Ship of Fools: Miscarriage in the Pentateuch

Thread: Miscarriage in the Pentateuch Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028591

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

This is, I believe, the only pericope in Scripture in which abortion or miscarriage are mentioned.

quote:
Exodus 21:22-25
22 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.

23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

It would seem that if she merely miscarries, the assailant pays a monetary fee, but if the woman is injured, he is subject to lex talonis. If abortion is murder, you'd think that this case would at least rate manslaughter; instead it is treated as a property crime.

Therefore abortion is not murder, according to the Scriptures.

Counterarguments?

[ 14. June 2011, 00:52: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Counterarguments?

How about "we shouldn't run an information age society according to rules set up by semi-literate bronze age goat molesters"?

Of course, that's not going to be a particularly popular argument with the anti-abortion crowd.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Counterarguments?
How about "we shouldn't run an information age society according to rules set up by semi-literate bronze age goat molesters"?

Of course, that's not going to be a particularly popular argument with the anti-abortion crowd.

You entirely miss the point.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Somewhere in the books of biblical law, there is also a reference to an abortifacient potion of some sort to be given to a woman suspected of conceiving in adultery. Either this worked like one of those folk tales where the guilty party refuses to take the test, or perhaps this was an acceptable way to hint, "If an unsupportable pregnancy is forthcoming, talk to the priests."

Whatever you feel about abortion nowadays, the Old Testament wasn't particularly fetus-protecting.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Whatever you feel about abortion nowadays, the Old Testament wasn't particularly fetus-protecting.

And the NT is completely silent on the issue.

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

Kelly, would that be this passage? Numbers 5:11-31
I'd love to know what was really going on there and how it was used in practice, if it was. I've looked it up in the NJB and there are a couple of "..." where I guess the manuscript is uncertain. The passage has a footnote explaining that trials by ordeal were ubiquitous in ancient cultures but this is the only known reference to "waters of bitterness," and they reckon it was an ancient custom which had a priestly ritual superimposed on it, adding the grain offering and priest MCing.

The "classic" text I've seen quoted in abortion debates is Ps 139:13
which, of course, doesn't answer the question. First of all, it's worship poetry, so not quite the same thing as a book of law. I've seen it claimed that because it speaks of a person being "me" back before birth, as well as being "knit together" by God that "therefore" means we all have souls from conception...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Um, Kelly, I think you're referring to the Numbers passage--it's the only one where anybody gets given a drink by the priests--and in that case it's clearly meant to expose guilt by causing bodily suffering (or not), not to dispose of any inconvenient pregnancy. The implication is that such suffering, besides being downright nasty (rotting thigh? Ugh) would also prevent her bearing children in the future. Therefore the point that if she is innocent, she will be able to conceive. But nothing is said about what would happen if she were pregnant at the time of the test.

As for the OP passage, the problem here is that the words translated "depart" in the version quoted would probably be better translated "go out" IIRC, which is ambiguous. The "going out" could refer either to a miscarriage or to a premature birth, which carries its own set of major risks, particularly in ancient times. Injury leading to preterm labor might well demand a penalty, and in that patriarchal society it is likely to be the husband and father demanding it, as not only has his wife been injured but his child's life has been placed in jeopardy. As the normal spokesman for the family in such a society, he would have a claim to bring, even in the best case where both mother and child survived and did well.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

mousethief, I found it interesting when I got involved in teaching a unit on abortion and the Christian belief, that all the research my co-teacher had done hadn't produced the Exodus verse, so with a certain amount of irritation I showed her that verse, but it's still not included in the teaching materials. Lots of other verses along the lines of the Psalm 139, in a translation that I can't track down, that skewed them meaning even further.

I suspect the whole teaching package came from some pro-life website. but it's very difficult to challenge, even when you find verses that indicate the Bible might not be saying what they think it might be and those verses get ignored.

