What Verse is the Most Important Concerning Abortion and Civil Law

[Arthur81]

I believe any Christian abhors abortions as a means of birth control, or to make promiscuity easier, but at what point do we depart from being American and enact a Civil Law that is not supported by all the Christian community? We have no established religion which would include no particular theological doctrinal view placed into Civil law for all men in a jurisdiction. There is one single verse that bears on the question.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." (Exod 21:22 KJV)

Long before 1973, to me that verse stated the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry. The idea of causing a pre-mature birth just did not occur to me or anyone, I knew who mentioned this sort of blow causing a woman to lose a baby. Starting with the LXX translation -

"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life," (Exod 21:22-23 LXXE)

The Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate uses the term "miscarry" as does the Wycliffe, also an English translation of the Latin. The Wycliffe reading "maketh the child dead-born".

Both Editions of the RSV use "miscarriage" as does the NRSV & NRSVue; the NEB and REB. The 1977 Edition of the NASB also uses miscarriage -

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide." NASB77

Those who wish to ban all abortions by Civil Law realized this worked against them, so these evangelicals then re-translated to support their own doctrine and the NASB95 then reads -

"she gives birth prematurely"

Mainly the Lutherans have viewed the verse in this way, but not the bulk of the Reformed churches, but it was never a point by which to accuse the other of sin over this verse. It certainly made it clear that the one extreme view of the verse should NOT then be put into Civil Law.

The Methodist Adam Clarke, as other Methodist leaders, taught the fetus became a person and protected by capital punishment when fully formed, viable.

The Old Puritan John Trapp says on the verse: "There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God."

That was the common view at the founding of the USA. A person begins when God created the soul within the unborn making it a person. That was clearly expressed by Founding Father James Wilson.

It is unamerican to place into Civil Law a particular theological viewpoint, and it is also just as unChristian-like to attempt to force other Christians to your belief by Civil Law. How any so-called Baptist, whose history was one of religious freedom, supports this modern idea of banning all abortions by Civil Law is unfathomable.

The evangelicals clearly translating Ex.21:22 to match their beliefs I reject. The evangelicals clearly translating 1 Cor. 6:9 to represent two types of homosexuals according to their beliefs is equally abhorrent to me. That is why I doubt you would ever find me using or quoting from such as the ESV, NASB, NKJV, and the plethora of other evangelical Bibles on the market.

I was considering possibly voting for Ron DeSantis for President, but then he signed a 6-week ban abortion bill, which is a total ban. Therefore I actually see no one now I will vote for in '24. I am inclined to believe the evangelicals and religious right with their homophobia, and ban on all abortions are going to regret pushing these in future elections, whether in '24, '26 or '28. It is going to backfire.

 

[Arthur81]

I believe any Christian abhors abortions as a means of birth control, or to make promiscuity easier, but at what point do we depart from being American and enact a Civil Law that is not supported by all the Christian community? We have no established religion which would include no particular theological doctrinal view placed into Civil law for all men in a jurisdiction. There is one single verse that bears on the question.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." (Exod 21:22 KJV)

Long before 1973, to me that verse stated the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry. The idea of causing a pre-mature birth just did not occur to me or anyone, I knew who mentioned this sort of blow causing a woman to lose a baby. Starting with the LXX translation -

"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life," (Exod 21:22-23 LXXE)

The Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate uses the term "miscarry" as does the Wycliffe, also an English translation of the Latin. The Wycliffe reading "maketh the child dead-born".

Both Editions of the RSV use "miscarriage" as does the NRSV & NRSVue; the NEB and REB. The 1977 Edition of the NASB also uses miscarriage -

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide." NASB77

Those who wish to ban all abortions by Civil Law realized this worked against them, so these evangelicals then re-translated to support their own doctrine and the NASB95 then reads -

"she gives birth prematurely"

Mainly the Lutherans have viewed the verse in this way, but not the bulk of the Reformed churches, but it was never a point by which to accuse the other of sin over this verse. It certainly made it clear that the one extreme view of the verse should NOT then be put into Civil Law.

The Methodist Adam Clarke, as other Methodist leaders, taught the fetus became a person and protected by capital punishment when fully formed, viable.

The Old Puritan John Trapp says on the verse: "There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God."

That was the common view at the founding of the USA. A person begins when God created the soul within the unborn making it a person. That was clearly expressed by Founding Father James Wilson.

It is unamerican to place into Civil Law a particular theological viewpoint, and it is also just as unChristian-like to attempt to force other Christians to your belief by Civil Law. How any so-called Baptist, whose history was one of religious freedom, supports this modern idea of banning all abortions by Civil Law is unfathomable.

