# Puritanism, Slavery, and Abortion



## carlosstjohn (Aug 31, 2015)

Hey everyone! I have a question for you guys to help me out with today.

I want to start by saying I love the puritans. I hold them in high esteem and reverence as thinkers of the Bible. 

Secondly, I would like to say all of us believe that abortion is sin. Minus the nuances and exceptions that you may hold to, general abortion is murder. I would also say that most of us would say that a real christian cannot believe in abortion. Sure there may be some exceptions but any person now that is born again cannot support abortion. (Feel free to discuss this as this second premise serves as a pillar for my question)

So, how then, as we reformed believers who love and support puritans, knowing that some had the flaws of owning slaves and not standing against the idea of slavery, can we also say that there is no way a true christian can believe in abortion?

In other words, we love the puritans. And we are so quick to explain away, not really justify, but just more explain why we can still read and enjoy the puritans even if they owned slaves. But when it comes to abortion, we are more quick to question someone's true salvation if they believe in abortion? How can these two actions/ideals be consistent with one another?


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 31, 2015)

The first thing that comes to mind is that God has a law against murder but he never stated a law against slavery.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 31, 2015)

[video=youtube;H5H9Ly8g6dk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5H9Ly8g6dk[/video]


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 31, 2015)

carlosstjohn said:


> Secondly, I would like to say all of us believe that abortion is sin. Minus the nuances and exceptions that you may hold to, general abortion is murder.



Abortion is sinful, wicked, and should be abolished. Period! There are no exceptions. General or particular abortion is sin.



> *You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech*, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.



Likewise, God sees the baby in the womb at conception as a person/human!



> Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb. Ps 22
> 
> Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. Ps 22
> 
> ...



Secondly, You'd have to define slavery. I will assume you mean American Slavery?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 31, 2015)

Did a lot of Puritan ministers own slaves? Did any Westminster divines own slaves?


----------



## BGF (Aug 31, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Did a lot of Puritan ministers own slaves? Did any Westminster divines own slaves?



I am curious about this as well. I can't answer the OP because I'm ignorant of the extent of puritan slave holding or approval of it.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Aug 31, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Did a lot of Puritan ministers own slaves?



Jonathan Edwards did (if you count him as a Puritan).


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2015)

As Sarah noted, murder is a cut-and-dried issue, Biblically. Slavery is not. 

A person may give all of the 21st century emotional reactions to slavery he wants--that's easy. What is not as easy is teasing out the different kinds of slavery, what was sinful but permitted in Bible times, and what is entirely permitted by Scripture (indeed, certain forms of slavery were sanctioned under OT judicial law), as well as forms of slavery entirely foreign to the Scriptural narrative.


----------



## carlosstjohn (Aug 31, 2015)

Sarah,

True, in a sense. God made have never stated a law against slavery per se but holding against people against their will, treating them as property? The Bible would not condone that as well.


----------



## carlosstjohn (Aug 31, 2015)

My bad, I should've defined it.

Yes, I am defining slavery for this question as American slavery. The slave trade, the treatment of them, the whole thing.


----------



## carlosstjohn (Aug 31, 2015)

I've read that both Edwards and Whitfield owned slaves. However, not all puritans owned them. And I'm sure that most, if not all, of the ones that did own slaves treated them kindly.


----------



## carlosstjohn (Aug 31, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> As Sarah noted, murder is a cut-and-dried issue, Biblically. Slavery is not.
> 
> A person may give all of the 21st century emotional reactions to slavery he wants--that's easy. What is not as easy is teasing out the different kinds of slavery, what was sinful but permitted in Bible times, and what is entirely permitted by Scripture (indeed, certain forms of slavery were sanctioned under OT judicial law), as well as forms of slavery entirely foreign to the Scriptural narrative.



Can you expand on this thought? 

Are you saying that the way african slaves were kidnapped, uprooted, transported, and forced to live and work in the new world was not necessarily a problem, biblically?


