I’ve already taken a look at the Numbers 5 abortion argument. Not it’s time to take a look at Exodus 21:12,22-25.
[English NASB] Exodus 21:12,22-25:
12: “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
[…]
22: “[a] If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, [b] yet there is no injury, [c] he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.
23: “[a] But if there is any further injury, [b] then you shall appoint as a penalty 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.
The argument goes as follows:
Verse 12 and verse 23b show a life for a life justice system. However, in verse 22 if a woman gets hit and she miscarries, there is no life for a life payment, just a fine. Therefor, the child in the womb is not a “life”.
This relies on a few assumptions:
- v22a “gives birth prematurely” equals “miscarriage”
- v22b a miscarriage is not an injury
Let’s imagine that your wife is pregnant, and she gets hit, sending her in to labor. The the fight you and another man are having (v22a) stops because something serious just happened. Luckily, your wife is close to the natural birth date so the baby is delivered somewhat early, but overall no harm no foul, the child is safe (v22b). You are still somewhat mad at the other man who hit your wife causing this whole issue, so he needs justice brought upon him (v22c).
Now, if your wife’s child were pre-viability and the strike happened, causing labor, causing a miscarriage, there is injury (v23a) and the other man should be put to death (v12, v23b).
This proposed argument only stands if a miscarriage is not considered an injury, which seems highly unlikely. In fact, certain translations such as the Amplified Bible (AMP) and Expanded Bible (EXP) mention that the baby survives the birth, or that the Hebrew is unclear as to the baby’s health, respectively.
Additionally, if you are taking this verse for the pro-choice stance, it must also be noted that the context of the birth/miscarriage is two men fighting (v22a) and they, ostensibly accidentally, hurt the woman. This would put this verse as not anti-abortion at best, not pro-choice, since no “choice” was made. If you were to take this for pro-choice, you would have to intentionally “accidentally” injure the woman. This then starts two new problems:
- God knows your heart and plans, and you are not going to fool God
- You are assaulting women