What Does The Bible Say About Elective Abortion?

[Miles]

.

I ask because I can't find a darn thing. And if it isn't addressed in the Bible how important can it be?

.

[PinSeeker]

Abortion is still not considered to be murder no matter how much they would like it to be.

What anyone considers something to be and what it actually is can be two entirely different -- and even diametrically opposing -- things.

"Murder" is a legal term, which can easily be seen in its definition.

mur·der /ˈmərdər/ crime noun: murder; plural noun: murders the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Thank you. Yes, abortion is a legalized form of murder. A legalized crime (!) against humanity. It is astonishing how so many people rationalize it away.

Performing an appendectomy isn't murder

An unborn child is not an appendix. Abortion of an unborn child is indeed murder.

Grace and peace to you, Miles.

[2timothy316]

But it doesn't say 'if the woman dies' in the original Hebrew. It says [any] harm. The word woman is not there.

It doesn't say "[any] harm," either. "Harm" is unmodified.

So yes or no, is the child worthless?

No.

What scripture says what a child is worth and why is it left out in Ex 21:22-35 if 23-25 isn't for the child and mother? Why aren't there two different sets of payments for serious injury?

[Miles]

Abortion is still not considered to be murder no matter how much they would like it to be.

What anyone considers something to be and what it actually is can be two entirely different -- and even diametrically opposing -- things.

Yup.

"Murder" is a legal term, which can easily be seen in its definition.

mur·der /ˈmərdər/ crime noun: murder; plural noun: murders the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Thank you. Yes, abortion is a legalized form of murder.

Sorry, but "legalized form of murder" is one of those oxymorons the desperate grasp at thinking they're making some kind of relevant point. Don't do it.

Performing an appendectomy isn't murder

An unborn child is not an appendix. Abortion of an unborn child is indeed murder.

In as much as murder is " the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" just which specific law is abortion breaking? You do realize don't you that for abortion to be consider to be murder there has to be a statute stating as much. So, present the statute.


BTW, I'm still waiting for the "'above Biblical references.' Assuming your talking about Bible verses, which is the only thing that would count, I didn't see a thing."


.

[Difflugia]

What scripture says what a child is worth and why is it left out in Ex 21:22-35 if 23-25 isn't for the child and mother? Why aren't there two different sets of payments for serious injury?

That's the answer to the question I asked and that you refuse to address. Exodus 21:22 is the value of the miscarried child ("what the woman's husband demands and judges allow" or similar in most translations). Verses 23-25 explain what happens if the mother is also injured or killed.

[PinSeeker]

Sorry, but "legalized form of murder" is one of those oxymorons the desperate grasp at thinking they're making some kind of relevant point. Don't do it.

It is what it is. "Desperation"... LOL! Call it what you want. It is what it is. A crime against humanity that, inexplicably, has been legalized.

In as much as murder is " the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" just which specific law is abortion breaking?"

Murder. Yes, abortion is the premeditated killing of one human being by another, and I agree that at present, it is not unlawful, but it should be. Laws get changed for various reasons, as you must be aware.

You do realize don't you that for abortion to be consider to be murder there has to be a statute stating as much. So, present the statute.

There's only the blindness (willful, for many) that abortion is not unlawful.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the "'above Biblical references.' Assuming your talking about Bible verses, which is the only thing that would count, I didn't see a thing."

You didn't look very hard, then, if at all. Any waiting on your part is unnecessary. All you need it a little diligence.

Grace and peace to you.

[2timothy316]

What scripture says what a child is worth and why is it left out in Ex 21:22-35 if 23-25 isn't for the child and mother? Why aren't there two different sets of payments for serious injury?

That's the answer to the question I asked and that you refuse to address. Exodus 21:22 is the value of the miscarried child ("what the woman's husband demands and judges allow" or similar in most translations). Verses 23-25 explain what happens if the mother is also injured or killed.

Exodus 21:22 says a fine for no serious injury. The translation you're using is not a very good one. How can something die yet there be no serious injury?

