Exodus 21:22 has been used by many pro-abortion advocates, Christian and non-Christian alike, to prove that the Bible is not opposed to abortion. The passage reads, “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.” (KJV)
Greg Koukl has written a wonderful article demonstrating not only that this verse does not support such a conclusion, but that the pro-choice interpretation is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew as found in some English translations (such as the one above).
A free registration at www.str.org may be required to view the article.
Thinking to Believe 
January 16, 2010 at 6:50 am
Here are my objections to the arguments in the article.
First, the article says that the verse to say that if a child is born prematurely, the father would assess a fine because premies are more costly due to, for example, respiratory problems that can result in brain damage. That’s an anachronistic interpretation. Today we have technology to take care of children born too early, but during the time of Moses they did not. If the fetus was nearly nine months, it might be born alive but then there would be no reason for the fine. If the child was premature, it would die. So interpreting the verse to refer to babies born prematurely, surviving due to modern technology but suffering from premie medical issues, is simply untenable.
Second, even if premies did live without modern medical care, the idea of measuring “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” for a premie seems silly. Hitting a pregnant woman might cause her to lose an eye or a tooth, but not a fetus. Even if you limit it to issues like difficulty breast feeding, respiratory issues and brain damage, it would be impossible to apply the lex talionis to those kinds of issues. (“Sir, because you gave my baby the injury of respiratory problems and difficulty breast feeding, I’m going to give you respiratory problems and difficulty breast feeding.”) Further, if “injuries” are “birth defects,” it would be impossible to determine which birth defects were natural and which were caused by the violence. It is the mother, not the fetus, for which an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” analysis would make any sense. You might argue that the “injuries” are the health issues related to the premie birth, such as respiratory issues, but that just leads us to the next problem:
Third, the article’s interpretation artificially separates “health issues” from “injuries.” But the former are caused by the latter. For example, there might be costs related to the “injury” of respiratory issues from premature birth. But the Scripture is clearly referring to the two being unconnected: EITHER something happened that deserves a fine OR something happened that deserves eye-for-eye. That the author would include both the baby and mother in the category of people subject to eye-for-eye doesn’t relieve the problem with regard to the baby alone.
Thus, we have two interpretations. The pro-life interpretation is convoluted, self-contradictory and impossible to apply. The pro-choice interpretation is simple and makes sense. Occam’s Razor applies. The Exodus verse treats the killing of an unborn child as being only worthy of a fine, but holds the death or injury to a mother to a much higher standard.
Arthur
LikeLike
January 27, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Arthur,
I don’t see anything anachronistic about it. Babies could be born with bad health prior to modern technology, and they could survive if born slightly premature. The fine could have been simply for the trauma of the event, or it could have been to compensate for any deficiencies the health problems associated with the premature birth caused by the attack caused for the child’s productivity. But the reason for the fine is speculative, since the text doesn’t say. And it’s irrelevant. What is relevant is what the word means, and the word always refers to a live birth, not a dead baby. That’s why the pro-abortion interpretation won’t work. If the word doesn’t refer to a dead baby, you can’t say the Bible valued the fetus’ life less than the mother’s. Besides, even if it did, clearly the situation envisioned here is nothing at all comparable to elective abortion!
I beg to differ. Hitting a woman can cause her to give birth prematurely, or to cause the death of the baby. In fact, I have read several news reports of men who have killed their unborn babies in precisely this way (usually cases when a woman doesn’t want an abortion but the man does, so he hits her or kicks her in her stomach to cause one).
As for lex talionis, the text does not specify that either the mother or the baby is in view. The grammar allows for both. If the mother gets her teeth knocked out by the man, then the man should get his teeth knocked out. Likewise, if the baby ends up dying after birth as a result of the attack, then the man would be killed.
Jason
LikeLike
September 26, 2017 at 8:16 am
I am not in either camp, but I am doing some research into this topic. My criticism of this article is that if “there is no harm (injury) v.22,” in that the baby being born prematurely but alive, and without harm or serious injury, why would there be a fine? Trauma or psychological damage? These things are modern inventions. It makes more sense to interpret the fine being for the premature (but dead) baby.
Although the use of yasa could be used to describe living things coming forth, but the word is in fact neutral, in so far as it describes an action. As the author noted that it was used one time, then, it could be used a second time, as we see here.
More importantly, since this is Old Testament, what do the Orthodox Rabbinic sources say? How would they interpret it? Sorry to say, majority of the Rabbi that you would talk to, would tell you that, according to their Mishnah, the unborn fetus has no full person status. In this case, the loss of the fetus is treated as a case of property damage, (hence a fine), not a murder. Harsh, but ancient people had different priorities. No wonder in your article, there was no mention of any Judaism tradition and context in your interpretation. Is it because it might ruin your theory?
LikeLike
September 26, 2017 at 10:13 am
Brandon:
The Mishnah, like other laws and rules, are written by whom? by man. So whatever man decides that is their law and rule but that gives no credence to somebody else law and rule or understanding that a fetus has no full person status.
Personally I would not want to be in the womb and subject to Mishnah law. I would want to be subject to the law of love and the law for the sanctity of life and the preservation thereof. Then I would feel safe from idiots of interpretation who do not know the difference between an idiom and an idiot who wants it to be a law or does not want it to be a law…
At the whim of idiots did not all the laws of humanity have their beginnings in religious insanity?
LikeLike