----------



## MW (Aug 31, 2015)

carlosstjohn said:


> So, how then, as we reformed believers who love and support puritans, knowing that some had the flaws of owning slaves and not standing against the idea of slavery, can we also say that there is no way a true christian can believe in abortion?



To move in a slightly different direction, may I ask, What do you think the Puritans believed about abortion?


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2015)

carlosstjohn said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > As Sarah noted, murder is a cut-and-dried issue, Biblically. Slavery is not.
> ...



What I am saying is that there are important distinctions to be made among different types of slavery, and we would have to deal with these different types of slavery separately. Some types of slavery, the Bible condemns out of hand. Other types, OT judicial law sanctioned (like penal slavery).

I didn't say anything about African slaves; but if you want to know, I think there are several different issues that have to be dealt with separately when it comes to African slaves in the New World. Some of these issues are:
1. Manstealing (which was not really a part of the Atlantic slave trade--the slaves were purchased from Africans who probably acquired them as war prisoners)
2. Slave transport (which I understand to have been atrocious and inhumane)
3. Racism (which cannot be justified)
4. Forced labor in the New World (this labor was probably a lot better than the slavery that these folks were subject to in Africa; that doesn't make it right, but it's probably true on the whole)


----------



## carlosstjohn (Aug 31, 2015)

MW said:


> carlosstjohn said:
> 
> 
> > So, how then, as we reformed believers who love and support puritans, knowing that some had the flaws of owning slaves and not standing against the idea of slavery, can we also say that there is no way a true christian can believe in abortion?
> ...




Ha, I mean, I am not informed in what they believed about abortion. But if I were to guess I am sure they would not condone it and consider it murder.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 31, 2015)

carlosstjohn said:


> My bad, I should've defined it.
> 
> Yes, I am defining slavery for this question as American slavery. The slave trade, the treatment of them, the whole thing.



"Puritan" is a bit of a slippery term, too.


----------



## MW (Aug 31, 2015)

carlosstjohn said:


> Ha, I mean, I am not informed in what they believed about abortion. But if I were to guess I am sure they would not condone it and consider it murder.



There has been quite an amount of medical and moral development of the issue since the 17th century. We should not assume they viewed the issue in the same light as we do. Once this issue is understood from their perspective there might be more openness to consider their perspective when considering the issue of slavery. Historical study has to take in more factors than simple ethical norms.


----------



## Wayne (Aug 31, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> carlosstjohn said:
> 
> 
> > My bad, I should've defined it.
> ...



For one, it seems very important to distinguish between the English Puritans and the American Puritans.

I dare say none of the English Puritans owned slaves.


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 31, 2015)

I'm not trying to be snarky but was it worse to be taken a slave during American times than any other times? . I've only seen the Bible encourage people to become free if it's possible but in the meantime serve their masters as though they were serving God. I've never seen a Scripture which tells masters to free their slaves bc God's law didn't allow it. Even Paul when he sent a slave back to his master told the master to treat the slave as though the slave were Paul....i.e treat him with brotherly love....he didn't tell the master to free the slave. Do we really believe that if the puritans had slaves they didn't treat them as God commanded them to.....to love them as they love themselves and to care for them since they were in their responsibility? They probably treated their slaves better than we treat each other today.

I think the point is is that God's law is steadfast in all ages. His law against murder is set and never changes. He never had a law against slavery but does have a law that we follow the laws of the land. The puritans lived during a time when slavery wasn't against the law of the land and of course it wasn't against God's law. How some ppl treated the slaves was against God's law but I'm quite sure the puritans didn't practice harshness against their slaves which would have broken God's law. In light of this type of thinking, why are we comparing their owning slaves to abortion? You can't compare the two.

To be fair in all things, God in the OT told his ppl to set free the slave after 7 years and in the NT told the slave to try to gain their freedom if they could but to serve their masters as though they served God in the meantime. I believe God wishes all mankind to be free from slavery, but he had no law against slavery.