The Hebrew word use for premature birth is wə·yā·ṣə·’ū. Literally, to come out. Compare Exodus 17:6 were the same word is used. https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/17-6.htm
The Hebrew word for miscarriage is mə·šak·kê·lāh. Literally, to be bereaved, which means to be deprived of a close relation or friend through their death. Read Exodus 23:26. https://biblehub.com/exodus/23-26.htm

mə·šak·kê·lāh is not used in Ex 21:22 so to put 'miscarriage' in Ex 21:22 is a very bad translation.
Over 2 dozen translations do not use the word miscarriage. They use the proper words premature birth or come out.
https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm

wə·yā·ṣə·’ū is not used anywhere in the Bible to denote death and for it to be translated that way is highly suspicious.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3318.htm

[Difflugia]

Exodus 21:22 says a fine for no serious injury.

It says the husband is to be compensated if the woman's "child goes out and there is no injury." That's satisfied if she has a miscarriage, but isn't injured herself.

You keep avoiding the contextual issue that in your reading, restitution is prescribed if there's no injury to anybody, which doesn't make sense in light of the surrounding verses.

The translation you're using is not a very good one.

I'm reading the Hebrew with morphology hints, two different lexicons, a grammar in case I need it, and multiple English translations.

How can something die yet there be no serious injury?

Because the Hebrew doesn't require conflating the fetus and the mother as you keep insisting.

The Hebrew word use for premature birth is wə·yā·ṣə·’ū. Literally, to come out.

That's the word that the NWT translates as "premature birth," yes. It has a very broad range of meanings and is occasionally used of live births with no implication of prematurity. That's why I've suggested multiple times that you read it as a simple birth, but then explain for what damage the husband is compensated if there's "no injury."

Compare Exodus 17:6 were the same word is used. https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/17-6.htm
The Hebrew word for miscarriage is mə·šak·kê·lāh. Literally, to be bereaved, which means to be deprived of a close relation or friend through their death.

mə·šak·kê·lāh is not used in Ex 21:22 so to put 'miscarriage' in Ex 21:22 is a very bad translation.
Over 2 dozen translations do not use the word miscarriage. They use the proper words premature birth or come out.

Indulge me, then, and explain what the offense is and what the offender pays the father for in the case of a healthy birth.

wə·yā·ṣə·’ū is not used anywhere in the Bible to denote death

It's not translated as "death," but euphemistically as a miscarriage in the sense that the child "came out" of the mother's womb.

and for it to be translated that way is highly suspicious.

Your continued refusal to explain 21:22 is what I find highly suspicious.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #48]

I disagree with your calling 'to come out' as death by miscarriage as well as the few translations that translates it as such. I also disagree with paraphrasing translations that add the word woman or she were there is no such word in the Hebrew manuscripts.

I do agree with the translation 'premature birth'. A premature birth doesn't mean death. Because I agree with the translation premature birth then that means that Ex 21:22-25 applies to both mother and child if there is a no injury, a serious injury or death of either one.

Unacceptable translation:
"Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise." (Contemporary English Version)

Acceptable Translations:
“If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality (ftn. serious injury) results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges. But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow. (New World Translation)

"And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, ye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (American Standard Version)

"And when men strive, and have struck a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no harm [to them], he is certainly fined as the husband of the woman lays on him, and he has given through the judges; and if there is harm [to them], then you have given life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Literal Standard Version) https://biblehub.com/lsv/exodus/21.htm

You're free to choose your translations and I will stick to mine. I think the LSV is the best translation of the scripture and your best explanation of how I see Ex 21:22-25

[Difflugia]

I disagree with your calling 'to come out' as death by miscarriage as well as the few translations that translates it as such.

I know you don't like it, but all of your arguments against "miscarriage" apply equally to "premature birth." There is a word in Hebrew that explicitly means "to bear a child" (yalad), so "to come out" is a euphemism for something, we just have to decide from context what that is. The Hebrew Yatsa', "to come out," is used a few times as a euphemism for "birth" in the Old Testament, but there's no modifier in this text. You've told us what your preference is, but within the context of the single law in verses 22-25 as well as the larger context of the surrounding laws, "premature birth" is the least plausible reading. I understand why you want us to read it that way, but you haven't justified why we reasonably should.

I also disagree with paraphrasing translations that add the word woman or she were there is no such word in the Hebrew manuscripts.

That's why when I present translations in our discussion, I haven't been adding any words.

I do agree with the translation 'premature birth'.

