On Abortion

Is a human embryo or fetus or a fertilized egg a "human being"?

That's not a scientific question. It's a matter of definition. Definition depends on your philosophy. So it's really a semantic/philosophic question.

And at what point legally-protected human life begins is a legal/philosphical question. And all the law can do is look back to how English-American law has dealth with the question over the centuries. Which takes us back to philosophy.

Obama was dead right that this discussion is above his pay grade. It's like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A problem for disputing rabbis or theologians or legal scholars. Any any legal definition is for legislatures, not the president.

In my opinion -- my philosophy -- an embryo or fetus is a parasite on the mother until capable fo independent life. Considering the fetus as a parasite, as a not-yet-separate entity, the mother is the one who reasonably bears the burden of the fetus continued existence and can call the shots. Which is more or less how the law is now after Roe v. Wade.

Philosophy is supposed to be based on reasoning, on logic. Religion is not.

Turn to religion. Those who take a strongly anti-abortion position are probably fundamentalist Christians. As fundamentalist Christians, they claim to be following the Bible. 

In that case, what does the Bible say?

The only Biblical reference to the rights of the fetus is found at Exodus 21:22-28. You should be aware that there are two ways of interpreting this passage. Those Christians who oppose abortion know that this passage causes them a problem, and therefore they have developed an alternative reading of this passage, which has been carried over into the Bible translation that they favor.

If you pick up a RSV or NRSV or NEB then you get one reading. If you pick up an NIV or NKJB, you get another. So be aware of this.

The fact is, there are fundamentalist Bible translations prepared by fundamentalists and targeted to sell to other fundamentalists. So if you really want to get to the root of the meaning of a Bible passage in English, you have to compare different translations! (Or go to the original Hebrew or Greek words. But be aware that the lexicons that define these words can also be biased!) There is no translation that is not affected by the opinion of the translators. In my opinion, the NIV is quite biased in a number of places. Fundamentalists say that about the RSV and NRSV and NEB that I favor.

Basically, if you want to live a content, undisrupted existence, you buy a Bible translation that supports your opinion and that of your church. That is where most Christians are. Despite Sunday Schools and myriad semons, most Christians don't have the foggiest idea what the Bible says or how it came about. 99% of Bible "readings" are out of context or without consideration of the history of the text.

Back to Exodus 21:22-28. My reading is that if a miscarriage is caused by accident, then those responsible pay a fine to the father for the loss of the fetus. If the mother were injured, then the law of a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye applies. Which means that the fetus is not treated as a human being would be, but is a property right or expectancy of the father!

Fundamentalists define their way out of this by saying that the situation described in Exodus 21:22-28 is not a miscarriage, but a live birth!  The infant is born alive though perhaps prematurely and survives hale and hearty.

There are multiple problems with that. (1) In ancient times, what is the likelihood that a prematurely born infant would have survived? IMO, vanishingly small. (2) If both mother and child are unharmed, then what is the point of the fine? (3) And if a happy, live birth is the exception, then why not tell about the punishment for causing a miscarriage, where the fetus dies, which will be more common? (4) And why in the middle of Exodus' discussion of the penalties Jewish law prescribes for accidental and intentional death and injuries, include a provision covering a rare situation where there was no harm? 

Those who argue that Exodus 21:22 described a live birth and a surviving infant fail to see the forest for the trees.    And if the Bible is "inspired by God" and "inerrant," then wouldn't a perfect God have communicated an important point with less ambiguity?  People are being murdered by those who use the Bible as justification for a violently anti-abortion stance!

My conclusion is that, whatever your interpretation, the Bible is no firm authority for the position that the fetus is a human being under Jewish law.

Let's look at another argument based on the Bible. The Bible says that "Thou shalt not kill." Performing an abortion is killing the fetus. Therefore, the Bible forbids abortion.

Once again, this is not exactly true.

The commandment is actually "Thou shalt not commit murder." Killing is in many places in the Bible sanctioned by God, in war and as a penalty, so the Bible is no authority that killing is wrong. Killing a non-human is likewise not wrong.

What then, is a fetus? Again, Exodus 21:22 is no foundation for the argument that a fetus is a human being under the law. And the Ten Commendments do not forbid killing per se.

Which means that Christian fundamentalists opposed to abortion are basing their belief on something other than the Bible.

[To the reader:  I have for years been interested in the abortion controversy and sought a logical resolution of it.  The above is the best summary of my thinking to date.  It of course resolves nothing for anyone else.  Feelings pro or con are deeply held and held by other glue than logic.  But let me say that I am especially proud of my analysis of Exodus 21:22ff, and owe it to no other person.]