The meaning would depend on what these primitive people's idea of disaster is. It's sort of like the obscentity issue: "I'll know it when I see it."
Well, what exactly constitutes a disaster?
Was it up to the father to decide? The courts? Was it the killing of the mother? The child? It is extrememly vague.
TILL
For those interested in his opinion, Philo Judaeus said this about Exodus 21:22, "And with respect to these matters [when an embryo becomes 'completely formed'], the following law has been enacted with great beauty and propriety: 'If while two men are fighting one should strike a woman who is great with child, and her child should come from her before it is
completely formed, he shall be muleted in a fine, according to what the husband of the woman shall impose on him, and he shall pay the fine deservedly. But if the child be fully formed, he shall pay life for life.' For it were not the same thing, to destroy a perfect and an imperfect work of the mind, nor is what is only likened by a figure similar to what is
really comprehended..." (*The Works of Philo,* New Updated Version, Hendrickson Publisher, 1993, p. 316).
Philo continued the discussion at length, speaking about "uncertain penalties being affixed to uncertain acts," but he offered no insight into what he considered an incompletely formed embryo as opposed to a completely formed one. All of this disagreement and uncertainty only underscores the
absurdity of the Christian claim that morality is absolute, and the Bible provides us with a standard of objective morality. In this case, the Christian god couldn't even inspire a clear statement that would have enabled the world to know the moral truth about an embryo in a pregnant woman's womb.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net
JEF
Excerpts from "The Oxford Companion to the Bible"; edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan; Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 4
On Abortion: "Archeological evidence indicates that in ancient Israel the infant mortality rate was as high as fifty percent. It is also possible that, given the diet and living conditions at the time, female fertility was low. Male control of reproduction and a belief that numerous descendants are a sign of divine blessing are also found in the Bible. These factors support the view that abortion would not have been common.
"Alternatively, it can be argued that abortion was practiced without censure. Many women died in childbirth, a strong incentive to avoid carrying a pregnancy to term. Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3- 7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status.
"A key text for examining ancient Israelite attitudes is Exodus 21: 22-25: (snipped, but translated as "MISCARRIAGE, and yet no further harm follows....") Several observations can be made about this passage. The Hebrew text at v.22 literally reads "and there is no harm," implying that contrary to current sensibilities, the miscarriage itself was not considered serious injury. The monetary judgment given to the woman's husband indicates that the woman's experience of the miscarriage is not of significance, and that the damage is considered one to property rather than to human life. This latter observation is further supported by the contrast with the penalties for harm to the woman herself."
Given that the infant mortality for full-term babies was as high as 50%, what are the chances of survival for a pre-mature birthed child in ancient Israel? Not very good, I would imagine.
What did the Rabbis say?:
The Rabbis ruled that the fetus was "animated" with a "life" similar to vegetables or animals, but only after birth did an immortal soul, a living person, a "nefesh adam," come into being. In fact, unless a full nine-month pregnancy was definitely known to have been completed, a female child was not considered a "bar Chaiyama" (a viable, living thing) until thirty days after its birth (males were required by the Law to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth, so a male only had to survive for eight days to be given a name).
The Talmud used the phrase, "ubar yerekh imo" ("The fetus is the thigh of its mother") [TB Hulin 58a and elsewhere] and, "the fetus is regarded as one of her limbs" [TB Gittin 23b]. Clearly, as the Rabbis understood the scriptures, the fetus is considered a "part of its mother" rather than an independent entity. [ Cf. "Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law" by David M. Feldman (New York: Schocken Books) , p. 253.] The Mishnah [Arakhin, I.4 (7a)] ruled that there is no need to wait for a pregnant woman convicted of a capital crime to give birth before being ex ecuted. The Talmud and the Mishnah have actually required abortion in cases where the mental or physical health of the mother was jeopardized by a pregnancy. [Ibid, p. 275]
While Jewish law forbad men to sterilize themselves, women were allowed to sterilize themselves, either temporarily or permanently [Talmud, Tosefta Y'vamot Ch. 8]. Men were believed to be subject to the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply," but women were not.
This decidedly "Pro-Choice" stance is still held by the majority of Jewish organizations today. The United Synagogue of America passed a resolution that says in part: "In all cases, the mother's life takes precedence over that of the fetus up to the minute of its birth. This is to us an unequivocal position." Abortions, "though serious even in the early stages of conception, are not to be equated with murder, hardly more than is the decision not to become pregnant."
************************************
James E. Faubel
jef@europa.com
"Welcome to the planet Earth, where
belief masquerades as knowledge."
--> This way to the Unasked Questions
<-- That way to the Unquestioned Answers
anonymous
************************************