Freethought & Rationalism Archive

djmullen · 10-15-2007, 11:07 PM

Hello Bible Scholars,

I know there're some verses in the Bible which concern two men who fight each other and accidently injure a pregnant woman so she "loses her fruits" or something like that. The one who caused the miscarriage pays a fine because it's not considered a capitol offense.

I think it's somewhere in Numbers, but I can't find it. Can anybody give me chapter and verse on this? (Debating abortion with a Bible believer.)

Fortuna · 10-15-2007, 11:31 PM

I think you mean Exodus 21:22

Quote:

Exodus 21:22-25
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

24,25 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."

What this tells us is that, regardless of the sex of the fetus, the case of a miscarriage caused by another was not seen as equivalent to murder by the ancient Israelites. It was punished by a fine. Be warned that many Christian apologist types will then bring up 24-25 and try to say that it refers to a damaged infant. However, that simply is not true (or else it would be in blatant contradiction to 22,23). Clearly this refers to further injury to the mother. IOW should the mother die or be otherwise injured, then the aggressor is punished accordingly.

There is also Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 .

Quote:

Ecclesiastes 6:3-5
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"

This seems to say that it would be better to never be born than to be born in an unfortunate situation. Ecc 4:1-3 reinforces this idea.

Quote:

Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."

The point here is that the life of an unborn fetus was not in any way considered as equivalent to that of a one who is already born.

djmullen · 10-16-2007, 03:57 AM

Thanks, that's exactly the verse I was looking for! Now I know why I couldn't find it in Numbers. Thanks for the other verses, too. They strengthen the point I'm trying to make.

coloradoatheist · 10-16-2007, 04:39 AM

The only problem you will get djmullen about the exodus one will be what it exactly means since it's one that comes through several translations. However for as important as abortion is today, why no explicit mention of it....

Mike

xrey · 10-16-2007, 05:50 AM

One thing you have to remember about the rule is the reality of the time it was written. In those days, women spent maybe 20 years of their lives as baby-making machines (if they were lucky enough not to die in childbirth).

Infant mortality rates were high, so losing a potential baby was no big deal. Even babies who came to full term had iffy chances of survival.

Yet, hurting a pregnant woman was an offense because it affected a man's ability to have scores of children in the future. These children were his workforce and retirement fund, but were ultimately just commodities.

Keith&Co. · 10-16-2007, 06:28 AM

Then there's Hosea:

Quote:

9:11 As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.
9:12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them!

God will cause miscarriages. So, the preborn are not a big deal for the Lord.

There's also a passage somewhere, can't find it this morning, about the price someone has to pay for causing someone's loss. Ther'es an amount for men, another (lesser) amount for women, less for kids, and for babies under a month, no cost. Probably connected to infant mortality rates of the time.

John Kesler · 10-16-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

There's also a passage somewhere, can't find it this morning, about the price someone has to pay for causing someone's loss. Ther'es an amount for men, another (lesser) amount for women, less for kids, and for babies under a month, no cost.

You are probably thinking about Leviticus 27, which concerns making vows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co

Probably connected to infant mortality rates of the time.

Undoubtedly this is the case, which is why I don't think that it is a good passage to use regarding abortion. Since infant mortality was high, a young baby, which might die anyway, wasn't deemed as valuable as other people. Abortion isn't even in view.

I would ask anyone who thinks that conception is when a "soul" is imparted why God would design the female body so that through no human intervention, some zygotes (fertilized eggs) never attach to the uterine wall to allow pregnancy. Why create these "souls" only to have them naturally expelled from the woman's body?

Keith&Co. · 10-16-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

You are probably thinking about Leviticus 27, which concerns making vows.

Yes, and establishing a value for human life.

Quote:

Undoubtedly this is the case, which is why I don't think that it is a good passage to use regarding abortion. Since infant mortality was high, a young baby, which might die anyway, wasn't deemed as valuable as other people.

But the point is that in this passage, in the Books, supposedly sponsored by God, there's no indication that anything before a month old had any inherent value, in their eyes or god's eyes. No 'sanctity' of life is indicated here.

Quote:

I would ask anyone who thinks that conception is when a "soul" is imparted why God would design the female body so that through no human intervention, some zygotes (fertilized eggs) never attach to the uterine wall to allow pregnancy. Why create these "souls" only to have them naturally expelled from the woman's body?

Good question.
Also, if the fertilized egg splits into identical twins, do they get another soul when they split? Or do they get two souls at conception?

If the first, then not all souls are imparted at conception.

If the second, then God (or a chosen representative) has to act at conception based on the future of the sygote. If they have the chance to do that, why wouldn't they choose not to put a soul in an egg they know is going to be aborted or miscarried?

