Is the Death of a Foetus via Abortion Equal to Taking a Life?

(Exodus 21:22)

We are well aware of the vocal demonstrations against abortion, particularly from some of the more vocal Christian groups in the United States.  However, is there any Biblical reference to suggest that perhaps abortion is not tantamount to murder and that the loss of a foetus is not equal to the loss of an actual life?  I think Exodus 21:22 offers some insight, with its premise of a pregnant woman being caught in the crossfire of brawling men and consequently losing the baby  -  should there be compensation, and for what exactly?

Most English Bible translations, with the exception of the NIV, suggest that because of this verse, a foetus is not a complete human life.  The NIV says "premature birth" and in a footnote it says miscarriage.  NIV translators apparently faced protests from anti-choice people with the belief that life begins at conception, and in this case the foetus was born alive, hence the decision to refer to premature birth.  Some think the NIV translators made a wise choice; others think they made an honest mistake; either way, it is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew ’ūsay āwa hāḏelāyə (miscarriage  - lit. “departs her fruit”).

The New American Standard Bible:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further 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." (Ex. 21:22-25)

The Revised Standard Bible:

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Punishment for the guilty person(s) is a fine if the foetus is lost in an accidental miscarriage, but if the woman is injured or killed as a result of the accident, equal punishment is invoked.  The implication being that the unborn child only has a monetary value to God and is not a person; the woman has infinite value (to her husband) while the foetus has little if any value. Most Bible translations validate this position as do many Jewish commentaries.

The concern is for the woman as another man’s property.  Notice that it is the woman's husband that collects the fine – “. . . according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him.”  The concern is for the loss of the man’s property, which in this case is his wife and the foetus.  The foetus is given no worth in or of itself, and neither is the wife, since worth is metred solely in terms of being the husband’s property.  There would certainly have been no fine if she was a pregnant, unmarried woman.  At that point in time, women were chattel for status and children were insurance for the future.  People were considered property or commodity, as reflected in slavery.

Theologian Millard Erickson notes that, the lex talionis [life for life] is applied only if the mother is harmed, strongly suggesting that the foetus was not considered to be a complete person, and thus not fully human.”  Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 555.

The Jewish view of this Exodus passage also carries some value:  The highly respected Jerome's Commentary explains, "If a pregnant women should suffer a miscarriage as a result of a blow, the guilty party need only make a monetary compensation demanded by her husband; however should the woman die, capital punishment is proscribed for the offender."  Jewish teaching has never considered abortion to be murder; if the foetus had been considered an independent entity, then punishment for its lost life would have been the death penalty for murder.

The Talmud says that a foetus is its mothers thigh (Hulin 58a and Gittin 23b), without any legal rights.  Even once labour has begun the foetus can still be destroyed in order to save the women from physical or mental harm.  For a foetus to be regarded as a ‘nefesh adam’ or living person, its head must have emerged from the birth canal. Sanhedrin 72b states: it (the foetus) is not a person and therefore its life is inferior to its mother’s life.  Had a live birth occurred, the verse would have said something like “Tinoch ha’ nolad,” since “tinoch” is the word for baby or infant.  The verse has always been translated by the Jews to mean miscarriage.

A more direct abortion example in the Sanhedrin is a rabbinical discussion concerning what to do with a pregnant women if she has been sentenced to death. They conclude that she should be beaten on the stomach prior to the execution, to make her miscarry and prevent her from going into labour.  Length of pregnancy makes no difference, the foetus dies with the mother.  Norman Slurzberg further states, “I cite this Halacha because it puts the status of the foetus into a Halachic perspective.  Even if it could be viable it has no rights unto itself.”

In Exodus a killed foetus was a property offense only.  A fine was required to recompense the Husband, deprived of both his property rights and the value of a future child (to work in fields if boy, or marriage price if girl).  Where life has not been taken, no life-for-life penalty is required.

It is easy to get caught up in foetal envy emotions and consider abortion to be the taking of an actual life, and from such a position assume that God feels the same way.  However, the Bible simply does not support this view and should not be used to singly support a pro-life perspective.

----------------------------------------