So, your objection isn't to a "paraphrasing translation" per se as you just implied, but rather to those paraphrases that don't support your favorite reading. If the original text is ambiguous, I personally think that the best translation should retain the same ambiguity.

A premature birth doesn't mean death. Because I agree with the translation premature birth then that means that Ex 21:22-25 applies to both mother and child if there is a no injury, a serious injury or death of either one.

So you keep insisting. What, then, is the compensation for in Ex 21:22? What leads you to believe that a live birth is intended and adding the word "premature" is justified, but the rendering "miscarriage" isn't?

"And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, ye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (American Standard Version)

I'm actually a fan of the ASV, both in general and in its translation of this verse. Aside from the flowery choice of the word "fruit" (a euphemism inherited from the KJV that doesn't reflect the Hebrew), this translation captures both the nuance and ambiguity of the original. The ESV, mentioned by Pinseeker earlier in the thread, corrects even that defect ("her children come out").

"And when men strive, and have struck a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no harm [to them], he is certainly fined as the husband of the woman lays on him, and he has given through the judges; and if there is harm [to them], then you have given life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Literal Standard Version) https://biblehub.com/lsv/exodus/21.htm

The problem with this one is the translator's interpolation of "[to them]" into the text. Hebrew does have a system of prefixes and suffixes that can offer information about implied direct and indirect objects, but there aren't any of those in that phrase. The three words are literally "[and not] [is] [an injury]." Any more than that and the translator's reading an interpretation back into the text, which renders its value as a proof-text dubious. Using paraphrased translations based on a particular exegesis to support that exegesis is circular.

You're free to choose your translations and I will stick to mine. I think the LSV is the best translation of the scripture.

Its touted as a literal translation, but interpolates words back into the text that change the meaning of the verses. Furthermore, it's supposed to be a revision of Young's Literal Translation, but the YLT doesn't add anything to the verse and the "revision" has made that verse less literal. That makes it pretty much the least trustworthy translation you have there.

I'm never surprised when a sectarian translation (like the Calvinist NIV, Baptist CSB, or the JW NWT) is a bit freer with paraphrase, but a "literal translation" should probably avoid translation choices based on sectarian exegesis if its to be considered trustworthy.

[2timothy316]

You're free to choose your translations and I will stick to mine. I think the LSV is the best translation of the scripture.

Its touted as a literal translation, but interpolates words back into the text that change the meaning of the verses.

Yet it doesn't assume the scripture is only talking about the woman as your paraphrasing translation does. To include the child with the mother if a serious injury occurs is in harmony with the rest of the Bible on the view of lives of men, women and children.

Furthermore, it's supposed to be a revision of Young's Literal Translation, but the YLT doesn't add anything to the verse and the "revision" has made that verse less literal. That makes it pretty much the least trustworthy translation you have there.

That's your opinion. I see as the most accurate. The additions are in brackets. Your translation doesn't even have footnote that miscarriage can mean premature birth or brackets around the added words. Even the Contemporary English Version has a footnote that says, "suffers a miscarriage: Or “gives birth before her time.” https://biblehub.com/cev/exodus/21.htm#fn But you only see what you want to see and seeking accuracy and Bible harmony is not higher than your dogma.

I'm never surprised when a sectarian translation (like the Calvinist NIV, Baptist CSB, or the JW NWT) is a bit freer with paraphrase, but a "literal translation" should probably avoid translation choices based on sectarian exegesis if its to be considered trustworthy.

Yet the translations you choose are paraphrasing Bibles. You speak of exegesis but don't use it. I have shown you the real Hebrew word for miscarriage and its use in the Bible and you didn't even care. I'm never surprised when a person's dogma is taking center stage in their translation choice, when what I want is the most accurate. A translation that uses miscarriage for premature birth with not even a footnote is not accurate and you know it but will not accept it because the miscarriage idea fits your dogma. If the actual Hebrew word for miscarriage was used in this verse I'd have no choice but to accept it, yet that is not what it says and that is not what many Bible translate it as. Your chosen translations also adds extra references to the woman. Words that are not in the manuscripts. I have shown you this but you do not care your dogma pushes out accuracy, what is actually there.

I can only say that staunchly disagree with your dogma, your rejection of other scriptures that give clarity and the way you pick a Bible translation.