----------



## carlosstjohn (Aug 31, 2015)

OPC'n said:


> I'm not trying to be snarky but was it worse to be taken a slave during American times than any other times? . I've only seen the Bible encourage people to become free if it's possible but in the meantime serve their masters as though they were serving God. I've never seen a Scripture which tells masters to free their slaves bc God's law didn't allow it. Even Paul when he sent a slave back to his master told the master to treat the slave as though the slave were Paul....i.e treat him with brotherly love....he didn't tell the master to free the slave. Do we really believe that if the puritans had slaves they didn't treat them as God commanded them to.....to love them as they love themselves and to care for them since they were in their responsibility? They probably treated their slaves better than we treat each other today.
> 
> I think the point is is that God's law is steadfast in all ages. His law against murder is set and never changes. He never had a law against slavery but does have a law that we follow the laws of the land. The puritans lived during a time when slavery wasn't against the law of the land and of course it wasn't against God's law. How some ppl treated the slaves was against God's law but I'm quite sure the puritans didn't practice harshness against their slaves which would have broken God's law. In light of this type of thinking, why are we comparing their owning slaves to abortion? You can't compare the two.




The slavery of the day was based on racism. That is why it is against God's law. Sure, if the slavery that the Puritans partook in was just indentured servanthood neutral towards race, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the colonial slavery that took place was based out of kidnapping and racism. Even if they treated them kindly.


----------



## MW (Sep 1, 2015)

carlosstjohn said:


> But the colonial slavery that took place was based out of kidnapping and racism.



I have to ask, Did any "Puritan" hold slaves on this basis? I find it hard to believe, especially in light of the fact that the "Puritans" objected to the slavery entailed by "absolute monarchy," and this absolute monarchy had been argued on the basis that the English were slaves to their Norman conquerors.


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 1, 2015)

carlosstjohn said:


> The slavery of the day was based on racism. That is why it is against God's law. Sure, if the slavery that the Puritans partook in was just indentured servanthood neutral towards race, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the colonial slavery that took place was based out of kidnapping and racism. Even if they treated them kindly.


I suppose it is safe to say that the slavery of any period in history was based on racism. Whether Egyptians toward Hebrews, Babylonians toward Judah/Israel, or later, the African slave trade. The Africans who sold their brother Africans as slaves to Europeans to bring to the Colonies probably felt superior to their captives. 

Just curious, do you have any specific examples of Puritans, well known perhaps, who owned slaves ?


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 1, 2015)

carlosstjohn said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not trying to be snarky but was it worse to be taken a slave during American times than any other times? . I've only seen the Bible encourage people to become free if it's possible but in the meantime serve their masters as though they were serving God. I've never seen a Scripture which tells masters to free their slaves bc God's law didn't allow it. Even Paul when he sent a slave back to his master told the master to treat the slave as though the slave were Paul....i.e treat him with brotherly love....he didn't tell the master to free the slave. Do we really believe that if the puritans had slaves they didn't treat them as God commanded them to.....to love them as they love themselves and to care for them since they were in their responsibility? They probably treated their slaves better than we treat each other today.
> ...


----------



## Reformed Roman (Sep 1, 2015)

While it surely was not as bad as American slavery I still think some had slaves... And I don't condone it. I think it's a reminder to us all that Puritans were sinners too. While they had a high view of God and biblical doctrine, that was not always lived out in the best of ways. I think we should regard them as sinners who loved the LORD, but sinners nonetheless. I don't think they should be brought as high as some bring them, but I also value and highly treasure their works and I believe in general they lived godly lives. But the truth is we can't just say every Puritan was the same. Some would burn enemies at the stake... Just like we can't generalize Presbyterians or Baptists... As even us reformed in faith are rare, and many in our denominations make all of us look poorly by association.


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 1, 2015)

No one is trying to put them higher in righteousness than they deserve. We know they were sinners. But no one has proven they broke God's in having slaves, yet this thread is comparing their actions to that of committing murder. It's wrong.


----------



## johnny (Sep 1, 2015)

Freedom is over-rated in our society and culture.
It is used as a by word to justify mans insatiable lust and sinful desires. 
This stands against the word of God which teaches slavery is of the heart.

Also,..

