Abortion- murder according to Bible, or no?

[oneseeker2]

I was doing some reading on both sides of the issue. There was a Jewish woman who was talking about how according to Jewish law, abortion is not murder b/c in the Bible there is a verse that talks about “if a man injures a pregnant woman and causes the death of the fetus, he should pay a fine, but if he causes the death of the woman, he should die.”

Exodus 21:22-23:
When two men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm (ason) befall (her), then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm (ason) befall (her), then shall you give life for life"

According to her, the Septuagint was altered to make the opposite argument, that if the fetus dies, the man should die also. " And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] 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" (LXX).

She also said that Jewish law doesn’t treat a child as fully human until birth b/c they don’t have their own personality, morality, ability to think and reason, etc,.

How would I answer this to my pro-choice Jewish friends? The information came from a site about Jewish biblical studies.

oneseeker2

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I was doing some reading on both sides of the issue. There was a Jewish woman who was talking about how according to Jewish law, abortion is not murder b/c in the Bible there is a verse that talks about “if a man injures a pregnant woman and causes the death of the fetus, he should pay a fine, but if he causes the death of the woman, he should die.”

Exodus 21:22-23:
When two men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm (ason) befall (her), then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm (ason) befall (her), then shall you give life for life"

According to her, the Septuagint was altered to make the opposite argument, that if the fetus dies, the man should die also. " And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] 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" (LXX).

She also said that Jewish law doesn’t treat a child as fully human until birth b/c they don’t have their own personality, morality, ability to think and reason, etc,.

How would I answer this to my pro-choice Jewish friends? The information came from a site about Jewish biblical studies.

oneseeker2

Point out the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Septuagint.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Jews were historically opposed to abortion even if fetal life was not regarded as highly as life after birth. There seems to be some slight rabbinical acceptance of abortion in cases where the mother’s life was in danger. It is an unfortunate fact that most modern Jews have abandoned their faith and are now secular. Their views on ethical issues often reflect this sad reality.

 

[Kaninchen]

There seems to be some slight rabbinical acceptance of abortion in cases where the mother’s life was in danger…

It’s not slight, the mother’s life takes precedence.

 

[fhansen]

I was doing some reading on both sides of the issue. There was a Jewish woman who was talking about how according to Jewish law, abortion is not murder b/c in the Bible there is a verse that talks about “if a man injures a pregnant woman and causes the death of the fetus, he should pay a fine, but if he causes the death of the woman, he should die.”

Exodus 21:22-23:
When two men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm (ason) befall (her), then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm (ason) befall (her), then shall you give life for life"

According to her, the Septuagint was altered to make the opposite argument, that if the fetus dies, the man should die also. " And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] 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" (LXX).

She also said that Jewish law doesn’t treat a child as fully human until birth b/c they don’t have their own personality, morality, ability to think and reason, etc,.

How would I answer this to my pro-choice Jewish friends? The information came from a site about Jewish biblical studies.

oneseeker2

It’s a dumb argument. Does a child have their own personality, morality, ability to think and reason one minute postpartum? Should we award them full legal rights as a human then but deny those same rights and be free to abort one minute prepartum?

 

[St_Francis]

I was doing some reading on both sides of the issue. There was a Jewish woman who was talking about how according to Jewish law, abortion is not murder b/c in the Bible there is a verse that talks about “if a man injures a pregnant woman and causes the death of the fetus, he should pay a fine, but if he causes the death of the woman, he should die.”

Exodus 21:22-23:
When two men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm (ason) befall (her), then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm (ason) befall (her), then shall you give life for life"

According to her, the Septuagint was altered to make the opposite argument, that if the fetus dies, the man should die also. " And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] 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" (LXX).

She also said that Jewish law doesn’t treat a child as fully human until birth b/c they don’t have their own personality, morality, ability to think and reason, etc,.
r
How would I answer this to my pro-choice Jewish friends? The information came from a site about Jewish biblical studies.

oneseeker2

These rules and those from St Thomas Aquinas were all related to legal issues related to causing a miscarriage in the course of harming the mother. Remember that in those days, there were no pregnancy tests and the like; a woman might stop having periods for reasons other than pregnancy. Thus, in the case of St Thomas saying that quickening, or the woman’s being able to feel the baby move, makes a difference, it does, because that’s when a woman would know she was pregnant rather than something else.

