Abortion and the Bible
The word “abortion” does not appear in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean its not mentioned. In fact, the Mosaic Law stipulates that someone who causes the death of a fetus, even unintentionally (although recklessly) is guilty of murder and must give his own life in payment. The law is found in Exodus 21.
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 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” (Exodus 21:22-25).
Illustration of two men fighting near a pregnant woman.
The setting for this law is two men fighting. One might assume that their focus is on each other, but fighting easily gets out of control, and in the case given here one of them (presumably inadvertently) strikes a pregnant woman. The text does not state whether she was simply a bystander or was attempting to intervene, so her level of involvement is not an issue. Two possible outcomes are given:
1) The woman gives birth prematurely, but everyone is fine. In this case, the man is fined as the judges see fit. The rationale seems to be that he was reckless and caused a precarious situation, endangering both the woman and her child, and thus was to be fined.
2) The woman gives birth prematurely, and everything is not fine. In this case, the man was subject to the law of lex talionis, i.e. whatever damage he caused was to be inflicted upon him. The list of example judgments begins with “a life for a life.” If the woman or her child died, he was to give his own life in exchange.
This kind of law was not unique to the Hebrews. In fact, the Mosaic law becomes even more interesting in light of the laws that were in place in neighboring lands in the preceding centuries.
The Law Code of Hammurabi is one of the earliest and best-preserved examples of a law code from ancient Mesopotamia, dating to about 1750 BC. It contains over 4,100 lines of cuneiform text, mainly centered on laws dealing with crime, family, property, and business. A case quite similar to the situation described in Exodus 21 appears in §§209–212. It illustrates that life in the womb was considered valuable in Mesopotamian civil law, and that the Hebrew law was not entirely novel.
Back side of the Law Code of Hammurabi, circa 1750 BC. Photo by Todd Bolen.
According to §§209–212 of Hammurabi’s law code, “If an awîlu [a free person in the upper class] strikes a woman of the awîlu-class and thereby causes her to miscarry her fetus, he shall weigh and deliver 10 shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman should die, they shall kill his daughter. If he should cause a woman of the commoner-class to miscarry her fetus by the beating, he shall weigh and deliver 5 shekels of silver. If that woman should die, he shall weigh and deliver 30 shekels of silver” (Roth 2003: 348).
At first glance the institution of a fine for killing a fetus (or a commoner-class woman) may strike us as callous or cheap. However, it should be borne in mind that the Code of Hammurabi is, by and large, seeking to assign a commercial value to something that does not have an obvious equivalence in silver (fines in silver are also assigned, for example, to the loss of an eye or ear). This explains why the life of the woman was valued higher than that of the fetus—there had been significant investment in her already (purchase price or debt owed, clothing and food, skills already in hand). In the case of the fetus, it was recognized as being of value, even though there had been virtually no investment in it yet. In both cases the monetary fine was for the loss of potential value; in the case of the mother it was immediate and of known value; in the case of the fetus it would have been more distant (there was always the possibility of death in childhood, significant additional investment would have been required before any possible return could be expected, etc.). But both were viewed as having value, apart from each other.
Incidentally, the fine for killing a fetus should be distinguished from fines levied for the loss of body parts (eye, nose, ear, hand, etc.). In the latter situation, a fine was levied against whoever caused the injury because the injury had an immediate negative effect, whether on the ability of the person to perform work or simply due to the reduction of quality of life or even attractiveness (related to shame and honor). The opposite is true in the case of the loss of a fetus. If anything, the mother’s ability to work would have been lessened while she was pregnant, and there was a risk of her death even in childbirth, so the loss of a fetus was almost exactly the opposite of the loss of a body part, at least as it pertains to commercial value.
This is not to say that the ancient Assyrians were pro-life in the modern sense of the word. It just highlights the fact that they viewed the protection of life in the womb to be common sense. It doesn’t take an extraordinary intellect or amazing philosophical abilities to recognize that life is present in a fetus, and that it is valuable and precious.