Slaves in ancient times often lived very well, rising to high positions within the Masters estate.
In fact some slaves looked down on ordinary citizens, they had money, power and influence.
There is ample evidence of this in Pompeii, (a snapshot in time) just watch any documentary on it.
And are we not all slaves in some ways, to our Mortgage, our Taxes, our Job.

"Sorry for Pontificating, I dont generally do that on here"


----------



## earl40 (Sep 1, 2015)

MW said:


> carlosstjohn said:
> 
> 
> > But the colonial slavery that took place was based out of kidnapping and racism.
> ...





That is indeed a charitable assumtion. Not to say it is correct but it may not be because we all are capable of aborting our babies and having slaves in spite of our belief in Jesus.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Sep 1, 2015)

OPC'n said:


> No one is trying to put them higher in righteousness than they deserve. We know they were sinners. But no one has proven they broke God's in having slaves, yet this thread is comparing their actions to that of committing murder. It's wrong.



I did not mean in this conversation.

I I was just saying at times I think they are viewed by reformed Christians as higher than any other men since their time. And many under value some of the theologians alive today. I just think it's a great reminder that Puritans were mere men and these reformers, while highly intelligent and theological, had struggles just like us


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 1, 2015)

Returning to the OP to get some focus on the original question.

If the Puritans were abortionists then would we still appreciate their theology?

The question seems like an oxymoron to me given the Westminster standards but, assuming the Puritans had such a theological blindspot on that issue, it would certainly call into questin their overall character.

That said, the theology of the Puritans is that of the Scriptures so it's not as if their theology would have emerged as a consequence of their moral character. The theology is a result of exegesis and careful theological work to include interacting with the history of theology. Thus fallible men could articulate what the theology of the Scriptures is and their articulation would be accurate insofar as they articulated the theology of Scripture.

The question might well be noted that there are probably murderers of every theological stripe and we could ask: "Well, how could I believe that because Josef Stalin believed that and Josef Stalin was a murderer."

For example:

1. Hitler was evil.
2. Hitler thought smoking cigarettes was bad.
3. I don't want to be like Hitler.
Therfore, smoking cigarettes is good.

Of course the Puritans were not abortionists. Perhaps in the history of Puritanism there are those that might have owned slaves and been man-stealers. These are then sinful men who hold to a Biblical theology. The theology doesn't emerge from their character but from the Scriptures.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 1, 2015)

*Abortion in Colonial America*



Semper Fidelis said:


> Of course the Puritans were not abortionists.



I came across a very disturbing website that claims that early New England residents (wouldn't that mean Puritans?) did in fact perform abortions. I hope the website is wrong, but here it is...

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

Here's another similar website about abortion in the early days of our country...

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html


----------



## earl40 (Sep 1, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> These are then sinful men who hold to a Biblical theology. The theology doesn't emerge from their character but from the Scriptures.



Would it not be better to say? "These are then sinful men who hold to a Biblical theology. The theology does emerge from their lack of character which arose from a wrong understanding of scripture concerning American slavery and its man-stealing."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 1, 2015)

Ed Walsh said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the Puritans were not abortionists.
> ...



What can one say to such an unbiased and scholarly source. I imagine they have great knowledge of the Puritans.


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 1, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Ed Walsh said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



Thank you, you said it better than I was trying to do. I'll have to apply this also to the whole idea of them stealing men, women, and children to enslave bc they hated black ppl


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 1, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> What can one say to such an unbiased and scholarly source. I imagine they have great knowledge of the Puritans.



I thought everything on the Internet was true???


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 1, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > These are then sinful men who hold to a Biblical theology. The theology doesn't emerge from their character but from the Scriptures.
> ...



I guess I'm thinking of the "base" theological system (Westminster Standards for example). One needs to deal with the Standards on an exegetical and theological basis. It stands or falls in relation to its fidelity to the Word. Since the 8th Commandment speaks to the issue of theft then one would need to demonstrate that there were Puritans who believed a form of slavery that amounted to man-stealing was not only permissible but also that there was some theological mistakes that permeated the system as a whole. The fact that men in history claimed to subscribe to a Confession does not make the Confession itself un-Scriptural based on the sins of specific men.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 1, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Ed Walsh said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



One other thing--they prove too much against their position.