 

[manualman]

Faith and science are not separate topics, they are inter-related. Christianity and Judaism have both traditionally considered abortion immoral, but they did not always have the scientific framework necessary to precisely describe what that evil was. Revelation often works that way: principles and teachings are revealed, but the comprehension comes later.

Ancient Jews had no idea that the Mosaic purity laws protected them from disease and many health issues. It wasn’t until thousands of years later that humanity discovered bacteria and viruses that Jewish purity rituals often worked towards preventing the transmission of.

On abortion, early man thought that the man “planted a seed” in the fertile soil of the woman’s womb and that that seed at some point changed into a child. They lacked the scientific framework to comprehend the point at which the basic essence of the organism changed from being part of the father (seed, or semen) to being a separate person. They understood that abortion was wrong, but without the scientific comprehension of sperm and egg and recombinant DNA, they were unable to discern when the new person began to be.

I have little doubt that if you kidnapped St. Augustine or Elijah from time and explained the sperm/ova and DNA realities to them they would take all of an extra half a second to come to the conclusion that an unborn child is as much a person as a newborn child.

 

[_Abyssinia]

There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.

This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way (the word “further” in the NASB is not in the original):

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life…”

The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.8] Millard Erickson notes that "there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies."9]

Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:

"There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages…"10]

Two Rejoinders

Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?

Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can’t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.

Anyway, even if the fine was for the miscarriage, this wouldn’t prove the child was less than human. A few verses later (v. 32), Moses imposes a fine for the death of a slave, but this doesn’t mean the slave is sub-human.

Second, was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if that’s what the writer had in mind: nepel and sakal. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.

The noun nepel11] means “miscarriage” or “abortion,” and is used three times:

Job 3:16 “Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light.”

Eccl. 6:3-4 “If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, ‘Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.’”

Psalms 58:8 “Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.”

The verb sakal12] means “to be bereaved” and is used four times, including one time when it’s actually translated “abort:”

Genesis 31:38 “These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks.”

Exodus 23:26 “There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.”

Hosea 9:14 “Give them, O Lord-- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.”

Job 21:10 “His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not abort.”

Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didn’t use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.

Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of yeled with yasa suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated “miscarriage.” Why? Because the word doesn’t mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.

str.org/articles/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion

 

[_Abyssinia]

The following analysis of Exodus 21:22-25 comes from “Biblical Perspectives on Abortion” by Pastor Jack Hughes, Pastor/Teacher at Calvary Bible Church in Burbank, CA.

Exodus 21:22-25 is a special text to consider. This text is a pivotal text in the abortion debate. It has two primary interpretations. The text is cited below, then the two views are stated and pro’s and con’s are listed.

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

1. Miscarriage interpretation says that Exodus 21:22-25 allows for abortion. Some see this passage as teaching that an unborn baby is only potentially a human. The text is interpreted to mean that if a woman is struck in a conflict between two men and she has a miscarriage and the baby dies, though the woman is uninjured, the man who struck the woman shall pay a fine as the judges decide. But, if the woman is injured the law of lex talionis i.e., eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life will be enforced. It is argued that since the penalty for ending the life of a fetus is less than ending the life of a mother, the fetus must not be human. Therefore, abortion does not constitute the termination of a human life and is permissible. The problems of this interpretation are many:

• The usual term for miscarriage is not used in this text but the normal term for live child birth.

• The text makes no distinction between the harm done either to the mother or the child, it merely addresses cases of injury or no injury with no subject stated. If only the mother was in view, the Hebrew would use the feminine pronouns “she” or “her.”

• Even if one assumes the above interpretation is true, the text does not condone abortion.
• The text cannot apply to abortion because the law is applied to an accidental injury, abortion is not accidental but purposeful.

• Even if you agree with the above interpretation, you would still have to conclude that the death of the infant was evil as a penalty is still required, if in fact it is talking about miscarriage.

• If the above interpretation were correct it is in keeping with the law of Moses which normally does not require the death penalty for accidental death (Ex. 21:13-14, 20-21; Numb. 35:10-34; Deut. 19:1-13).

• The text cannot argue that a fetus is less human or not a person because there is a lesser penalty for ending its life. For instance, in the preceding context a master who accidently kills his slave escapes without penalty (Ex. 21:20-21) but this does not mean that the slave is any less human or not a person.

