The Skeptic's View On Abortion (Exodus 21:22-23)

Daystar · Puppy Joined: 10 May 2008 Posts: 218 Location: Midwest US

I can't understand how the average skeptic can come to the conclusion that Exodus 21:22-23 would imply that abortion is not murder and that the fetus is not considered a human life. This is not in harmony with scripture and in fact is a gross misunderstanding on the part of the skeptic regarding scripture. The only reason that I can see for this line of thinking is that the King James Version uses the word depart. The fruit of the mother's womb departs from her. What this means is that she gave birth with no harm to the child. Just as a plane departs from an airport.

There was a struggle and the woman was injured but this did not result in harm of the unborn child. In this case the husband would present his case to the judges and they would decide upon a fine for the man having caused the injury. If, on the other hand the child would have been stillborn the penalty would have been death. Soul for soul or life for life.

Now if one were reading the Revised Standard version I could understand the confusion, at Exodus 21:22-23 (RSV) it is seemingly implied that even if there were harm resulting in a miscarriage there would be a fine, but only if the woman were killed would there be a death penalty. It is likely that this and translations with a similar reading were influenced by Flavius Josephus.

Professor William Whiston, who translated Josephus' writings said that when Josephus paraphrased Exodus 21:22-23 saying: "He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall determine, as having diminished the multitude [of the nation] by the destruction of what was in her womb; and let money also be given the woman's husband by him that kicked her; but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death, the law judging it equitable that life should go for life." was actually reflecting "the exposition of the Pharisees in the days of Josephus." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book IV, Chapter viii, paragraph 33, footnote.)

The Septuagint, which oddly enough Josephus almost always used, has a slightly different opinion. It reads: "If two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed [or, "she miscarry of an embryo"], he shall be forced to pay a penalty." In other words if the aborted fetus was too young to have developed a fine should be paid but if the fetus was perfectly formed the penalty would be death. (Septuagint translation by Sir L.L. Brenton and Charles Thomson)

The real question here though, is what does the literal Hebrew actually say. Here is just that, from Dr. G. R. Berry's Hebrew-English interlinear. It reads from left to right.

strike they and ,men contend when And
,child her forth goes and ,pregnant woman a
,fined be shall he surely ;injury is not and
of husband the him upon put may as
.judges the with give shall he and ,woman the
soul give shalt thou (and) ,is injury if And
,soul for

The important thing to realize in translation is that the application here of injury does not limit itself to the mother, and The Hebrew word for "injury" here ("harm" RSV, "mischief" Authorized) is ason. The lexicon by William Holladay rightly points out that ason means "mortal accident." This can be seen more clearly by three other places where ason is used. Genesis 42:4, 38; 42:38; 44:29. So a more accurate translation would render the term ason as "fatal accident" rather than "harm" or "mischief" in order to allow the reader to understand what was actually being said.

We know that this isn't applied to the mother exclusively because, as the respected commentary by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch says, the fine would have been sufficient only if "no injury [fatal accident] was done either to the woman or the child that was born . . . . The omission of [the Hebrew] lah 'to her,' also, apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to injury done to the woman alone."

If the original Hebrew had included the word lah, which means "to her" at Exodus 21:22-23 we could have assumed that the injury must be applied only to the mother. Instead it applies both to the unborn child and the mother.

The average skeptic often makes the ridiculous assumption that the Bible places no value upon fetuses or infants under a month old and that it doesn't see fetuses or infants under a month old as persons. They base this upon Leviticus 27:6 (KJV) and Numbers 3:15-16.

It absolutely astonishes me that they would be so careless and bold as to suggest such a thing.

Leviticus 27:6 addresses those people who at that time would pay a vow of money to God. To suggest that this was a measure of value for the life of the person is nonsense. Is the skeptic suggesting that until a child is five years old, from conception until that time, it is acceptable to destroy them? The chapter goes on to give a value for other age groups, does this mean that for a price you could destroy - murder - those people? This is nonsense.