The evangelicals clearly translating Ex.21:22 to match their beliefs I reject. The evangelicals clearly translating 1 Cor. 6:9 to represent two types of homosexuals according to their beliefs is equally abhorrent to me. That is why I doubt you would ever find me using or quoting from such as the ESV, NASB, NKJV, and the plethora of other evangelical Bibles on the market.

I was considering possibly voting for Ron DeSantis for President, but then he signed a 6-week ban abortion bill, which is a total ban. Therefore I actually see no one now I will vote for in '24. I am inclined to believe the evangelicals and religious right with their homophobia, and ban on all abortions are going to regret pushing these in future elections, whether in '24, '26 or '28. It is going to backfire.

DeSantis on anti-abortion bill in last night's debate-

6 highlights from the second Republican presidential debate

Seven Republican candidates faced off for the second presidential primary debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, Wednesday, many of whom criticized former President Donald ...

www.christianpost.com

Perino asked DeSantis, "How are you going to win over independent, pro-choice voters in Arizona?"

DeSantis replied by saying, "the same way we did in Florida," claiming his 2018 election victory was "the greatest Republican victory in a governor's race in the history of the state." He attributed the victory to "leading with purpose and conviction," pushing back on "this idea that pro-lifers are to blame for midterm defeats."

Gov. DeSantis really side-stepped the question. He signs 15-week ban on abortion in 2022, which is a reasonable stand to satisfy common sense people, religious or non-religious. You protect the fully formed unborn with a safety margin, if viability is 24-weeks.

Gov. DeSantis signs a 6-week ban on abortion this year, 2023 and that is a total ban on abortion. That is submitting to the extremists of the religious right. It shot down his Presidential ambitions. I believe Christians such as I dropped support for him after he signed the 6-week ban. In Civil Law you are "pro-life" with a 15-20 week ban.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

DeSantis on anti-abortion bill in last night's debate-

6 highlights from the second Republican presidential debate

Seven Republican candidates faced off for the second presidential primary debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, Wednesday, many of whom criticized former President Donald ...

www.christianpost.com

Perino asked DeSantis, "How are you going to win over independent, pro-choice voters in Arizona?"

DeSantis replied by saying, "the same way we did in Florida," claiming his 2018 election victory was "the greatest Republican victory in a governor's race in the history of the state." He attributed the victory to "leading with purpose and conviction," pushing back on "this idea that pro-lifers are to blame for midterm defeats."

Gov. DeSantis really side-stepped the question. He signs 15-week ban on abortion in 2022, which is a reasonable stand to satisfy common sense people, religious or non-religious. You protect the fully formed unborn with a safety margin, if viability is 24-weeks.

Gov. DeSantis signs a 6-week ban on abortion this year, 2023 and that is a total ban on abortion. That is submitting to the extremists of the religious right. It shot down his Presidential ambitions. I believe Christians such as I dropped support for him after he signed the 6-week ban. In Civil Law you are "pro-life" with a 15-20 week ban.

I started looking elsewhere when he signed any bill at all.......

Jerimiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Who are you aborting.... even with the morning after pill... that our heavenly Father had a specific plan for?

And let us never forget Davids wonderful Psalm 139

13For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.

14I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.

15My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;

16Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

I repeat: Who are you aborting that our heavenly Father had a specific plan for?

 

[Arthur81]

I started looking elsewhere when he signed any bill at all.......

Jerimiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Who are you aborting.... even with the morning after pill... that our heavenly Father had a specific plan for?

And let us never forget Davids wonderful Psalm 139

13For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.

14I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.

15My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;

16Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

I repeat: Who are you aborting that our heavenly Father had a specific plan for?

Jeremiah 1:5 is within a context where Jeremiah needed assurance -

"Now the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations. Then said I, Ah, Lord Jehovah! behold, I know not how to speak; for I am a child. But Jehovah said unto me, Say not, I am a child; for to whomsoever I shall send thee thou shalt go, and whatsoever I shall command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid because of them; for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith Jehovah. Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant." (Jer 1:4-10 ASV)

This has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. It is God giving assurance to Jeremiah that he was in His plan from before the creation, he was foreknown and prepared by God for his mission.

Can anyone point to any verse in scripture where God says something such as: "I had a plan for you and I knew you in the womb, but someone aborted you before I could carry out my plan." That sort of a statement would have a bearing on abortion, Jer. 1:5 does not.

Your quote of Psa. 139:13-16 is the same as Jer 1:5 but maybe in a more poetic form. Let me reverse your question, where you asked "Who are you aborting that our heavenly Father had a specific plan for?"

