The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.
A Letter to Dr. Prescott
Bill Fortenberry
This letter was written in response to Dr. Prescott's article posted on the Mainstream Baptist blog. Dr. Prescott is the executive director of the Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists.
Dr. Prescott:
I recently had the opportunity to read your article "Opposing Oklahoma's Personhood Bill," and I find myself puzzled over your position favoring abortion. Particularly disturbing is your claim that Exodus 21:22 somehow teaches that the unborn child is not a person of equal moral standing with those who have been born. This is simply not the case.
In your article, you claimed to present a "straightforward, literal interpretation" of this verse, but you quoted from the RSV which presents neither a literal nor a straightforward translation. This version uses the word miscarriage in verse 22, but the Hebrew word for miscarriage (məsakkelah) is nowhere to be found in this passage. The Hebrew phrase actually used in this passage is "wəyasə’u yəladeha" which is literally translated as "her child come out" or, in the more poetic language of the King James Version, "her fruit depart from her." Therefore, a truly "straightforward, literal interpretation" of Exodus 21:22 would be that this verse describes a woman who has delivered her child prematurely.
This understanding is significant enough to raise the question of whether the mischief described in verses 23-25 is a reference to calamities which befall the prematurely born child rather than the mother. That this mischief refers to harm to the child is clearly seen in the fact that it is said to follow the delivery of the child. If verses 23-25 were made in reference to the mother, then it would make no sense to wait until after the child is delivered to determine if the guilty party should be punished for harm done to eye or tooth or hand or foot. It would only make sense to withhold judgment until after the delivery if these verses are referring to injuries suffered by the child.
In contrast to your claim that "only a monetary fine was stipulated for the loss of an unborn child," a proper interpretation of this passage teaches the exact opposite. A monetary fine was imposed against the man who caused a woman to deliver her child prematurely if that child was born healthy and whole. If the child died as a result of the premature delivery, then the guilty party was to be forfeited of his own life. If the child was born maimed, then the guilty party was to be maimed in like manner. Instead of justifying abortion, Exodus 21:22-25 condemns to death any man who causes the death of an unborn child.
Thus, we can conclude that this passage agrees with the many other passages in Scripture which place unborn children on the same plane as every other human being. In Job 10:18, Jeremiah 20:17 and Numbers 12:12, we can see that the Bible recognizes the unborn child as a person in the womb. From Judges 13:4-5, Jeremiah 1:5 and Hosea 9:11-12, we can conclude that the personhood of the unborn child begins at conception. And finally, from Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13 and Numbers 35:31 we can conclude that abortion is wrong since "whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death." The Bible clearly equates abortion with murder, and that correlation is fully consistent with the passage found in Exodus 21:22-25.
I trust that you can understand why I found your article so puzzling. I am utterly at a loss to explain how a theologian of your caliber could arrive at the conclusion that abortion is permissible. If you would be so kind as to respond to my letter and explain your exegesis I would be very appreciative.
Humbly yours in Christ,
Bill Fortenberry
The Personhood Initiative
www.personhoodinitiative.com
Dr. Prescott:
I recently had the opportunity to read your article "Opposing Oklahoma's Personhood Bill," and I find myself puzzled over your position favoring abortion. Particularly disturbing is your claim that Exodus 21:22 somehow teaches that the unborn child is not a person of equal moral standing with those who have been born. This is simply not the case.
In your article, you claimed to present a "straightforward, literal interpretation" of this verse, but you quoted from the RSV which presents neither a literal nor a straightforward translation. This version uses the word miscarriage in verse 22, but the Hebrew word for miscarriage (məsakkelah) is nowhere to be found in this passage. The Hebrew phrase actually used in this passage is "wəyasə’u yəladeha" which is literally translated as "her child come out" or, in the more poetic language of the King James Version, "her fruit depart from her." Therefore, a truly "straightforward, literal interpretation" of Exodus 21:22 would be that this verse describes a woman who has delivered her child prematurely.
This understanding is significant enough to raise the question of whether the mischief described in verses 23-25 is a reference to calamities which befall the prematurely born child rather than the mother. That this mischief refers to harm to the child is clearly seen in the fact that it is said to follow the delivery of the child. If verses 23-25 were made in reference to the mother, then it would make no sense to wait until after the child is delivered to determine if the guilty party should be punished for harm done to eye or tooth or hand or foot. It would only make sense to withhold judgment until after the delivery if these verses are referring to injuries suffered by the child.
In contrast to your claim that "only a monetary fine was stipulated for the loss of an unborn child," a proper interpretation of this passage teaches the exact opposite. A monetary fine was imposed against the man who caused a woman to deliver her child prematurely if that child was born healthy and whole. If the child died as a result of the premature delivery, then the guilty party was to be forfeited of his own life. If the child was born maimed, then the guilty party was to be maimed in like manner. Instead of justifying abortion, Exodus 21:22-25 condemns to death any man who causes the death of an unborn child.
Thus, we can conclude that this passage agrees with the many other passages in Scripture which place unborn children on the same plane as every other human being. In Job 10:18, Jeremiah 20:17 and Numbers 12:12, we can see that the Bible recognizes the unborn child as a person in the womb. From Judges 13:4-5, Jeremiah 1:5 and Hosea 9:11-12, we can conclude that the personhood of the unborn child begins at conception. And finally, from Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13 and Numbers 35:31 we can conclude that abortion is wrong since "whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death." The Bible clearly equates abortion with murder, and that correlation is fully consistent with the passage found in Exodus 21:22-25.
I trust that you can understand why I found your article so puzzling. I am utterly at a loss to explain how a theologian of your caliber could arrive at the conclusion that abortion is permissible. If you would be so kind as to respond to my letter and explain your exegesis I would be very appreciative.
Humbly yours in Christ,
Bill Fortenberry
The Personhood Initiative
www.personhoodinitiative.com