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.
"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.