Can you show me anywhere in scripture that that has taken place. Has God ever said an unborn was aborted that he had a plan for? I don't know of any. Using Jer. 1:5 & Psa. 139:13-16 is merely seeking to prop up an already held total anti-abortion belief, by searching for any scripture that people can 'read into' it what they wish it to say.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Jeremiah 1:5 is within a context where Jeremiah needed assurance -

"Now the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations. Then said I, Ah, Lord Jehovah! behold, I know not how to speak; for I am a child. But Jehovah said unto me, Say not, I am a child; for to whomsoever I shall send thee thou shalt go, and whatsoever I shall command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid because of them; for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith Jehovah. Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant." (Jer 1:4-10 ASV)

This has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. It is God giving assurance to Jeremiah that he was in His plan from before the creation, he was foreknown and prepared by God for his mission.

Can anyone point to any verse in scripture where God says something such as: "I had a plan for you and I knew you in the womb, but someone aborted you before I could carry out my plan." That sort of a statement would have a bearing on abortion, Jer. 1:5 does not.

Your quote of Psa. 139:13-16 is the same as Jer 1:5 but maybe in a more poetic form. Let me reverse your question, where you asked "Who are you aborting that our heavenly Father had a specific plan for?"

Can you show me anywhere in scripture that that has taken place. Has God ever said an unborn was aborted that he had a plan for? I don't know of any. Using Jer. 1:5 & Psa. 139:13-16 is merely seeking to prop up an already held total anti-abortion belief, by searching for any scripture that people can 'read into' it what they wish it to say.

Sorry, I misunderstood your inquiry.

I am just so opposed to the concept that the only thing that comes to mind is if God formed some for a purpose, then any abortion would be in the face of God. Even from day 1

I myself have never heard of any biblical abortions. One was suggested in another thread A Biblical Abortion? from the old testament and seemed to almost involve some kind of sorcery or witcraft..... But not a real abortion have I read.

So sorry again....

Blessings

 

[Arthur81]

Sorry, I misunderstood your inquiry.

I am just so opposed to the concept that the only thing that comes to mind is if God formed some for a purpose, then any abortion would be in the face of God. Even from day 1

I myself have never heard of any biblical abortions. One was suggested in another thread A Biblical Abortion? from the old testament and seemed to almost involve some kind of sorcery or witcraft..... But not a real abortion have I read.

So sorry again....

Blessings

NO NEED to apologize, your reply goes to my point, the different understandings among the people of God. One view, such as held by many Lutherans, is that at conception, both the body and soul come from the parent, traducianism. The other view is creationism, the soul is created and formed in the unborn at some point, at viability seems most held by the Reformed. This is where the disagreement comes in on Ex. 21:22; is it a miscarriage or pre-mature birth?

God people of God have held to both views, and it is not a point to break off fellowship or say the opposing party is sinful in their view. That is perfectly fine; but when you hold the view that a person exists at conception, that is not a unanimous Christian view; so from just a Christian point of view to choose the total ban on abortion and put that into Civil Law forcing ALL to abide by the one theological viewpoint is wrong, unAmerican, contrary to our Constitution.

 

[Papa Smurf]

There is one single verse that bears on the question.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." (Exod 21:22 KJV)

Hello Arthur, I always thought that there was a short passage in Exodus that addressed this, not simply v22?

Exodus 21​

22 If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. ​

23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, ​

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ​

25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.​

Though it remains a difficult passage to interpret, I do find the inclusion of v23-25 to be very helpful.

Thanks!

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf
p.s. - sometimes the Amplified Bible is useful, so here it is (it expresses what I believe the passage is saying to us anyway).

Exodus 21​

22 If men fight with each other and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely [and the baby lives], yet there is no further injury, the one who hurt her must be punished with a fine [paid] to the woman’s husband, as much as the judges decide. ​

23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall require [as a penalty] life for life, ​

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ​

25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.​

 

[Arthur81]

Hello Arthur, I always thought that there was a short passage in Exodus that addressed this, not simply v22?

Exodus 21​

22 If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. ​

23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, ​

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ​

25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.​

Though it remains a difficult passage to interpret, I do find the inclusion of v23-25 to be very helpful.

Thanks!

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf
p.s. - sometimes the Amplified Bible is useful, so here it is (it expresses what I believe the passage is saying to us anyway).

Exodus 21​

22 If men fight with each other and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely [and the baby lives], yet there is no further injury, the one who hurt her must be punished with a fine [paid] to the woman’s husband, as much as the judges decide. ​

23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall require [as a penalty] life for life, ​

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ​

25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.​

Papa, first, I like your Signature.

