I think this might be the most specific verse in the Hebrew Scriptures related to the issue of abortion:
Exodus 21:22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Apparently, there has been much scholarly discussion and debate in recent years about this text and it’s implications on the issue of abortion. My personal perspective, upon reading it, is that it gives some indication that the treatment of the death of a fetus is different then the treatment of “serious injury” to the mother. With scholarly academics expounding on both sides of the issue, it’s hard to come to an adequate conclusion based on that evidence.
I think we should all be willing to accept questions or challenges to our own viewpoints. I am willing to accept challenges to my current thoughts. I first came across this verse when I still held an anti-abortion view. So, I’m curious what your impression of this scripture is. Try to be as unbiased as possible.
I don’t remember exactly, but I think I remember reading that the giving birth prematurely also refered to miscarrying. I don’t know how that influences the interpretation of the verse, but I remember reading that.
Zach, definitely agree, I’m not saying this is a verse about an abortion being committed, but it is about fetus and how the death of a fetus is dealt with compared to the serious injury to the woman carrying the baby.
I think that this is interesting. I agree with the thought that “prematurely” refers to a miscarriage.
I don’t know what our response today should be, though. The law also says that if a man rapes and unmarried woman, he pays the bride price, and the father decides if she will marry him. That’s not something we would consider today.
I don’t think this applies to abortion, because we’re not talking about the willful or consented termination of a pregnancy. The verse can speak to the laws that say if you attack a pregnant woman and she miscarries, it’s murder, but I don’t see any application to abortion either way.
Charles,
Thanks for stopping by.
I don’t think this applies to abortion in the sense that it is talking abotu “willful or consented termination” but I do think it has relevance as it relates to how a fetus is perceived differently then the taking of the woman’s life. Do you think that might have application to today?
Like I said, it would apply to current laws that consider a miscarriage that resulted from an assault to be murder, but to me it has no application to abortion.
Abortion is a woman deciding for herself to terminate. If we’re talking about something that isn’t willful or consented, we’re talking about something different. Intent is everything.
I agree with the notion that the life of the woman is more important. I’ve told my wife that if she’s pregnant and I have to choose between her and the baby, I’ll choose her. But it would be a triage decision, not an abortion. Sort of like choosing which person to pull out of a burning building first.
Like I said, it would apply to current laws that consider a miscarriage that resulted from an assault to be murder, but to me it has no application to abortion.
Abortion is a woman deciding for herself to terminate. If we’re talking about something that isn’t willful or consented, we’re talking about something different. Intent is everything.
I agree with the notion that the life of the woman is more important. I’ve told my wife that if she’s pregnant and I have to choose between her and the baby, I’ll choose her. But it would be a triage decision, not an abortion. Sort of like choosing which person to pull out of a burning building first.
I would recommend against attempting to follow “legalistic” reasoning or interpretations of the verses. Jesus taught us that the religious rulers of the day, the Pharisees and Sadducees were basically hair splitting lawyer hypocrites who couldn’t see the truth (spirit) of the law for all the LETTERS of it. People will seek their own rationalizations for what they think and do, but deep down inside all of us we know right from wrong. I think that when you know the right thing to do but don’t do it, you feel guilt. When you feel guilty, you try to find a way to alleviate that guilt. Moral people will seek to make things right to those affected by the “wrong” decision. Unethical people will seek to rationalize the decision they made attempting to make that which is “wrong”, “right”. I truly believe that anyone who follows this latter path enough times will eventually lose the ability to discern the truth.
enough on that. Let me pose this question to you.
As the baby Jesus was laying in the manger, if we travel backwards in time from his birth to his conception by the Holy Spirit, at what point could he have been aborted because he was just a fetus and not Jesus?