Partial Birth Abortion Then and Now
The term “abortion” is not an invention in the 20th century by pro-choice activists. But the first recorded partial birth abortion in history is found in the Scripture.
The Midrash says, “If you destroy one life, you have destroyed the whole universe”.
Life is a gift from the Creator, which we did not deserve to receive, and like a whisper in the wind, life means nothing without Him.
Life is a Creator-given privilege man cannot expect, demand, or claim. None of us has done anything to deserve it! We did not ask to be born; we did not know we would be born. We did not know what is to be born. And when we were born, we did not even know we were born, for how long, and born for what.
Life is not a right given by one human being to another; neither is life a right granted by a government; if it were, the one who has given it can take it back.
Nor is the murdering of babies in the mothers’ womb a human or civil right. Read more about what “the right to choose” has done in America.
However, there is another America!
In Proclamation on National Sanctity of Human Life Day in 2020, President Donald Trump said,
“My Administration is also building an international coalition to dispel the concept of abortion as a fundamental human right. So far, 24 nations representing more than a billion people have joined this important cause. We oppose any projects that attempt to assert a global right to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, up to the moment of delivery. And we will never tire of defending innocent life — at home or abroad.”
Further in his proclamation President Trump called for concrete steps to be taken to defend the innocent life of the unborn. He said,
“I call on the American people to continue to care for women in unexpected pregnancies and to support adoption and foster care in a more meaningful way, so every child can have a loving home.”
By the wisdom given from above, President Trump called for a fundamental solution to the controversial issue of abortion not only in America, but in the entire world; a solution, that no other president, priest, pastor, or pro-life activist, has ever made, namely, “support adoption and foster care“.
One soul in two bodies
In Gen 2:24, by the leaving of father and mother and becoming one flesh (which applies to both the woman and to the man), the conjugal union between one man and one woman is shown to be a decree of oneness in a marriage as a union of one soul (two soul mates) in two bodies. What does it mean?
And Elohim created the man in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him – male and female He created them. (Gen 1:27)
And Yehovah Elohim formed the man out of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils breath of lives. And the man became a living being. (Gen 2:7)
As we explained in other places, the narrative in Genesis 1 is reiterated in Genesis 2, this time in more details.
In Genesis 1, it is said that “male and female He created them” on the sixth day of Creation, and in Genesis 2 it is said how He created man[kind], namely, by “breathing the breath of lives” so that he became a living being. Therefore, on the sixth day of Creation both the male and female mankind He created, and female mankind was created the same way as the male mankind was: by the breath of lives.
As the female was derived from the male, two bodies of flesh were created. However, her soul was created for the purpose to become a soul mate of the male soul. Hence, they were created to be a unity of mate souls in order to become kindred souls, or one spiritual soul. Hence, we derive the concept of one soul in two bodies.
And indeed, when a man and a woman love each other and are in a proper marital status, they are like one soul before their Creator, which no one can separate. They are in unity.
And they became one flesh
The design of Elohim in the creation of the woman is perceived by Adam, without a revelation from Him, as soon as he awoke, and the woman was brought to him. He said,
This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one is called ‘woman’, because she was taken out of man.
The word אִשָּׁה ishah, rendered as “woman”, is a female mankind that comes from אִישׁ ish, man[kind]. The suffix ה hey turns the masculine form of a noun into feminine. From the context in the creation narrative, where the terms אָדָם Adam and אִישׁ ish are used, it is apparent that they are used interchangeably.
For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)
The words, however, “therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh” create confusion as they cannot be regarded as Adam’s, because he could not have possibly known what “father” and “mother” supposed to mean, and he did not know what was to have a father and a mother.
And as Adam did not know what was to have “father” and “mother”, this statement could not have been made by him but only by a narrator, (1) who was a witness to the event of creation the first mankind, and (2) who did know the terms “father” and “mother”. Moreover, the above statement would make sense only if this narrator had narrated it to a listener that could understand it.
And since Adam being the first man[kind] did not know what “father” and “mother” could mean, and Mosheh was not a witness of those events, this narrator could have only been a non-human being, who narrated it to a listener that could understand it.
As we explained in the article “The Messenger of His Face and how the Torah was given“, the whole Genesis story was a narrative written by Mosheh as a fact but given by a narrator. Such a narrator could have been the one who had not only been a witness to the Creation of the universe (Co 1:15) but also the one who had the authority to re-instate it verbatim as the words of the Creator,
Did you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what the Creator has joined together, man is unable to separate. (Mat 19:4-6)
The concept of one soul in two bodies is understandable; the Creator created the woman from the body of the man to become a separate human being. And although man and woman look very similar—they both have two arms, two legs, one torso, one head, etc. —but as a matter of fact they are also very different.
Women are different from men; their bone and muscle structure are different, even though the first woman was created from the first man.
Yet, the Creator’s decree in Gen 2:24 states that they (man and woman) “shall become one flesh”.
The concept of two bodies in one flesh indeed seems contradictory to the concept of one soul in two bodies. Did He not created one from the other to become two? And now He wants them to become one flesh?
Indeed, both statements above seems contradictory. If the Creator created them once to become two bodies, it is difficult to reconcile His decree, according to which they are to become one flesh again.
How they became one flesh
The answer to our dilemma can be found in the following decree, which immediately followed the creation of the man and the woman. After He blessed the mankind, He said to them,
Be fruitful and increase, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over all moving creatures on the earth. (Gen 1:28)
From the very beginning of the world, the mankind has been decreed to be fruitful and increase, and thus fill the earth. This propagation began with the first human beings—Kayin and Hevel—who knew what was to have a father and mother.
When a man and a woman come into a set-apart matrimony ordained by the Creator to become one kindred soul, they also come together to become one flesh to propagate in order to fulfill the decree to fill the earth.
As a result of this union of two mate souls and two bodies into one, a new living being is created: progeny. Thus, the man and the woman become one flesh in their offspring, the child.
That was the understanding of the Sages stated in Sanhedrin 58a, “The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one.
The medieval Tanak commentator Rashi (Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040 – 1105) also confirmed that the term “one flesh” in Gen 2:24 is to be understood as both parents are united in their child.
The first recorded partial birth abortion
Pharaoh commanded the Hebrew midwives to destroy the male children at their birth and to leave only the girls alive (Exo 1:15).
When you deliver the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death, but if it is a daughter, then she shall live. (Exo 1:16)
Why did Pharaoh separate the newborn males from the females? Was he more merciful towards the Hebrew women? Hardly! As Rabbi Or HaChaim in his commentary on Exo 1:15-16 asked the question, “Was it not enough to instruct them to kill male babies?”
Why did Pharaoh have to instruct the midwives to look at the birthstool? Was it not enough to instruct them to kill male babies? It is true that our sages in Sotah 11 say that Pharaoh gave the midwives a sign which would alert them to the approaching birth of a male baby i.e. if the head of the baby was facing downwards, whereas if the head faced upwards this was an indication that a baby girl was about to be born. I have never understood why the midwives would need to be told such a sign.
And Rabbi Or HaChaim was right to ask the question. After all, the midwives were supposed to be the experts, not Pharaoh. But who told Pharaoh those signs? And who taught him the knowledge of decimating the world population not by wars, which would take efforts and resources, but at the very birth: much “cheaper” way to kill.
With that being said, the expression in Exo 1:16 “see them on the birthstools” seems out of place. How by looking at the birthchair of the woman in labor a midwife would determine the sex of the new born baby.
But when the Hebrew text is properly translated all comes to place. The expression “on the birthstools” in Hebrew is עַל־הָאָבְנַיִם, al ha’av’naim, wherein אֹבֶן oven is commonly rendered as “birthstool” or “birthchair”. But this rendering is not faithful to the Hebrew text. The midwives were not ordered to look on the birthchairs in order to kill the babies, since that would make little sense, but to look on something else. What was it?
Another intriguing thing is that the Hebrew word above אֹבֶן oven, is used only in two places, in Exo 1:16 and Jer 18:3, and only in its plural form אָבְנַיִם, never in singular. JPS renders literally the word in question as “wheels”. We read thus,
Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he was at his work on the wheels. (Jer 18:3 JPS)
But this leads to another issue and is begging us to ask the question as to how a woman in labor could seat on two or more birthchairs (plural), if “birthchairs” were the proper translation. Here comes in help the textual criticism.
The word אֹבֶן oven comes from the word אֶבֶן even, which means a pair of stones (only dual); a potter’s wheel consisting of two horizontal disks with a support between.
In Jer 18:3 we found its literal meaning to denote the revolving table of a potter, i.e., the two round discs between which a potter forms his earthenware vessels by turning. But what is its connection to our verse in Exodus and the killing of the unborn babies?
It appears that the literal meaning of oven, namely, a pair of stones between which the batch of clay was puddled, was transferred (by the author) to the woman’s reproductive organ (vagina) out of which the child twists itself in order to come out of the birth canal, as it were like the batch of clay was about to be formed out of the potter’s discs. (The JPS translators were very diplomatic to the text when they came to render this Hebrew word.)
So, when the midwives were called, they were ordered to look carefully not at the birthchair, but at the woman’s vagina to determine the sex of the child. And they were to look for those particular signs. And now this makes a complete sense when we understand the Hebrew text in its context.
Then, if the child were a boy, they were to destroy him as he was coming out of the womb; if it were a girl, she was to be spared.
The Hebrew midwives feared Elohim and did not obey the evil law of abortion of Egypt. But when Pharaoh learned that the Hebrew babies were safe, he commanded all his people to throw every Hebrew boy into the river, and keep alive every girl (Exo 1:22).
This ugly scene of partial birth abortion of the Hebrew boys is not quite well understood, partially because of the mistranslation, as we explained above, but also because of the misrepresented scenes in the popular Bible films.
