# Does the Bible explicity mention abortion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 7, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375 "2006-03-07T14:19:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/41 "2006-03-08T15:15:50Z")
Not quite the Bible- but The Didache (written perhaps one generation after the NT by the students of the Apostles) does condemn abortion as an excommunicable offense, and one of the Books of Enoch lists abortion as one of the sinful practices the Fallen Angels brought to humanity. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/42 "2006-03-08T15:27:02Z")
**Abbie Normal** - Bible and Torah scholars don’t read it that way. That interpretation doesn’t make sense, as an injury severe enough to cause premature delivery would almost certainly kill the foetus, and without modern neonatal care, any baby born before 33 weeks (i.e. more than 7 weeks early) would not survive. Prior to 33 weeks (and in some babies, up to 35 weeks) infants have no suckle reflex, so could not be fed with any methods available in those times, even if they were to be able to breathe on their own, fight infection and not succumb to massive dehydration due to an inability to control their body temperature. If the child lived there would be no cause to make reparations, however, if the mother died too from, say, massive bleeding (a much more likely scenario after such an assault than a living baby and a healthy mother) murder has been committed. In order to beat someone so badly as to cause an abortion you have to disrupt the flow of blood to the foetus- either by causing the placenta to detach from the walls of the uterus (leading to massive maternal bleeding), or by causing maternal shock and hypoperfusion of the placenta so that the foetus is starved of oxygenated blood and dies. Contrary to popular belief, strong emotion, pain or a light blow to the abdomen do not cause early labour or miscarriage- you’re talking about a particularly savage attack. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/43 "2006-03-08T15:43:32Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > **Abbie Normal** - Bible and Torah scholars don’t read it that way. > > That interpretation doesn’t make sense, as an injury severe enough to cause premature delivery would almost certainly kill the foetus, and without modern neonatal care, any baby born before 33 weeks (i.e. more than 7 weeks early) would not survive. Prior to 33 weeks (and in some babies, up to 35 weeks) infants have no suckle reflex, so could not be fed with any methods available in those times, even if they were to be able to breathe on their own, fight infection and not succumb to massive dehydration due to an inability to control their body temperature. > > If the child lived there would be no cause to make reparations, however, if the mother died too from, say, massive bleeding (a much more likely scenario after such an assault than a living baby and a healthy mother) murder has been committed. > > In order to beat someone so badly as to cause an abortion you have to disrupt the flow of blood to the foetus- either by causing the placenta to detach from the walls of the uterus (leading to massive maternal bleeding), or by causing maternal shock and hypoperfusion of the placenta so that the foetus is starved of oxygenated blood and dies. Contrary to popular belief, strong emotion, pain or a light blow to the abdomen do not cause early labour or miscarriage- you’re talking about a particularly savage attack. I don’t know scholars, or what equals a scholar but in ten seconds I was able to find Th.d’s (Whatever that means :smack: ) that argue for my argument. Not that I truely care about this single passage one way or the other. I just think it is not really debatable as it is open to interpretation. [http://65.108.250.230/Exodus\_21\_22.htm](http://65.108.250.230/Exodus_21_22.htm) > [@](#): > > ``` > The use of the word "further" in the text is not in the Hebrew nor is it implied. A literal translation for the whole sentence really should read, "And when men struggle together and strike a pregnant woman [or wife] and her children come forth, but there is no injury, he shall certainly be fined, as the husband of the woman shall impose on him, and he shall give [or pay] in [the presence of] the judges; but if there shall be an injury, then you shall pay eye for eye, life for life." > > ``` Once again I really have no dog in this fight, just saying that translations and how you read something ultimately is up to you. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/44 "2006-03-08T15:52:53Z")
**Abbie Normal** I did read your link, but you can hardly call it unbiased. However, taking some lingusitic points into consideration. If the word does mean “live birth” rather than “miscarriage” or “still birth” (and even the scholar you linked to suggests that it could be used to mean stillbirth)- then it could also and equally be interpreted that if the child is born dead, NO injury has occurred, but that if the child died AFTER being born alive then murder would have occurred. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/45 "2006-03-08T16:43:15Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > **Abbie Normal** I did read your link, but you can hardly call it unbiased. > > However, taking some lingusitic points into consideration. > > If the word does mean “live birth” rather than “miscarriage” or “still birth” (and even the scholar you linked to suggests that it could be used to mean stillbirth)- then it could also and equally be interpreted that if the child is born dead, NO injury has occurred, but that if the child died AFTER being born alive then murder would have occurred. I went to Bible Gateway and read a bunch of different versions. Most use the premature birth translation. The added, and no more harm is done can be taken either way. Premature birth but no harm to the baby, or no harm to the woman. I’d have to say that the argument that it doesn’t nessecarily mean stillborn or miscarried is pretty legitimate. Does anyone have any other insight into Jewish law? ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/46 "2006-03-08T17:40:09Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > You’re not misreading, the passage was just badly edited. In its complete form it reads: > > IOW the death penalty only applies if the woman dies. If she loses an eye then the perpetrators have an eye removed, if she breaks an arm the pertrators have an arm broken and so forth. > > Only the death of the mother will result in the death penalty for the perpetrators. Slightly OT, but the “eye for an eye” commandment was never taken literally. Rather, an appropriate monetary fine was imposed. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/47 "2006-03-08T21:50:06Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > Slightly OT, but the “eye for an eye” commandment was never taken literally. Rather, an appropriate monetary fine was imposed. No, that is the translation adopted by modern Jews. There is nothing in the Torah itself and no historcial evidence that it was initailly meant to be interpreted anything but literally. Jewish law is fairly organic and manages to change with the times, but saying that ‘eye for eye’ was _never_ taken literally can’t be justified. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/48 "2006-03-08T23:57:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Slighty off OP > I couldn’t find any passages in Joshua where God commanded that the babies be cut from the mother’s whom. Anyone have a specific passage for that? There’s plenty of killing though. Kill everything living. Men woman and children and all the animals too. Gee. God was really pissed. > > Based on the passages we looked at I can’t see how Christians condem abortion for everyone and want to remove that choice completely. I understand it as an emotional response but it infiriates me when people like Pat Robertson claim to know what God thinks about the subject. Based on what? My bad. I recalled from a long ago cover to cover reading that the passage occurred during a period of conquest, so I assumed it was in Joshua or Judges. 'Twasn’t. > [@2Kings 15](#): > > 13Shallum son of Jabesh became king in the thirty-ninth year of Uzziah king of Judah, and he reigned one month in Samaria. > > 14Then Menahem son of Gadi went up from Tirzah and came to Samaria, and struck Shallum son of Jabesh in Samaria, and killed him and became king in his place. > > 15Now the rest of the acts of Shallum and his conspiracy which he made, behold they are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. > > 16Then Menahem struck Tiphsah and all who were in it and its borders from Tirzah, because they did not open to him; therefore he struck it **and ripped up all its women who were with child.** from [BibleGateway](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2015%20;&version=49;#en-NASB-9942) Now, immediately following this passage, Menahem becomes king of Israel, and does evil in the eyes of the lord, so it’s not clear that God condones the behavior in 15:16. This passage cross-references to: > [@2Kings 8](#): > > 8The king said to Hazael, “Take a gift in your hand and go to meet the man of God, and inquire of the LORD by him, saying, ‘Will I recover from this sickness?’” > > 9So Hazael went to meet him and took a gift in his hand, even every kind of good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ loads; and he came and stood before him and said, “Your son Ben-hadad king of Aram has sent me to you, saying, ‘Will I recover from this sickness?’” > > 10Then Elisha said to him, “Go, say to him, ‘You will surely recover,’ but the LORD has shown me that he will certainly die.” > > 11He fixed his gaze steadily on him until he was ashamed, and the man of God wept. > > 12Hazael said, “Why does my lord weep?” Then he answered, “Because I know the evil that you will do to the sons of Israel: their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword, and **their little ones you will dash in pieces, and their women with child you will rip up.** ” Again, the doer of these deeds is painted in a bad light. HOWEVER, it also cross-references to God’s words in Hosea 13: > [@Hosea13:16](#): > > Samaria will be held guilty, > For she has rebelled against her God > They will fall by the sword, > Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, > **And their pregnant women will be ripped open.** And speaking of little ones dashed to pieces, 2Kings 8:12 cross-references to this passage where the Lord sizes up the can of whup-ass he will open on Nineveh by comparing to the destroyed city of No-amon: > [@Nahum 3:10](#): > > Yet she became an exile, > She went into captivity; > **Also her small children were dashed to pieces** > At the head of every street; > They cast lots for her honorable men, > And all her great men were bound with fetters. which in turn cross-references to the list of the fates of Babylonians on the day of the wrath of the Lord: > [@Isaiah 13](#): > > 16**Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces > Before their eyes**; > Their houses will be plundered > And their wives ravished. > 17Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, > Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold. > 18And their bows will mow down the young men, > **They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, > Nor will their eye pity children.** as well as this psalm recalling the captivity: > [@Psalm 137](#): > > 8O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, > How blessed will be the one who repays you > With the recompense with which you have repaid us. > 9**How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones > Against the rock.