What does Exodus 21:22-23 (KJV) tell us about abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Good_Daughter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Good_Daughter

Guest
I’m discussing abortion with a Mormon on another thread (hence the King James Version of the Bible).

He claims Exodus 21:22-23 illustrates that abortion is a lesser crime than murdering an adult and carries a lesser punishment:

22 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.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life

Any suggestions for a Catholic reply to these verses?
 
Sounds to me like it tells us abortion is wrong.

It also tells us one sin is wrong, two sins are worse.
 
**
Good_Daughter said:
I’m discussing abortion with a Mormon on another thread (hence the King James Version of the Bible).

He claims Exodus 21:22-23 illustrates that abortion is a lesser crime than murdering an adult and carries a lesser punishment:

22 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.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life

Any suggestions for a Catholic reply to these verses?
Click to expand...
Okay, tell him to read Psalm 139, especially verse 13 “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb”. My Bible gives as a footnote “David affirms that the work of God in his life extended back to the development in his mother’s womb”. Doesn’t this prove that God knows and loves us even before birth? No argument can take that away, no matter how hard the pro-choicers try.
 
I forgot something. I checked the footnotes in my Bible and this is what it says about Exodus 21:22 and 23 “Defenders of abortion have sometimes cited verse 22 to support the idea that life in the womb is something less than a person. No matter how it is translated, this verse contains nothing that would support the modern practice of abortion on demand”.

This is from Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible.
 
Good Daughter:
I’m discussing abortion with a Mormon on another thread (hence the King James Version of the Bible).

He claims Exodus 21:22-23 illustrates that abortion is a lesser crime than murdering an adult and carries a lesser punishment:

22 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.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life

Any suggestions for a Catholic reply to these verses?
Click to expand...
The lesser crime/sin here is because it is accidental, but negligent. The reference to mischief to follow changes the discussion to a purposeful act and thus the crime/sin becomes more serious with greater associated punishment.
 
I would speculate;

so that her fruit depart from her = The child is prematurely born.

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. = If though premature the child survives damages are due.

if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life = if the child dies the murderer’s life is forfeit for the child’s life…
 
Super answers. I think I have what I need to continue my discussion. Thank you all so much.🙂
 
At best for the prochoice position the text is describing an accidental miscarriage, NOT an intentional abortion. So, it does not really apply at all.

Turn the discussion towards intent, act of will.

Ask them about killing a baby that is five mintues old, should we kill them? Ten mintues ago that same child would have been in the womb. So, the arguments used to kill the child ten mintues ago should also be vaild for killing a five mintue year old, or to kill a two year old. If their arguments are not vaild in killing a baby out of the womb, then they really are not vaild for killing a baby in the womb.
 
I know this is a bit off subject, but I thought others might find it interesting. I checked Wyclif’s translation…
If men chiden, and a man smytith a womman with childe, and sotheli makith the child deed borun, but the womman ouerlyueth, he schal be suget to the harm, as myche as the `hosebonde of the womman axith, and the iugis demen. But if the deeth of hir sueth, he schal yelde lijf for lijf
Click to expand...
Sadly, it seems Wyclif understood this passage as meaning that if the baby dies, it is merely an issue of financial compensation, but if the mother dies, then the man who struck her must be executed. The Douay-Rheims translation takes this view as well. I find that rather troubling…
 
Good_Daughter said:
I’m discussing abortion with a Mormon on another thread (hence the King James Version of the Bible).