The Middle Assyrian Laws date to the 12th century BC but are thought to originate in the 14th century BC. They include laws regarding a wide variety of things. Tablet A, shown here, is from the reign of Ninurta-apil-ekur, an Assyrian king of the 12th century BC. It records laws mostly related to women, among which is an interesting set of rules regarding the aborting of a fetus (§§50–53).
Tablet A of the Middle Assyrian Laws, 14th-12th centuries BC. Photo by Marcus Cyron, via Wikimedia.
“[If a man] strikes [another man’s wife thereby causing her to abort her fetus, …] a man’s wife […] and they shall treat him as he treated her; he shall make full payment of a life for her fetus. And if that woman dies, they shall kill that man; he shall make full payment of a life for her fetus. And if there is no son of that woman’s husband, and his wife whom he struck aborted her fetus, they shall kill the assailant for her fetus. If her fetus was a female, he shall make full payment of a life only. If a man strikes another man’s wife who does not raise her child [a surrogate mother?], causing her to abort her fetus, it is a punishable offense; he shall give 7,200 shekels of lead. If a man strikes a prostitute causing her to abort her fetus, they shall assess him blow for blow, he shall make full payment of a life. If a woman aborts her fetus by her own action and they then prove the charges against her and find her guilty, they shall impale her, they shall not bury her. If she dies as a result of aborting her fetus, they shall impale her, they shall not bury her” (Roth 2003: 359).
The phrase “full payment of a life” may be distinguished from “they shall kill that man.” The context indicates that “full payment of a life” would have been giving the life of the assailant’s daughter or similar family member in exchange for the life of the fetus (compare the Code of Hammurabi above). As with the Code of Hammurabi, this is another example of lex talionis, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” or in this case, “a life for a life.”
As with the Israelite law, the initial section of the Middle Assyrian Law quoted here may be dealing with inadvertent harm. However, the latter section deals directly with intentional abortion. Not only does abortion result in the death penalty, it is a particular kind of death penalty. Impalement was a form of shaming, whether for the living or the dead. It was often practiced by the Assyrians against their enemies, whether as a way to demoralize the inhabitants of a city that was stubbornly resisting a siege, or as a way of sending a message to others who might think of doing the same. In this case, not only did the woman who aborted her own fetus give her life in exchange, she was also publicly humiliated.
Depiction of the impalement of Jewish defenders of Lachish by Assyrian soldiers, from the palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, circa 700 BC. Photo by Todd Bolen.
In light of these Assyrian laws, it is interesting to reconsider the Law of Moses.
1) In all cases the fetus was considered to be valuable, whether an attempt was made to convert its value to monetary worth or whether it was simply regarded as having the same value as any other life. None of these laws, Assyrian or biblical, viewed the fetus as simply a mass of tissue that could be disposed of at will.
2) The Law of Moses followed a similar line of thinking as the Assyrian laws when it came to civil penalties. Lex talionis was accepted as just and right. In this particular case it was “a life for a life,” with the fetus considered to be a human life.
3) The Mosaic Law lacks two harsher elements that are found in the Assyrian laws. One is that, according to the Mosaic Law, the assailant must pay for his own actions. The Assyrian laws provided that a family member like a daughter could be killed in place of the assailant, but the Mosaic Law only allows for the wrongdoer to be punished. Another difference is that the Mosaic Law does not take the added step of shaming the guilty. The required price must be paid, but the guilty party is not further stigmatized by additional shame.
In summary, the Hebrew Bible recognizes a fetus in the womb as a human life, and requires retribution against an assailant even when the injury may have been inadvertent. Although neighboring nations had their own slants on this, from attempting a monetary conversion to adding shame to the sentence, they too recognized life in the womb. So should we.
References:
Roth, Martha. 2003 The Laws of Hammurabi. Pp. 335–53 in The Context of Scripture, vol. 2, ed. W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill.
Roth, Martha. 2003 The Middle Assyrian Laws. Pp. 353–60 in The Context of Scripture, vol. 2, ed. W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill.
