatory staff.
They have other allies too, but government employee union members are the core of this system. Political careerists serve them indirectly by protecting the spending programs they run, and directly with actions like refusing to veto a 3 percent state employee raise that went into effect on Oct. 1, largely gutting pension reform proposals like the ones from Gov. Granholm earlier this year, and working to keep their retirement benefits flowing by loading more debt onto the backs of taxpayers. (Indeed, many have argued these considerations are exactly what drove the 2009 federal “stimulus” bill.)
Keeping this system fed means that taxpayers are now viewed by the political class as sheep to be shorn and, except for politically connected favorites, businesses as potential exploiters to be regulated into docile servility by swarms of unionized bureaucrats. Thus, political careerism is also implicated in the growing sense shared by many that government is now the master and the people its servants.
In addition, it’s likely that the massive expansion of a statewide crony-capitalist corporate welfare regime is also related to political careerism. Hundreds of new state, county and local “economic development” authorities and commissions, each with the power to grant selective tax breaks and subsidies to particular businesses, means hundreds more favor-granting positions for political careerists who have dutifully served the system.
The effects of political careerism now dominate lawmaking. Here’s one relatively minor example: During a lame-duck session in the final weeks of the Engler administration, legislation was passed that granted enhanced pension benefits to a select group of political appointees and staffers. A similar “sweetener” was adopted just days before term limits kicked-in in 1998.
And just a few weeks ago, new bills were introduced to do the same this year. This pattern is just one more consequence of placing governance in the hands of an interconnected network of political careerists: They protect their own interests by taking care of each other, and by serving the system over the people.
JOHN LOFTON / PLEASE WATCH..COMMENT…THANK YOU….
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=160300130660738&ref=mf
The speaker in the video is John Lofton of the Institute on the Constitution. It is part of the confession of Hans Frank after his conviction in Nuremberg. Awesome insight!! I am sorry, but you will have to copy and paste the URL.
I’m adding my photo to the mivote.org web site. If you don’t see me there, you can see me here.