He claims Exodus 21:22-23 illustrates that abortion is a lesser crime than murdering an adult and carries a lesser punishment:

22 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.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life

Any suggestions for a Catholic reply to these verses?
Click to expand...
From the Navarre Bible:

This is the only passage in the Bible which mentions abortion caused indirectly. Although it is a very bald legal statement, it could be interpreted as meaning that someone should pay with his life if he has done mortal harm to the fetus or to the mother; however, it seems that only when it was the mother who died was the death penalty enjoined; if it was the fetus that was killed, there was only a monetary fine. Although it cannot be deduced from this text that the fetus was regarded as a human person with all a person’s rights, it is also true that the offence was severely punished if a blow provoked an abortion. What one may deduce is that, since there is no biblical law about directly provoked abortion, this never in fact happened, because the child was valued as much from the moment of conception. Moreover, spontaneous abortion was regarded as a misfortune.
 
pro-abortionists will use this text to argue that the value of the baby is less than that of the mother because only a fine is paid for the loss of the child. What they are overlooking is that the OT handles Manslaugter and Murder differently. The death of the child in this case is simply a manslaugter, and that carried a lesser pentality than murder. One could argue that the Man had no intent in harming the baby because he had no pre-existing hate towards that person.

See the articles below for the difference between murder and manslaughter in the Bible.

Exodus 21:13; Exodus 21:28-32; Numbers 35:11-15; Numbers 35:22-28; Numbers 35:32; Deuteronomy 4:41-43; Deuteronomy 19:1-10; Joshua 20:1-9 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)
Exodus 21:13
However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.

Exodus 21:28-32

28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull** will not be held responsible**. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

Numbers 35:11-15

11 select some towns to be your cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone accidentally may flee. 12 They will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that a person accused of murder may not die before he stands trial before the assembly. 13 These six towns you give will be your cities of refuge. 14 Give three on this side of the Jordan and three in Canaan as cities of refuge. 15 These six towns will be a place of refuge for Israelites, aliens and any other people living among them, so that anyone who has killed another accidentally can flee there.

Numbers 35:22-28

22 " 'But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally 23 or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, 24 the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. 25 The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled. He must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil.

26 " 'But if the accused ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he has fled 27 and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder. 28 The accused must stay in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest; only after the death of the high priest may he return to his own property.

Numbers 35:32

32 " 'Do not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a city of refuge and so allow him to go back and live on his own land before the death of the high priest.

Deuteronomy 4:41-43

Cities of Refuge

41 Then Moses set aside three cities east of the Jordan, 42 to which anyone who had killed a person could flee if he had unintentionally killed his neighbor without malice aforethought. He could flee into one of these cities and save his life. 43 The cities were these: Bezer in the desert plateau, for the Reubenites; Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites.
 
Deuteronomy 19

Cities of Refuge

1 When the LORD your God has destroyed the nations whose land he is giving you, and when you have driven them out and settled in their towns and houses, 2 then set aside for yourselves three cities centrally located in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess. 3 Build roads to them and divide into three parts the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, so that anyone who kills a man may flee there.
4 This is the rule concerning the man who kills another and flees there to save his life—one who kills his neighbor unintentionally, without malice aforethought. 5 For instance, a man may go into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and as he swings his ax to fell a tree, the head may fly off and hit his neighbor and kill him. That man may flee to one of these cities and save his life. 6 Otherwise, the avenger of blood might pursue him in a rage, overtake him if the distance is too great, and kill him even though he is not deserving of death, since he did it to his neighbor without malice aforethought. 7 This is why I command you to set aside for yourselves three cities.

8 If the LORD your God enlarges your territory, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, and gives you the whole land he promised them, 9 because you carefully follow all these laws I command you today—to love the LORD your God and to walk always in his ways—then you are to set aside three more cities. 10 Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed.

Joshua 20

Cities of Refuge

1 Then the LORD said to Joshua: 2 "Tell the Israelites to designate the cities of refuge, as I instructed you through Moses, 3 so that anyone who kills a person accidentally and unintentionally may flee there and find protection from the avenger of blood.
4 “When he flees to one of these cities, he is to stand in the entrance of the city gate and state his case before the elders of that city. Then they are to admit him into their city and give him a place to live with them. 5 If the avenger of blood pursues him, they must not surrender the one accused, because he killed his neighbor unintentionally and without malice aforethought. 6 He is to stay in that city until he has stood trial before the assembly and until the death of the high priest who is serving at that time. Then he may go back to his own home in the town from which he fled.”