I also think that being so black and white with the sort of students we teach is actually counterproductive and a more nuanced approach would mean more thoughtful responses, rather than blocking out the message in its entirety.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Interestingly, (going by memory here) the Septuagint here has something like "and if the baby is born imperfectly formed" instead of "if there is no further harm", i.e. If the foetus was not fully developed, there was no need to repay life for life.

The Fathers and the Scholastics seem to have believed that if the point of "homination" hadn't been reached - i.e. the foetus didn't look recognisably like a little human being - then, though abortion was still sinful, it was not homicide. In other words, abortion = murder has no support from Tradition either.

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

But back at the passage...

It's not about abortion.
There is no deliberate attempt to abort the child.
It's an accident.
It's not murder its manslaughter.

Compare a few verses earlier
12 “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.

I'm not sure how, culturally, a fight was meant to break out between two men in the presence of a pregnant woman. Or whether the circumstances of any putative fight would make someone more or less culpable.

anyone know?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Um, people lived close enough together, and women were pregnant for so much of their childbearing years, that such a thing was bound to happen sooner or later? That'd be my guess.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on:
It's not about abortion.
There is no deliberate attempt to abort the child.
It's an accident.

Yus, yus. We know that.

quote:
It's not murder its manslaughter.

Is it? The penalty is not the penalty for manslaughter. That's the point of the thread.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Counterarguments?
How about "we shouldn't run an information age society according to rules set up by semi-literate bronze age goat molesters"?

Of course, that's not going to be a particularly popular argument with the anti-abortion crowd.

I must have missed the part where technology fundamentally changed the nature of basic moral questions.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Um, Lamb Chopped, there is a reference to the woman given the drink discharging her womb in the process. Considering that the woman is pregnant and the womb is sealed afterward, how can all this happen without a miscarriage?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I went back and looked at whatever version it was in the Oremus app, and it certainly sounds a lot more like abortion/miscarriage than it does in the versions I am familiar with. Here the ESV:

quote:
19Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ... 20But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, 21then' (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman)(O) 'the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. 22May this water that brings the curse(P) pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.' And the woman shall say,(Q) 'Amen, Amen.'

23"Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. ... 27And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. 28But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.

I haven't got the Hebrew handy, and Mr. Lamb has just been in to complain about my staying up so late (work tomorrow). But you can see why in this version and some others it looks to me far more like a curse (supernatural) or venereal disease (if someone insists on a purely naturalistic explanation) than abortion or miscarriage. Put far too plainly, the emphasis seems to be on crotch/leg rot and being disgusting rather than on getting rid of a possible pregnancy. And the "sealed up" thing refers to future infertility (natural, given the fact that nobody would want to sleep with a woman in that condition, even if she was physically still able to conceive).

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

And here I was assuming that the curse meant bringing on a flow of blood i.e. miscarriage/abortion as in the menstrual curse, which would show on the thighs.

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

Lamb Chopped, oremus defaults to the NRSV, so that would be what I set up in the link yesterday.

The NJB (don't know if that's online anywhere) has "May this water of cursing entering your bowels, make your belly swell and your sexual organs shrivel!"

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I have the irresistable urge to say Ewwwwwwwwwww.

There, that feels better.

Really, it all sounds to me a lot like the death of King Herod, Judas, and assorted other baddies (Acts 1:18, 12:23, etc.). You know, swell up, burst open, have worms eating you while still alive, have utterly disgusting things happen to your sexual organs. The usual And He Died UnHappily Ever After.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

My KJV with Strong's notes says the word used is "thigh", but that thigh was often used as a euphemism for the genitalia.

(If you're very childish - not like me of course - you can now look up all the Old Testament references to thighs and consider the interesting alternative translations ...)

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
The NJB (don't know if that's online anywhere) has "May this water of cursing entering your bowels, make your belly swell and your sexual organs shrivel!"

Evil twin reporting for duty...
I have now found the NJB online - it's here

... just in case anyone was wondering.
(it doesn't seem very searchable though)

Posted by luluxiu (# 16542) on :

"Going out" can refer to a miscarriage or premature labor, contains its own set of significant risks, especially in ancient times. Damage may lead to premature demand for a fine ..

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0