Conclusion: Though the above interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25 is the weaker of the two, even if granted it still does not hold up under scrutiny and hence must be rejected as allowing for abortion.

1. The Premature live childbirth view of Exodus 21:22-25 does not allow for abortion but defines abortion as murder punishable by death. The text is interpreted to mean, if a woman is accidently struck when two men are fighting and she gives birth prematurely but no injury is sustained by either her or her baby, then the courts shall fine the man who injured the woman and payment shall be made to the husband. But if either the woman or the baby is injured or killed, the law of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life will be enforced. This view is the best view for reasons listed below.

• The normal Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth, see Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30.

• Moses knew the normal word for miscarriage for he used it both before and after this text, but he did not use it here which tells us he did not have a miscarriage in mind but premature live birth (see Gen. 31:38; Ex. 23:26; Job 2:10).

• The word “injury” both in vss. 22-23 is indefinite in that it does not designate either the mother or the child but is left indefinite so that it applies to both mother and child.

• The fact that this is the only place in all of the Bible where the death penalty is required for accidental death is significant. It shows us the value God places on both mothers and their unborn children. The death of either the mother or her child by accident would bring with it the death penalty!

abort73.com/abortion/exodus_2122_25

 

[_Abyssinia]

One summary is as follows: “In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a ‘life for a life,’ then the men who killed her shall be killed…Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence – it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.”

But this exegesis is mistake. When the offending man was striking the woman, was he trying to kill the baby? Of course not – for most of the 9 months of pregnancy he would have no sure sign that a baby was there, and even after that in the heat of a fight is hardly going to have the rational capability to take on such a distinction.

And even if he did, chances are he wasn’t aiming for the baby anyway. It’s like shooting into the woods and accidentally hitting a hunter instead of a deer; no one calls that murder, it’s an accident.

But barring the interpretation just above, an accident never earns the death penalty in the Bible. On the other hand, the woman was quite visible and there was no such excuse. Any struggle that affects the woman to the point of inflicting serious injury could hardly be “accidental.”

Note that cites of Babylonian and Hittite parallels are not convincing, since in other cases it is clear that the Hebrew laws are a “step up” from these codes in other areas. Accidental deaths would also be covered by cities of refuge in the Deuteronomic code (Dt. 19) and so the injunction would not be repeated.

tektonics.org/af/abortion01.php

 

[J_Peterson]

That verse isn’t about abortion. We tend to treat death of the unborn differently than the death of the born as well.

 

[weller2]

Even if the verse is interpreted as saying that damage to the child is punishable “eye for eye”, the law still would not require killing the assailant for the death of the child. Why? Because the child was not damaged by the assailant. The cause of death of the child is not trauma from being hit. Instead, it will either suffocate (below 24 weeks) or die of hunger being unable to feed. Therefore all the law says is that accidentally inducing premature birth carries a fine.

I’m also amused by the fact that commentaries gloss over the fact that the fine is paid to the woman’s husband. This has a rather simple implication, and this is that the fetus is property of the father.

Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can’t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.

That’s one serious anachronism. In an environment where a child carried to term had 50% or so chance of dying, one born prematurely had close to zero chance for survival.

 

[white_sheep]

Just thought I’d point out the extrabiblical condemnations from various places. I think it demonstrates the attitudes of Jews and Christians overall.

Book of Enoch. It is held as canonical by only the Ethiopian Orthodox, or some small Orthodox, can’t remember. It has enjoyed a much wider audience in the past.

Christianity. There are several, The Didache, and I think Shepherd of Hermas.

 

[The_Serpent]

I was doing some reading on both sides of the issue. There was a Jewish woman who was talking about how according to Jewish law, abortion is not murder b/c in the Bible there is a verse that talks about “if a man injures a pregnant woman and causes the death of the fetus, he should pay a fine, but if he causes the death of the woman, he should die.”

Exodus 21:22-23:
When two men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm (ason) befall (her), then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm (ason) befall (her), then shall you give life for life"

According to her, the Septuagint was altered to make the opposite argument, that if the fetus dies, the man should die also. " And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] 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" (LXX).

She also said that Jewish law doesn’t treat a child as fully human until birth b/c they don’t have their own personality, morality, ability to think and reason, etc,.

How would I answer this to my pro-choice Jewish friends? The information came from a site about Jewish biblical studies.

oneseeker2

Answer your pro_choice Jewish friends with a Jewish writer…Josephus (37 -100A.D.)! In his work “Against Apion” he states the Jewish position on abortion. Find it in Book 2, chapter 25, section 202. Abortion is forbidden , he calls it murder, and says it diminished humankind.

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t want to get into a discussion about this subject but I would like to point out that Judaism - rather like Catholicism - is not ‘sola scriptura’. Tradition - Oral Torah, writings/discussions of sages etc have to be taken into account as well and we rather like to come to our own conclusions from within our own context - even if we come to similar conclusions it can often be for entirely different reasons.

One of the problems with the Exodus passage, by the way, is that it’s assumed that the whole ‘eye for eye’ formula was to be taken literally - it wasn’t, it’s all about levels of compensation (what if a blind man knocked out somebody’s eye? what if a toothless man knocked out somebody’s tooth?) the difference with the unborn is how the level of compensation was to be determined.

Just as an observation, it was rather hard to get yourself executed, even in Biblical times.

 

[ericc]

Just as an observation, it was rather hard to get yourself executed, even in Biblical times.

It was really easy. Just commit adultery and get caught.

 

[Kaninchen]

It was really easy. Just commit adultery and get caught.

Actually, not that easy at all.

Although, in somebody else’s religion there is, I think, a story about that’s all somebody else’s problem.

 

[ericc]

I was doing some reading on both sides of the issue. There was a Jewish woman who was talking about how according to Jewish law, abortion is not murder b/c in the Bible there is a verse that talks about “if a man injures a pregnant woman and causes the death of the fetus, he should pay a fine, but if he causes the death of the woman, he should die.”

Exodus 21:22-23:
When two men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm (ason) befall (her), then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm (ason) befall (her), then shall you give life for life"

According to her, the Septuagint was altered to make the opposite argument, that if the fetus dies, the man should die also. " And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] 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" (LXX).

She also said that Jewish law doesn’t treat a child as fully human until birth b/c they don’t have their own personality, morality, ability to think and reason, etc,.

How would I answer this to my pro-choice Jewish friends? The information came from a site about Jewish biblical studies.

oneseeker2

Unintentional miscarriage is not murder.

Have them read:

Psalms 139:13 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”. If God is doing the knitting, which one of you is gungho enough to tell God that you are going to destroy his handiwork. I don’t think God was knitting socks for the baby.

Psalm 51:5 “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” If what is being conceived is not a human being, how can that thing be sinful. Matter doesn’t sin.

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”. God knows you before you were even born.

Now try telling God, that was only “matter”. How can one NOT be pro-life?

It is true Jews view fetus has less value than an adult. (Similar to how some insurance companies put a value to life). But does not mean that a fetus is not a living being. It just mean it is not fully developed. There is no reason to accord fetus with zero rights while in the womb and a few seconds later after delivery, boom, full rights. Nothing has changed during those few seconds for the baby, just the environment.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I don’t want to get into a discussion about this subject but I would like to point out that Judaism - rather like Catholicism - is not ‘sola scriptura’. Tradition - Oral Torah, writings/discussions of sages etc have to be taken into account as well and we rather like to come to our own conclusions from within our own context - even if we come to similar conclusions it can often be for entirely different reasons.

One of the problems with the Exodus passage, by the way, is that it’s assumed that the whole ‘eye for eye’ formula was to be taken literally - it wasn’t, it’s all about levels of compensation (what if a blind man knocked out somebody’s eye? what if a toothless man knocked out somebody’s tooth?) the difference with the unborn is how the level of compensation was to be determined.

Just as an observation, it was rather hard to get yourself executed, even in Biblical times.

The Sadducees were very Sola Scriptura which is to say they ignored the Oral Torah.
Indeed much as Tradition is important in Catholicism it is also important in modern Judaism.

As far as I know all orthodox Catholic theologians agree with you that it shouldn’t be taken literally and was instead about proportionality as opposed to a life for an eye.

 

[Kaninchen]

The Sadducees were very Sola Scriptura which is to say they ignored the Oral Torah.

Ah, you missed the use of ‘is’ rather than ‘was partly’.

As far as I know all orthodox Catholic theologians agree with you that it shouldn’t be taken literally and was instead about proportionality as opposed to a life for an eye.

And it made much more sense in the Bronze Age tribe context than tit-for-tat tooth and eye knocking out. Physical/material support for the injured/bereaved could be crucial to their very survival.