Numbers 3:15-16 is similar in that it is referring to a census being taken for the Levites. The Levites were of course going to be special, the first fruit of Israelites. To say that those under a month old were not people because they were not included in the census would be the same as saying a person of various ages thereafter were only people worth various monies that were paid, and it seems somewhat shortsighted coming from a skeptic who supports an abortion of convenience if a fetus is under a certain age because eventually the fetus, like the child under a month old would mature. You wouldn't pluck a seed from the ground just because it hadn't matured into a fruit bearing tree would you? Unless you just didn't want to be bothered with the tree.

Next the skeptic concludes that God sometimes approves of killing fetuses and this, it seems, must be grounds for supporting abortion. When, however, they give Numbers 31:15-17 as reason for this they gloss over the reason for the Israelites doing so and they also fail to appreciate that women, men and children were being destroyed as well. The Bible isn't saying that it is acceptable to kill men, women, children and fetuses; it is saying that in this particular case they needed to be destroyed due to the fact that they had caused the Israelites to worship false gods. Numbers 25:1-3 (KJV).

Likewise, when Israel became unfaithful they were no longer given favor by God, compare Exodus 23:26 with Hosea 9:14-16; Numbers 5:21-22, 27-28; 2 Samuel 12:14; Genesis 38:24.

What this says is that God who created life can take it away either through the people of Moses' time or through his own will; not that we are given the right to do so ourselves through his word. So the Bible gives no support of abortion.

Mattathias · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:06 am Post subject:

I find your argument compelling, but it may simply be because I'm predisposed to this point of view. I would like to hear counter arguments from pro-choice supporters.
_________________
"All wish to possess knowledge, but few, comparatively speaking, are willing to pay the price." - Juvenal

P1234567890 · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:07 am Post subject:

It's an interesting argument, but it's not new. In fact, I went through the exact same exercise of translating the ancient Hebrew, but with the opposite goal in mind: To show that the Bible clearly states that causing a miscarriage is never considered to be murder.

In order to do this, I showed the same passage that you mention to an Israeli I know. Hebrew is his first language, and he is completely fluent (including the ancient Hebrew in the passage).

His explanation of the passage was that it does not say what I want it to say, but that on the other hand it also doesn't say what pro-lifers want it to say. His conclusion was that it is ambiguous at best. I can't remember all of the semantic details which he gave me, but what he said is completely consistent with the ambiguous academic history on this passage.

The great thinkers in the history of academic Christianity read the same passage and never concluded it implies that abortion is wrong.

So the short answer is that this isn't the slam dunk argument which you would like it to be. Things aren't that simple.

In my opinion, the Bible really is ambiguous on the topic of abortion. Some verses such as when Adam receives his soul with the first breath weakly support the pro-choice side. And some verses such as the one about how God knew Jeremiah in the womb weakly support the pro-life side, but the woman being struck and miscarrying verse doesn't fit in either camp.

However, if you look outside the scripture and at the context surrounding the Bible, then I argue that it must be interpreted in a pro-choice context. Abortions were common in the ancient world, and the fact that they are not *explicitly* mentioned in the Bible says a lot. Not only that, but God is supposed to be omniscient, so at the time that the Bible was written, he would have known that abortion would be a major issue for Christians in 2008. If he really does hate abortion, then one would expect him to have given us at least the tiniest bit of guidance on the topic. But he didn't.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

P1234567890 · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:15 am Post subject:

Incidentally, Wikipedia has an interesting article on abortion and Christianity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion

Here is a relevant part:

Mattathias · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:43 am Post subject:

Mattathias · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:13 am Post subject:

P1234567890 · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:38 am Post subject:

Mattathias · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject:

In regard to the unborn in the womb of the mother, the scripture that came first to my mind this morning was Luke 1:41a.

Mattathias · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject:

What else were they going to write? It's not like the terms, 'zygote', 'embryo', or 'fetus' were widely used back then. These are all technical scientific terms, and that's just not how language was used back then.

Besides, if the fetus is moving, then it is past the quickening.

In Christianity, the quickening is often considered to be the time of ensoulment.

This does not contradict allowing abortions during the first trimester, which is when the vast majority of abortions are performed.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Mattathias · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject:

Mattathias · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject:

Mattathias · Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: