Historical view on abortion by conservatives -- amazing

[Crabtownboy]

"In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception & abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth: “God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.” The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well."

https://www.facebook.com/cheri.citizen.harmony

 

[Revmitchell]

In 1971 the convention was run by liberals. No surprise that liberals like yourself support abortion.

 

[Crabtownboy]

In 1971 the convention was run by liberals. No surprise that liberals like yourself support abortion.

Again, for what is it, the fifth or sixth time you are in error today Rev. I am against abortion and have said so. Please do not fabricate facts ... that are not true even if you want them to be. The conservative takeover began in 1960. So the SBC was not nearly as liberal in 1970 as you would have us believe.

You cherry pick the OP and give an opinion with no backup support ... not very ethical. It was not just the SBC, but some very conservative organizations and seminaries that said the same. Be honest Rev.

 

[quantumfaith]

In 1971 the convention was run by liberals. No surprise that liberals like yourself support abortion.

Why don't you just quit tossing pejoratives solely for the purpose of being inflammatory. Or does it make you feel better about yourself?

 

[quantumfaith]

In 1971 the convention was run by liberals. No surprise that liberals like yourself support abortion.

Why do you feel the need to toss pejorative bombs at others so often? If you have a point of disagreement, then disagree. Would be nice for you to do so in a different tone.

 

[Revmitchell]

. The conservative takeover began in 1960. So the SBC was not nearly as liberal in 1970 as you would have us believe.

I suggest you read "A hill on which to die" by Judge Pressler. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I suggest you read "A hill on which to die" by Judge Pressler. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I have read Pressler ... and of course I recognize his bias. I have talked to people who know and have talked with him. I have read other books on this topic as well as magazine articles. So I know very well what I am talking about. Again you show ignorance in your history of the topic.

 

[Revmitchell]

The battle did not get going until the mid 70's. It was not complete until 80 or 81. The convention did not have its first conservative President until 78. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

It sounds as if there is a logical error somewhere in there........

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]. Exodus 21:22

Does anyone else see it?




A.F.

 

[Scarlett O.]

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

It sounds as if there is a logical error somewhere in there........

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]. Exodus 21:22

Does anyone else see it?




A.F.

Yup! The verses are clear that if two men are fighting si that they harm are pregnant woman to the extent that she gives birth, but no one dies, then a fine is to be paid.

But if "mischief" follows - or someone (either the mother or baby) die, then that's a different story altogether.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

That is an interesting take on it Scarlett O.

In the passage the injury to the woman and to the unborn child appears to be an unintended consequence of a fight. Yet, the one who committed the act was still to be punished.

Now if we compare verses 12 and 13:

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

An intentional murder is punished by death.

And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver [him] into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

Sometimes we can kill either by accident or in self defense without being guilty. It depends on the circumstances.

To kill intentionally and without just cause is always a crime. An unintended killing can sometimes be excused though.

Certainly the cited passage (Exodus 21:22–24) doesn't excuse the intentional taking of the life of the unborn child (elective abortion) at all.

A.F.

 

[SolaSaint]

I'll have to side with Rev on the conservative take over being in the 70s and not the 60s, therefore I would have to agree that liberals were at the helm during this horrible decision. I would also wonder if these men could have looked into the future and saw over 50 million lives snuffed out due to Roe vs Wade, would they have voted differently?

 

[quantumfaith]

I'll have to side with Rev on the conservative take over being in the 70s and not the 60s, therefore I would have to agree that liberals were at the helm during this horrible decision. I would also wonder if these men could have looked into the future and saw over 50 million lives snuffed out due to Roe vs Wade, would they have voted differently?

Can't comment on "history of liberalism' among baptists, just don't have that knowledge. But I don't think the position of those spoken of would have mattered a great deal in the whole Row v. Wade thing. I think it (R v W) was and is a much broader and deeper cultural shift away from moral foundations. Might a different position have provided a little more resitance....perhaps but probably not for long. Consider all the deep changes to tradition and standards today.

 

[Aaron]

Again, for what is it, the fifth or sixth time you are in error today Rev. I am against abortion and have said so.

You're a liar.

 

[Bob Alkire]

"In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception & abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

If I recall correctly I had a professor or two that taught Jewish rabbis taught life began at birth, so abortion wouldn't be killing a baby. I know Bob Thieme believe that teaching and Bruce Waltke must have, but they are the only two DTS people that I've talked to who held that belief, not saying they are the only ones. But back in the 60's met many Southern Baptist who would have agreed with them, but back them I would say the Southern Baptist were much further to the left than today. Many SB church back then didn't use their SS lessons, but got them elsewhere.