Champion · 10-16-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."

The point here is that the life of an unborn fetus was not in any way considered as equivalent to that of a one who is already born.

I would call into question this passage as supporting a pro-choice bible. The book of ecclesiastes is a book written with the implied premise that these things would be true if there was no God. Using this passage to further your point would be like using the passage, also from ecclesiastes, that says "everything is meaningless under the sun" as proof that the Bible supports an incredibly apathetic worldview (This obviously not being what the bible truly says).

Fortuna · 10-16-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

I would call into question this passage as supporting a pro-choice bible. The book of ecclesiastes is a book written with the implied premise that these things would be true if there was no God. Using this passage to further your point would be like using the passage, also from ecclesiastes, that says "everything is meaningless under the sun" as proof that the Bible supports an incredibly apathetic worldview (This obviously not being what the bible truly says).

That view is extremely questionable, and quite frankly is straight from Christian and/or Jewish apologetics ! This is mostly because Koho/ Ecc supports the Saducceeic point of view, that there is no afterlife, no life after death, no rewards in heaven, etc. This is claimed at many places in the book and is in glaring contradiction to the Pharisseic pov and the Christian NT.(i.e. "A live dog is better than a dead lion", "for the dead no nothing and have no reward", "the race goes not to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but chance favors them all").

The Jewish apologetic comes from the Talmud and it more or less says that yes, things under the sun are futile, so it is necessary to look above the sun to god. They base this on the second last verse of the book which says ;

Quote:

"Fear God and keep his laws for that is the whole duty of everyone."

How this got construed as "written with the implied premise that these things would be true if there was no God" I do not know. And as to "looking above the sun, that has its basis in the ancient Ptolemic model of the cosmos or the idea of heaven/god as being up in the sky.(I've always wondered how much the KJV contributed to the Christian misunderstanding because of their use of the olde englisk term "the heavens" for every reference to the sky and stars.)

DjMullen - I say "go for it", if your Christian adversary pulls this cr@p on you, make them show you (chapter and verse) where in Eccl they get that from. The biblical support for that apologetic is weak. Read Ecc 9.1 ;

Quote:

9.1 For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, [are] in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred [by] all [that is] before them.
2 All [things come] alike to all: [there is] one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as [is] the good, so [is] the sinner; [and] he that sweareth, as [he] that feareth an oath.

Here is what they ill probably trot out, Ecc 12. But I don;t think it support htem or what Champion is saying either. Here ;

Quote:

Ecc 12:1 ¶ Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
2 While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
3 In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,
4 And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;
5 Also [when] they shall be afraid of [that which is] high, and fears [shall be] in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:
6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all [is] vanity.
9 And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, [and] set in order many proverbs.
10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and [that which was] written [was] upright, [even] words of truth.
11 The words of the wise [are] as goads, and as nails fastened [by] the masters of assemblies, [which] are given from one shepherd.
12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books [there is] no end; and much study [is] a weariness of the flesh.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.

Champion, since you seem to be backing this apologetic, can you provide any backup for it ? 9I notice that you did not provide any chap/verse). Was that (Ecc 12) your support ?

10-15-2007, 11:07 PM	#1
djmullen Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison, WI, USA Posts: 97	Abortion: Which verse concerns two men who fight and injure a pregnant woman? Hello Bible Scholars, I know there're some verses in the Bible which concern two men who fight each other and accidently injure a pregnant woman so she "loses her fruits" or something like that. The one who caused the miscarriage pays a fine because it's not considered a capitol offense. I think it's somewhere in Numbers, but I can't find it. Can anybody give me chapter and verse on this? (Debating abortion with a Bible believer.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-16-2007, 03:57 AM	#3
djmullen Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison, WI, USA Posts: 97	Thanks, that's exactly the verse I was looking for! Now I know why I couldn't find it in Numbers. Thanks for the other verses, too. They strengthen the point I'm trying to make.

10-16-2007, 04:39 AM	#4
coloradoatheist Contributor Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: denver Posts: 11,319	The only problem you will get djmullen about the exodus one will be what it exactly means since it's one that comes through several translations. However for as important as abortion is today, why no explicit mention of it.... Mike

10-16-2007, 05:50 AM	#5
xrey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 1,460	One thing you have to remember about the rule is the reality of the time it was written. In those days, women spent maybe 20 years of their lives as baby-making machines (if they were lucky enough not to die in childbirth). Infant mortality rates were high, so losing a potential baby was no big deal. Even babies who came to full term had iffy chances of survival. Yet, hurting a pregnant woman was an offense because it affected a man's ability to have scores of children in the future. These children were his workforce and retirement fund, but were ultimately just commodities.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.