For the purpose of argument, let's say what the website says is true: abortions were not uncommon or illegal "pre-quickening." This would mean that the understanding of the time was there was no life before the first kick.

If that is the only basis for it being tolerated, then additional information undermines the abortion argument because we now know that there is life before quickening, i.e. at conception.

So, again, granting what the website asserts, the Puritans were anti-abortion, it's just that they had the time of life wrong.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 1, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Ed Walsh said:
> ...



True though I would only grant the premise for the sake of argument because I doubt the Puritans had such a belief about the baby only being alive when it kicked. Back then, as now, children were miscarried and they saw what was produced even at a very early gestational age and sometimes the child would be moving when a miscarriage occurred.


----------



## Edward (Sep 1, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> man-stealers



That's a term that appears quite frequently on these slavery threads. What is the history of that terminology?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 1, 2015)

Edward said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > man-stealers
> ...



Q. 142 of the WLC uses "Man-Stealing" as a violation of the 8th Commandment


----------



## MW (Sep 1, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> So, again, granting what the website asserts, the Puritans were anti-abortion, it's just that they had the time of life wrong.



Good point, Vic. It was just the time in which they lived. Later generations are foolish in judging earlier generations on the basis of "facts" which were not evident.

Another point is that the legal code can only do so much, and it only acts on things that are known. The only way "criminal abortion" could be proved was by establishing criteria to prove deliberate action had been taken to abort the child.

Besides, morality and legality are not co-extensive. The fact the legal code was limited to what could be proven does not entail the morality of the people was proportionately restricted. The law is not made for a righteous man.


----------



## Edward (Sep 1, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Q. 142 of the WLC uses "Man-Stealing" as a violation of the 8th Commandment



Thanks. I notice that the NET Bible translates it 'kidnappers' while ESV goes with 'enslavers' for the word. So I'm still not quite sure what is covered by the term.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 1, 2015)

Edward said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Q. 142 of the WLC uses "Man-Stealing" as a violation of the 8th Commandment
> ...



1 Tim 1:9-10 seems to bring up a lot of Exodus 21:14-16 by way of shorthand. Exodus 21:16 talks of stealing and selling a man, e.g. slave traders.

The Greek word in 1 Tim:10, ανδραποδισταις, seems to imply bringing a man under foot. Thayer gives slave trader as one of the meanings, the other meaning is one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery.


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 2, 2015)

Since we have in the 10 Commandments that it was against God's law to steal a man, and yet he gave directions to his ppl how long they could own a slave, these two things have to be separate issues since God doesn't conflict with himself.


----------



## SeanAnderson (Sep 2, 2015)

I find it hard to believe that the godly would subscribe to a popular idea of 'quickening'.

Even John Calvin as early as the 16th century, in his commentary on Exodus 21:22-25, said the following:



> The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being (homo), and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 3, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...




I thought man-stealing could be stealing another man's slave.


----------



## hammondjones (Sep 3, 2015)

SeanAnderson said:


> I find it hard to believe that the godly would subscribe to a popular idea of 'quickening'.
> 
> Even John Calvin as early as the 16th century, in his commentary on Exodus 21:22-25, said the following:
> 
> ...



As early as the Didache



> Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; *you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn.* Do not covet the things of your neighbor.
> 
> or, another translation:
> *thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide*


----------



## Philip (Sep 3, 2015)

It's also entirely possible for a christian or even a whole section of Christendom to be blind to evils, particularly ones that have to do with money and property. 17th century Boston was complicit in the development of the "triangular trade" which resulted in millions being forcibly deported across the Atlantic, not only from Africa but from Ireland as well. The wealth of old Boston was as much built on slavery as that of Virginia or the Carolinas, and it toook the church years to realize its oversight. Yet we should also remember that it was from the soil of New England Puritanism that the Great Awakening and the Modern Missionary movement were launched, both of which quickly became identified with abolitionism.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Sep 3, 2015)