7 So they set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali, Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah. 8 On the east side of the Jordan of Jericho they designated Bezer in the desert on the plateau in the tribe of Reuben, Ramoth in Gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan in the tribe of Manasseh. 9 Any of the Israelites or any alien living among them who killed someone accidentally could flee to these designated cities and not be killed by the avenger of blood prior to standing trial before the assembly.

MANSLAYER
man’-sla-er (meratstseach, from ratsach (Numbers 35:6,12); androphonos (1 Timothy 1:9)):

A term employed with reference to both premeditated and accidental or justifiable killing. In the latter case, an asylum was granted (Numbers 35:6,12) until the death of the high priest, after which the slayer was allowed to “return into the land of his possession” (Numbers 35:28). The cases in which the manslayer was to be held clearly immune from the punishment imposed on willful killing were:

(1) death by a blow in a sudden quarrel (Numbers 35:22);

(2) death by anything thrown at random (Numbers 35:22,23);

(3) death by the blade of an axe flying from the handle (Deuteronomy 19:5).

Among the cases in which one would be held responsible for the death of another, is to be counted the neglectful act of building a house without a parapet (Deuteronomy 22:8).

Manslaughter, as a modern legal term, is employed to distinguish unpremeditated killing from coldblooded murder, but formerly (2 Esdras 1:26) it was used in a more general sense.

studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T5780
 
Abuses of the privilege of blood-revenge must have soon become evident to the tribal chiefs, as one finds in Ex. xxi. 12 (compare Gen. ix. 6) that the commonly accepted formula that a life must be given for a life is modified by a careful legal distinction between wilful murder and accidental manslaughter. In order to establish a case of wilful murder, it must be shown that weapons or implements commonly devoted to slaughter were used, and that a personal hatred existed between the slayer and his victim (Ex. xxi. 12; compare Num. xxxv. 16; and Deut. xix. 4). The law enumerates three exceptions to this general principle: (a) The slaying of a thief caught at night in flagrante delicto is not punishable at all; but if he is captured by day there is blood-guilt which, however, is not liable to the blood-revenge (Ex. xxii. et seq.). (b) If a bull gored a human being to death, the punishment was visited upon the animal, which was killed by stoning. Its flesh in such a case might not be eaten. If gross contributory negligence could be proved on the part of the animal’s owner, he was liable only for blood-money(Ex. xxi. 28). (c) Where the master kills his slave, the offense is punishable only when the latter dies at once, and then probably not by the death-penalty, as some of the rabbinical writers thought (Ex. xxi. 23).

Six Cities of Refuge.

The later codes develop at some length the very just distinction between wilful murder and accidental homicide (see Murder). Six Cities of Refuge were appointed for the purpose of affording an asylum to the homicide, where he might be secure from the hand of the avenger (Deut. xix. 12) until the elders of the community of which the accused was a member should decide whether the murder was intentional or accidental (Num. xxxv. 9-34; Deut. xix. 1-13; Josh. xx.). According to the later procedure, at least two witnesses were necessary to establish a case of wilful murder (Num. xxxv. 30; Deut. xix. 15). In case, however, it was not possible to apprehend the murderer or manslayer, the adjudication might take place and a verdict be rendered in his absence.

It appears from Josh. xx. 4 that the elders of the city of refuge chosen by the slayer had the right to decide as to whether he should be permitted to have a temporary asylum or not. If the case were simply one of unintentional manslaughter the slayer was immediately accorded the right of asylum in the city of refuge, where he had to remain until the death of the reigning high priest (Num. xxxv. 25), whose death, in ancient Hebrew law, marked the end of a legal period of limitation (Num. xxxv.; Deut. xix.; Josh. xx.). If the “go’el ha-dam” were to find the slayer of his kinsman outside the limits of the city of refuge, he had the right to kill him at sight.

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2162&letter=A&search=Manslaughter

jewishencyclopedia.com/search_results.jsp?search=Manslaughter&searchType=1&searchOpt=0&pageSize=10&maxHits=17&pageNum=1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top