Why do Christians not follow the Bible on the question of abortion?

Question

The Bible treats abortion basically as a misdemeanor, and specifically NOT as murder. Read this carefully:

Exodus 21:22: "When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Now, clearly the Bible says "causing miscarriage" (i.e., causing a spontaneous abortion) = fine to be determined by the court. In modern society, we call that a misdemeanor.

"If any harm follows" - meaning the wife dies, then "eye for eye"

In other words, it clearly makes a distinction between an unborn child and the mother.

It really couldn't be clearer.

You refuse to see the point. Accidental death of an unborn = a fine; accident death of a grown person = death.

Accident or not, God is clearly stating here that an unborn child is not on the same level as a grown adult.

You refuse to see the point. Accidental death of an unborn = a fine; accident death of a grown person = death.

Accident or not, God is clearly stating here that an unborn child is less important than a grown adult.

Answer 1

Well, although the translation is certainly debatable, I do believe that the asker is understanding this correctly. For one thing, it is very unlikely that it refers to anyone but the pregnant woman, as Exodus 21:23 reads : כג ואם אסון יהיה--ונתתה נפש תחת נפש , using the term nephesh, which is literally something like breathing animal, creature which breathes. It is saying that if one who breathes dies, another who breathes will die in exchange. A miscarriage does not stop breath.

Additionally, there isn't really any reason to believe that it's a fight between two men. It's not a plural form of the word in Hebrew, it's really just saying "If man goes forth to push/harm a pregnant woman so something born departs..." In Hebrew, as in English, it's ambiguous, because sometimes man is used as a singular, sometimes it is used to refer to mankind. Of course, the theological question there is, if the Bible is the flawless word of God, why does it not simply use the plural for men, rather than the term man. *shrugs*

Of course, one could also cite Psalm 137:9, which says blessed/happy shall he be who taketh thy suckling infants and dash them against the jagged rocks. Granted, that's out of context, but one could argue that even at the point when one is suckling, it's not necessarily bad to kill a child. I would have to disagree, but plenty will choose the Bible of my opinion.

Answer 2

I've pointed this out to Christians on several occasions. Usually they start out by saying, oh, that's an accident. When I ask why such a different penalty for accidental death of a child and accidental death of the mother, the go into "full new covenant mode."

Interesting, that new covenant thing (there's only one passage in the Bible that mentions it, and then in such vague terms as to be - like much else in the Bible - indecipherable) is only invoked AFTER they lose the legalistic argument.

Answer 3

fairly now... no longer a million Christian follows something interior the Bible? instruct us the place it says interior the Bible to no longer have intercourse until now you're married, and instruct us the place it say's to no longer have abortions. I guess you won't be able to you do it. instruct us the place it says Christians are to be suitable and are never allowed to make the comparable blunders the different man or woman makes. often people who cry "Hypocrite" the loudest tend to understand the least approximately what The Bible actually says.

Answer 4

this is not the same- A woman pre-mediates murder by choosing to go to a clinic and abort (KILL) her baby. The woman had to literally think about taking the life of someone- YES SOMEONE- not something. In Ps. 139 God talks about this child that is growing in the womb- The Bible also says CHOOSE LIFE- so your argument is erroneous- and only is trying to justify killing an unborn child- a baby that is unborn is still alive just developing. Did you know that a person is not fully developed until they are 18 so would that not be murder either? Nothing can justify killing one of God's creations-

Answer 5

In the verse, since the actual nature of the injury that caused the child's death is difficult to tell, the husband gets to determine that penalty or punishment. However if there is additional, visible, injure to the mother, then the penalty or punishment for the mother's injuries are to be based on those visible wounds. "If harm follows" does not have to mean "death", or it would be pointless to say "eye for eye, etc", if it only meant death.

How is that justifying abortion???

Try actually reading the verse next time....

Answer 6

5. (22-25) Laws of retribution.

"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But 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.

a. He shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him: This is an example of a case of retribution, where a pregnant woman is injured in a conflict, and she gives birth prematurely. A penalty is only to be assessed if there is lasting damage.

i. If no lasting damage results, there are no damages awarded. Here, God recognizes that some bad things just happen, and we get over them - and move on.

b. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye: If lasting damage results, retribution is always limited by the eye for an eye principle. This law was meant to block our desire for vengeance, and not given as a license for revenge.

i. Our tendency is to want to do more to the offending party than what they have done to us. This principle can apply to our modern practice of assessing huge punitive damages in lawsuits, and this law presents the principle that only the loss itself is to be compensated.

Answer 7

"When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman"

Last time I checked, there is no fighting in an abortion clinic. This is talking about if a pregnant woman gets injured by accident. But nice try anyway.

Abortion is for God to decide, NOT YOU! Abortion is pre-meditated murder and should be treated as so.

Answer 8

There aren't any fights in an abortion clinic. This is a description of an involuntary miscarriage. Paying what a judge determines can be anything, and would certainly speak to the intent of the offender.

Answer 9

Ah, but remember the We Call It All The Bible But Really We Get To Ignore Anything To The Left Of Matthew If We Feel Like It rule.

Answer 10

I see that you do not understand what you read. It says "IF". This means that the infant dies as an accident during a fight. An abortion is TOTALLY different. An abortion is a deliberate murder of a HUMAN BEING!