(no subject)

[semiotic_pirate]

The following is a post phanatic made a while ago. I found it quite interesting and wonder if more people know about this little tidbit. Kinda blows a wide and gaping hole in the christian-anti-abortion group doesn't it? Notice I call them anti-abortion, not pro-life, because if they were pro-life they wouldn't be trying to kill (or encouraging the deaths) of people who are pro-abortion. After all, if all life is sacred you wouldn't want to be killing anyone. Another point is this; if they are all fired up about saving "the innocent" but they are Christian... what happened to their belief in Original Sin? No one except Mary, mother of Jesus, was born without it. Supposedly. Well, it always seems that, if you make an argument claiming that the Bible backs up your opinion someone else is bound to find a counter argument within the Bible as well.

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

The pro-life crowd, or at least the Christian subset of the pro-life crowd, tends to argue its case from a Biblical perspective, as one would expect. Generally, it's claimed that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder.

But there's a Biblical passage that seems to call that assertion into question, and in a big way: Exodus 21:22-25.

"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. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

To sum up, if you beat a pregnant woman and she miscarries, it's a civil matter, punishable merely by a monetary fine. If you hurt the woman, then it's a criminal matter and you can be physically punished. If you murder the woman in the process, you yourself are to be put to death.

Kill the woman, you die. Simply kill the fetus, you're out some cash.

Isn't this a pretty substantial point of evidence that abortion and murder are not morally equivalent?

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

So? Comments? Discussion?

Comments

[blueadept.livejournal.com]

I'm a pro-choice atheist Jew, but take what you will from my comment below...

The passage seems to mean injury to the fetus, not the woman. "[S]he gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury" to me seems to mean that it's an actual premature birth, not just a miscarriage. It's possible to cause premature birth by way of agitating the body. In fact, a recent study shows that having sex when you're close to birth can bring on labor.

I could be wrong, but I guess that's why I'm not a Biblical scholar. Or maybe the Bible is vague, and that's why so many loonies can claim to be scholars.

[puf-almighty.livejournal.com]

That's pretty sharp, to catch that. I'd have (and did) just taken it for whichever it's presented as, because it's convincing as phrased either way.
Guess it hinges on finding somebody who actually reads ancient Hebrew and seeing what they say about the context.

Or maybe the Bible is vague, and that's why so many loonies can claim to be scholars.
Word.

[puf-almighty.livejournal.com]

Revised Standard edition sez it as, "22: "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."

Suppose somebody who's both anti-abortion, and all about the KJV, might see that as proof that you have to stick with the KJV- it can be interpreted to fit pre-existing politics!

[blueadept.livejournal.com]

Ooh, nice. I wonder what the original Hebrew says... I could ask a rabbi or something.

[semiotic-pirate.livejournal.com]

if you can ask a rabbi how the original verse is worded and how it can be interpreted that would be neat. a lot of meaning is lost when translations are sloppy.

I'm glad this post is getting so much traffic, it is good to see the differing viewpoints.

[puf-almighty.livejournal.com]

Isn't this a pretty substantial point of evidence that abortion and murder are not morally equivalent?
:heavy sigh:
Yes and no. Yes, it's a substantial piece of evidence if you accept that the bible is the inspired etcetera- it's a quote from the bible saying "Oh btw fetus does not equal adult".
But using it in a serious debate, is like, lowering the debate to a completely crap level. It's accepting that we have to base our modern-day ethics on the opinions of bronze-age shepherds, that we have to take their opinions seriously.

And we don't weight Greek philosophers like that. Nor renaissance, or the Germans, or modern scholars like that. Nobody (except philosophy majors) seriously goes poring through the works of Hegel comparing obscure or contradictory lines, in order to try and prove this or that point in real life. It's baloney, everyone knows this intuitively.

Yet for some reason we accept arguing on the biblical terms. We're used to it. It gets thrown at us so often that we fight just like that, and then our debate, to any rational outsider, looks retarded (and is unconvincing).

So to me, there are two debates to be had, here. One is over abortion, and the other is over whether I should give a damn about what the bible says. And really, when I quote the bible to show that their views are wrong, that alone is not sufficient to shake their views- it's just enough to shake, at least until they get back to church on Sunday, the view that the bible has any damn place here.

So to me, it's not a substantial point of evidence either way regarding abortion itself, rather, it's a substantial point of evidence that the other person should shut it about the bible since it doesn't even support them, and start arguing on actual real life facts. Which is precisely how I would word it in debate.

And then we could have an argument about abortion.

[verrucaria.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess the point is that Christians follow don't even follow their own holy book (surprise, surprise!), which you can point out w/o actually subscribing to that book.

But it is all about the translation you happen to read. It's like like that "virgin"/"maiden"/"young woman" debacle (except all modern Christian Bibles say "virgin."

on the other hand...

[bigbrotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

wrt using the biblical basis argument.
It is a strong rhetorical technique to examine the basis that the other party claims for their argument. IIRC, this is the only significant passage in the bible that speaks to the relative importance of the mother vs the fetus. If in fact, those who argue that abortion is wrong base their argument in the main on this bit of scripture, and they can be shown to be misinterpreting the passage, it undercuts their argument. At which point, you can redirect the argument to the basis that you prefer.

That said, I'm uncertain whether the injury proscribed is to the fetus or to the woman. It would be instructive to look at the Talmud and see what is said there.

Re: on the other hand...

[puf-almighty.livejournal.com]

It is a strong rhetorical technique to examine the basis that the other party claims for their argument.
Yeah that's what I'm saying. It's a terribly weak real-life argument for abortion, because it's, you know, just a bible quote. But it's a reasonably strong argument that people should shut up using the bible to argue with.

Re: on the other hand...

[bigbrotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

I think you missed my intent. It would be a weak argument in trying to convince you. However, when arguing with someone who first claims to be arguing _against_ abortion based (at least in part) on this passage from the bible, it would always be a strong technique to address the basis of their argument.

For example I say:

Because A, then B.

It is always a strong argument to say: Well, I'm not so sure about that, but even if I were to agree with the structure of your argument I am sure that A isn't necessarily so. So get back to me when you can prove A. in the meatime, what about C, D and E, where Because C then NOT B, and
Because D then Not B, and
Because E then not B.

OK, I'll bite a bit more*

[bigbrotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

Exodus 21.12-29 (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=31031421) is a good start to look at here. (A good first step in understanding a scriptural reference is to open up your view a bit and read the context, and not just the one or two lines that someone has quoted to you.) Now the link I've given you is from an online version of the NRSV which is my own preferred translation. It was published less than 20 years ago based on all available biblical archeology, most notably the dead sea scrolls. The Preface (http://bible.oremus.org/nrsvae/reader.html) to the NRSV gives an informative precis on Bible versions.

On to the meat of the matter. I'll note that in the NRSV, the phrase translated in the quote you give as "and she gives birth prematurely" is rendered more succinctly for our purpose as "so that there is a miscarriage." It may also be helpful for us to recall that in the context of 7th to 5th century BCE, premature birth doesn't mean a week in the NICU and careful monitoring by a board-certified neonatologist.

Backing up a bit, let's look at what comes before and after. At verse 12, we see a distinction between premeditated murder, punishable by death and manslaughter, punishible by exile.

Kidnappers, patricides, matricides and the like are dealt with without comment, but then we have an interesting bit about a quarrel that results in a convalescence that the injured party eventually recovers from fully (walks around outside with the help of a staff), in which case the assailant is liable only for his loss of time and cost of care.

Next we have a limit on the ability of the slave-owner to kill their slaves. This passage may be useful in an argument in the present day since it comes immediately before the one we're concerned with. It says that if the slave dies immediately from injuries from a beating from his or her owner, the slave-owner shall be punished, but if they survive a day or two, there is no punishment, "for the slave is the owner's property." Clearly, any present day biblical literalist can be called to task for asserting that this is just.

There are two more paragraphs following the story we're concerned with that may be interesting.

The first indicates an example of eye for an eye justice. It goes back to the beating of slaves and says that if a slave owner destroys the sight of an eye or knocks out a tooth of the slave, then the slave shall be set free as compensation.

The last concerns the liability of the owner of an ox for the death of a person gored by the ox. A first offense should result in the sacrifice of the ox (though it's meat should not be eaten.) If the ox is a repeat offender (and the owner has been warned, but hasn't sacrificed the animal) both animal and owner should be put to death.

Going back to our story. There are a couple elements of the scenario that are important in my understanding. One, the combatants appear to have injured the pregnant woman inadvertently. She was an innocent bystander. Second, there does seem to be the stark distinction you originally read between the consequences to injury to the fetus and the woman. The woman has the benefit of the traditional proportionate punishments of eye for eye, etc. whereas the miscarriage results only in a fine.

However, be careful about how fine a point you put on this. Recall that the first of these stories laid out a difference in punishment between premeditated murder and accidental deaths.

* Disclaimer: I am not a rabbi, nor do I play one on TV. I wear no priestly collar, and have not been ordained by any recognized religious organization, denomination, or group. Biblical exegesis provided represents the thoughts of this author only. Any use by any other party is to be considered entirely independent and unrelated, without permission or the need for such. Use at your own risk.

Re: OK, I'll bite a bit more*

[verrucaria.livejournal.com]

I agree that most of these examples compare murder to manslaughter, but if that distinction is supposed to be the theme for the whole passage, then the whole passage doesn't hold up.

Accidental death of a woman is not comparable in the same manner to the death of a fetus. Accidental killing of a woman would be comparable to the intentional killing of the woman. Accidental induction of premature labor would also be comparable to an intentional attempt at induction of premature labor. Apples to apples.

But then I don't reason like bronze-age shepherds. But, wait, the Bible was supposed to be inspired directly by God. I better learn to reason like bronze-age shepherds then.

Re: OK, I'll bite a bit more*

[bigbrotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

You reason more like a bronze-age shepherd than you give yourself credit for. No, the manslaughter/murder distinction isn't the whole passage's concern, it is only one example.

The distinctions I see in this passage are between:
Killing intentionally and or with planning and treachery vs. accidentally
Killing someone unrelated vs. killing one's parent
Beating a slave to death vs. beating a slave nearly to death
Beating a slave badly enough to where they lose an eye or a hand vs. only lightly beating the slave (ugh)
Crippling someone in a fight permanently vs simply knocking them unconscious or breaking a leg that sets properly and heals such that they can walk without a cane.
Owning an ox that gores others multiple times despite being warned that the animal should be put down vs. owning the ox who does it once.
harming the pregnant woman while accidentally inducing miscarriage vs only accidentally inducing miscarriage.

Does that make it any clearer?

Re: OK, I'll bite a bit more*

[verrucaria.livejournal.com]

Thanks.