You are right, you need the entire context with the added verses to decide which view you are going to take on the passage as it concerns when an individual person begins to exist. I was pointing out the change in the translation of v22 especially. To your point, the K & D, being Lutheran explains your point very well, and it reads as follows -

"If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born,

(Note: The words יְלָדֶיהָ וְיָצְאוּ are rendered by the lxx καὶ ἐξέλθη τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆς μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον and the corresponding clause יִהְיֶה אָסֹון וְאִם by ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ᾖ; consequently the translators have understood the words as meaning that the fruit, the premature birth of which was caused by the blow, if not yet developed into a human form, was not to be regarded as in any sense a human being, so that the giver of the blow was only required to pay a pecuniary compensation, - as Philo expresses it, “on account of the injury done to the woman, and because he prevented nature, which forms and shapes a man into the most beautiful being, from bringing him forth alive.” But the arbitrary character of this explanation is apparent at once; for יֶלֶד only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form. In a manner no less arbitrary אָסֹון has been rendered by Onkelos and the Rabbins מֹותָא, death, and the clause is made to refer to the death of the mother alone, in opposition to the penal sentence in Exo 21:23, Exo 21:24, which not only demands life for life, but eye for eye, etc., and therefore presupposes not death alone, but injury done to particular members. The omission of לָהּ, also, apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to injury done to the woman alone.)

a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it בִּפְלִלִים by (by an appeal to) arbitrators. A fine is imposed, because even if no injury had been done to the woman and the fruit of her womb, such a blow might have endangered life. (For יָצָא roF( to go out of the womb, see Gen 25:25-26.) The plural יְלָדֶיהָ is employed for the purpose of speaking indefinitely, because there might possibly be more than one child in the womb. “But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye,...wound for wound:” thus perfect retribution was to be made."

My objection and concern is about taking a particular theological view of the passage, of which Christians have held two main views over the years, and then putting that particular view into Civil Law binding all. If the body of Christ is not even unanimous, why would we feel justified in forcing it upon unbelievers?

I'll admit, I'm in a quandary about the upcoming elections. I had earlier decided to vote for Ron DeSantis when he signed the 15-week abortion bill, but decided I probably will not after he signed the 6-week bill. I believe there is not any hope for the USA now for a much more important basic reason. Putting women into any leadership roles in politics, judgeships and attorneys I'm convinced is contrary to Bible doctrine and a sure sign of the wickedness of a country. Then the more conservative side of politics has females like that one in Colorado and MTG of South Carolina as 'poster-gals' for the right, count me out. Sorry, I know this went off topic.

 

[Papa Smurf]

Papa, first, I like your Signature.

Hello again Arthur, as far as my signature goes, I've found some of the things that Bono says facinating, wondering at times whether or not he was a believer. After reading what he wrote in my signature line (and a bit more of the same from him), I am no longer "wondering" about that

My objection and concern is about taking a particular theological view of the passage, of which Christians have held two main views over the years, and then putting that particular view into Civil Law binding all. If the body of Christ is not even unanimous, why would we feel justified in forcing it upon unbelievers?

I'll admit, I'm in a quandary about the upcoming elections. I had earlier decided to vote for Ron DeSantis when he signed the 15-week abortion bill, but decided I probably will not after he signed the 6-week bill. I believe there is not any hope for the USA now for a much more important basic reason. Putting women into any leadership roles in politics, judgeships and attorneys I'm convinced is contrary to Bible doctrine and a sure sign of the wickedness of a country. Then the more conservative side of politics has females like that one in Colorado and MTG of South Carolina as 'poster-gals' for the right, count me out. Sorry, I know this went off topic.

I have no interest in discussing politics in regard to this topic, especially considering that this is the "Bible Study" forum , though a Biblical and/or theological discussion is of interest to me. If that's ok with you, I'll continue on, but if not, that's ok too (of course), but I will bow out of the discussion and catch you in another thread.

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

 

[Arthur81]

Hello again Arthur, as far as my signature goes, I've found some of the things that Bono says facinating, wondering at times whether or not he was a believer. After reading what he wrote in my signature line (and a bit more of the same from him), I am no longer "wondering" about that


I have no interest in discussing politics in regard to this topic, especially considering that this is the "Bible Study" forum , though a Biblical and/or theological discussion is of interest to me. If that's ok with you, I'll continue on, but if not, that's ok too (of course), but I will bow out of the discussion and catch you in another thread.

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

I understand, Papa. I'll remain silent, maybe for a good while as I deal with another matter.