The midwives were not ordered to watch passively and if a boy were to come out of the womb, they were to throw him in the river. But they were ordered to actively do abortion at birth (aka partial birth abortion), namely, by killing the baby in the mother’s womb. Once the babies were killed in the womb, then the bodies were to be thrown in the river. This is the first recorded partial birth abortion in history of mankind.
Now, the question is: If Pharaoh wanted to decimate the Israelites, would he not have ordered to kill the baby girls, not the boys, or all of them? After all, is it not the number of women, not men, that matters for the birthrate and propagation of a population?
Pharaoh sought to get killed the baby boys to eliminate any future uprising, because the Israelites had become too numerous and strong for Egypt. But the girls he wanted assimilated into the Egyptian religion and culture, and make them Egyptians. This scene looks pretty much like the devil’s deception at the tree of good and evil. The target was the first woman and since then it has always been the woman.
How the devil destroys the family
We will continue our study to the forgotten book of Enoch the prophet.
The Book of Enoch, translated by R. H. Charles, D.Litt., D.D., London, Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1917, Chapter LXIX, is giving us the answer to the question concerning the knowledge the ancients had in order to perform abortions.
In this chapter (this is also the Third Parable of Enoch), verse 12, the name of the fallen angel and his wicked work to teach humans how to do abortions are disclosed,
And the fifth was named Kâsdejâ: this is he who showed the children of men all the wicked smitings of spirits and demons, and the smitings of the embryo in the womb, that it may pass away, and [the smitings of the soul] the bites of the serpent, and the smitings which befall through the noontide heat, the son of the serpent named Tabââ‘ĕt.
In Enoch, the seventh from Adam through Seth, godliness attained its highest point, while ungodliness culminated in Lamech, the seventh from Adam through Kayin, when the men and women had already known how to kill a baby in the mother’s womb. Who gave them this knowledge but the fallen angels? This is how the devil has been working from the beginning: giving knowledge from the tree of good and evil.
By destroying the flesh through which a man and a woman are decreed to become one, he does not just kill an innocent human being (in which he exceedingly delights), but he also destroys the matrimony between the man and woman. Then, ever wonder why the abortion activists are also pro same-sex marriage?
With this we are coming to our days.
Partial birth abortion now as it was then
The women, not the men, are the primarily target in the crosshair of the entire campaign for pro-abortion indoctrination. The deceiver, as in the Garden of Eden, when he said, “Is it true that Elohim has said …?” has craftily designed his wicked work. He has replaced the murdering of innocent human beings with the vague term “abortion” or “partial birth abortion”.
In his plan, a woman should not even think that she is killing her child. No, this is unacceptable for the deceiver. The vague “abortion” and even the better and easily acceptable deception “partial birth abortion” is what is being sought.
There is no truth in the term “partial birth abortion”. The term “abortion” is only the veneer, the façade, of the real thing the devil does not want a woman to see. Abortion of what? Abortion of takeoff? No!
“Birth abortion”, which is the proper term for the impersonal and non-descriptive “abortion”, is a murder and a murder cannot be “partial”; either there is a murder or not. A person cannot be partially murdered.
Likewise, if some say, “partial refers to birth”, birth cannot be partial either: a new life begins with it. When the labor starts nothing can stop it, only death. Therefore, “partial birth abortion” is a contradiction in terms.
But on the other hand, “abortion” or “partial birth abortion” is way more acceptable and deceptive to sell. Now, with this disguise, the devil can lure the women into his net, as he lured the first woman.
As it was the case of the first woman and man, so is the case today: “Is it true that Elohim has said, ‘You shall not murder’?”
But the devil wants to get to the man too. To get to the man, the devil must first get to the woman. This is why the abortion activists are primarily if not exclusively women, or at least they are more vocal.
Once the woman is deceived that the abortion is her “human right to choose”, and this is her body (the baby in her body is not her body; it is another human being), the rest comes easily into place: the man.
It is easy to deceive a man; a man is more gullible and indifferent to abortion. After all, woman gives birth, woman labors in pain, not man. Why should a man interfere in what is her “right to choose” for her body?
But, how many men and women know what the Creator has ordained from the very beginning of the world, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”, and what it means?
Yes, men are indifferent to abortion, after all, this is her body; and this too is a part of the deception.
But with the exception of one man: President Trump—the last standing man in defense of the unborn.
President Trump’s speech delivered in his State of the Union Address in 2019:
“There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our Nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments from birth.
These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth. To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb. Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life. And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.”
And this is why (but not only) President Trump is under vicious attacks from the liberal left, especially in the remaining days until the Presidential election in 2020: the nastiest Presidential election in the history not only of America, but of the entire world.
In his enemies’ dismay, His righteous deeds are well recorded in heaven and no liberal Democrat is able to take them away from him.
Whether re-elected or ousted, President Trump will remain for sure the most righteous President of the U.S.A., and perhaps the last one. America after him will be nothing but liable to judgment at the coming of Mashiach.
May we merit seeing the coming of our Mashiach speedily in our days.