A question regarding Exodus 21:22-25

[SamCA]

I reckon this is a passage that must be thrown at Pro-Life people by Pro-Choicers on a pretty regular basis, but I’ve never actually seen such a conversation. I was wondering how the Christian Pro-Life movement explains this passage, as it seems like it would be problematic for their side – it seems to imply that the destruction of a fetus is a much less serious offense than murder.

The passage is as follows:

“When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

This seems to imply not only that the destruction of a fetus – against the will of the parents, at that – is a crime worthy only of a monetary fine, but it then goes on to add that hurting the mother is a worse crime than killing a fetus.

I’m sure there’s an explanation for this, and was curious what it is.

 

[johnshelby]

“When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

well, to me it sounds as if this is refering to a situation
where the injury to the child is a bi-product of an assualt on
a woman… the injury to the child was not deliberate…

an abortion is the deliberate killing of a child, by one or both
parents…

(( hard to smile when discussing this stuff ))

:-}

 

[jmv]

I think I recall there being a question posed in the AAA forum that was given a good answer to this. Sorry I don’t have the time to find this for ya.

 

[But_for_Grace]

if there is no harm - the child is uninjured - then a fine is charged

if there is harm - injury or death of the child - then an eye for an eye, etc.

it seems to me that the passage actually advocates death for those who perform abortions.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

I found the “Ask an Apologist” discussion jmv was talking about. Here’s what it says:

If you read the verse carefully, you see that the focus of the passage is not the woman but the child. If a miscarriage follows an injury to a woman but no harm is done to the child (i.e., the child is premature but is otherwise unharmed), the assailant is fined for the assault upon the woman. But if harm to the child is done (i.e., the child is killed), then there shall be “life for life.” The only way that the “life for life” clause makes sense is if the passage refers to justice for the life of the one who is killed – the child. In other words, this law makes special provision for the lives of unborn children because justice for the woman’s life has already been provided for under the general provision of “life for life.”

Rather than teach that the woman’s life is more important than the child’s, this passage teaches that the unborn child’s life is so important that unborn babies must be protected by human and divine law.

Recommended reading:

Abortion

 

[johnshelby]

thanks…