Philip said:


> particularly ones that have to do with money and property. 17th century Boston



I'd like to point out that specifically the Massachusetts Bay Colony was greatly affected by John Cotton and his "Abstract of the Laws of New England". Greg Bahnsen points out the following:



> It is quite likely that Cotton was assisted in this work by Sir Henry Vane, the Massachusetts governor in 1636 whom Milton highly commended for properly seeing the bounds of civil and religious power. Vane was a great friend of Cotton’s and shared the same political and religious principles with him
> 
> (Bahnsen, Greg. "Introduction to John Cotton’s Abstract of the Laws of New England". _Journal of Christian Reconstruction_, Vol. 2. Winter 1975-76. Web.)



In the abstracts we see that Cotton wanted to follow property laws according to God's Law as seen in the case laws. John Cotton even gets specific about property in Chapters 4 and 6 of the Abstract Laws.


----------



## JoannaV (Sep 4, 2015)

There was more of a grey area in the past in regards to abortion as far as knowledge and intent goes. "Promoting the Menses" would sometimes be a euphemism for ending a pregnancy and other times purely what it says. Women can have irregular menses for all kinds of reasons, some of which can be helped by herbs. Nowadays one is able to first do a home pregnancy test to confirm that one is definitely not pregnant before dabbling in herbs which may not be indicated for pregnancy.
Eric has made me think, too: there is a certain timeframe in which a miscarriage might result in some kind of tissue expulsion but not necessarily anything recognisable. Therefore it is possible that in some communities of women (pre-internet remember! smaller knowledge base!) such events were considered totally unconnected to pregnancy and therefore actions which resulted in tissue expulsion would not have been considered abortive.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 4, 2015)

JoannaV said:


> There was more of a grey area in the past in regards to abortion as far as knowledge and intent goes. "Promoting the Menses" would sometimes be a euphemism for ending a pregnancy and other times purely what it says. Women can have irregular menses for all kinds of reasons, some of which can be helped by herbs. Nowadays one is able to first do a home pregnancy test to confirm that one is definitely not pregnant before dabbling in herbs which may not be indicated for pregnancy.
> Eric has made me think, too: there is a certain timeframe in which a miscarriage might result in some kind of tissue expulsion but not necessarily anything recognisable. Therefore it is possible that in some communities of women (pre-internet remember! smaller knowledge base!) such events were considered totally unconnected to pregnancy and therefore actions which resulted in tissue expulsion would not have been considered abortive.



You bring up an excellent point in that the puritans, and all other people, had the opportunity to see was was produced in a miscarriage and it they saw it could contain a baby and they knew it was a baby way before any quickening. They also slaughtered animals and they knew if they had one that was pregnant when they dressed the carcass. They also knew that these fetuses were alive at a very early gestational age because I know they saw them move. Yes the mother did not feel it move when in the womb (quickening) but I am persuaded that our ancestors were a lot more intelligent on abortion that many of us think.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 7, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



Man stealing was the grossest breach of the Eighth Commandment and could be punished by death. whereas lesser forms of theft could not.


----------



## SRoper (Sep 7, 2015)

earl40 said:


> True though I would only grant the premise for the sake of argument because I doubt the Puritans had such a belief about the baby only being alive when it kicked. Back then, as now, children were miscarried and they saw what was produced even at a very early gestational age and sometimes the child would be moving when a miscarriage occurred.



But some did believe life began at quickening. There's a quote by Matthew Henry that shows he did. John Flavel in _Mystery of Providence_ writes:


> Before you saw this world, [Providence] preserved you, as well as formed you in the womb, else you had been as those embryos Job speaks of 'which never saw the light' (3. 16). Abortives go for nothing in the world, and there are multitudes of them. Some never had a reasonable soul breathed into them, but only the rudiments and rough draft of a body; these come not into the account of men, but perish as the beast does. Others die in, or shortly after they come out of the womb, and though their life was but a moment, yet that moment entails an eternity upon them.



Not that that excuses us from making the same mistake today.


----------