** So even though my original reference was wrong, I still feel borne out in my interpretation of God’s thought on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/49 "2006-03-09T01:08:06Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > My bad. > > I recalled from a long ago cover to cover reading that the passage occurred during a period of conquest, so I assumed it was in Joshua or Judges. > > 'Twasn’t. > > from [BibleGateway](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2015%20;&version=49;#en-NASB-9942) > > Now, immediately following this passage, Menahem becomes king of Israel, and does evil in the eyes of the lord, so it’s not clear that God condones the behavior in 15:16. This passage cross-references to: > > Again, the doer of these deeds is painted in a bad light. > > HOWEVER, it also cross-references to God’s words in Hosea 13: > > And speaking of little ones dashed to pieces, 2Kings 8:12 cross-references to this passage where the Lord sizes up the can of whup-ass he will open on Nineveh by comparing to the destroyed city of No-amon: > > which in turn cross-references to the list of the fates of Babylonians on the day of the wrath of the Lord: > > as well as this psalm recalling the captivity: > > So even though my original reference was wrong, I still feel borne out in my interpretation of God’s thought on the matter. Thanks for your effort in getting those passages. Pretty interesting and scary. THat’s some nasty vengeful Jehovah. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/50 "2006-03-09T01:40:55Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Not quite the Bible- but The Didache (written perhaps one generation after the NT by the students of the Apostles) does condemn abortion as an excommunicable offense, and one of the Books of Enoch lists abortion as one of the sinful practices the Fallen Angels brought to humanity. How do those books rank when weighing in on on determining the will of God? Are they supposed to have been divinely inspired? I am not trying to limit their meaning…just genuinely curious how to place them on a continuum with the Bible at one end and a religious screed some dude on the street hands me on the other. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/51 "2006-03-09T02:28:42Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Thanks for your effort in getting those passages. Pretty interesting and scary. THat’s some nasty vengeful Jehovah. Just one word of caution though. I’ve also seen “all its women who were with child” translated as “Any woman who has borne a child”, which puts quote a diifferent complexion on those quotes. It isn’t saying that pregant women should be killed specifically, it is saying that all women who have ever given birth should be killed. That translation also gels better with other gems of peace and tolerance in the OT such as Numbers 31:17 > [@](#): > > Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. IOW the passages about killing women with child is really referring to killing all women who have had children by enemy males. It’s based on a belief in telegenetics, essentailly that if a woman has a child by one non-Jewish man all future children will be slightly contaminated. By killing all such women you prevent contaminatoon of the Jewish people just as you do by kiling “every woman that hath known man by lying with him”. You eliminate all the polluted women and take the rest as sex slaves. This is also consistent with he views expressed elsewhere in the OT that any any animal that a man has sex with is to be immediately killed and not eaten. The idea once again being that the animal is corrupted by the act of sex. Of course killing all women who have had children by enemy males doesn’t make such a God any more pleasant, but it does mean thatthose passages have no real relevance to abortion beynd the fact that some of the womern killed would surely be pregnant at the time theyare killed. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/52 "2006-03-09T04:24:51Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > Of course you can read Onan’s sin as being stepping out of his _obligation_ to provide a child for his dead brother. Nothing to do with masturbation or contraception in general, more to do with the fact that Onan married Tamar _specifically_ for the purpose of providing children to carry on his brother’s line. > > By deliberately not fulfilling his part of the bargain he had entered into by marrying Tamar, he pissed off God. > > The key bit is “Onan knew the seed should not be his” and that he did what he did “lest he should give seed to his brother”- i.e. he was stealing his brother’s chance of having an heir. AFAIK, this is the correct way to understand the story of Onan. That hasn’t stopped people from using it to argue against contraception in one form or another. I think some folks are simply ignorant of the context of Onan’s actions (his failure to keep his part of the bargain), while others are already opposed to contraception and are looking to Scripture for backup. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/53 "2006-03-09T05:45:20Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, that is the translation adopted by modern Jews. There is nothing in the Torah itself and no historcial evidence that it was initailly meant to be interpreted anything but literally. > > Jewish law is fairly organic and manages to change with the times, but saying that ‘eye for eye’ was _never_ taken literally can’t be justified. It is not a modern interpretation. It is the Talmudic interpretation. [http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en\_mishpatim.html](http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_mishpatim.html) [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Weekly\_Torah\_Commentary/mishpatim\_hillel2002.htm](http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Weekly_Torah_Commentary/mishpatim_hillel2002.htm) As far as Jewish tradition goes, you are wrong. Now it is possible that this tradition is covering up historical reality, and the ancient Hebrews were in fact poking each others eyes out. But to state that “eye for and eye’ really means 'value of an eye for an eye” is a modern interpretation is erroneous. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/54 "2006-03-09T06:10:41Z")
sciurophobic I hope that tyou reliase that posting Jewish religious opinion as historical fact is no more valid than posting the Book of Mormon or Roman Catholic Tradition as historical fact. Jews don’t get some special pass. The fact is that any translations of the text as being other than literal are recent inventions not in any way found within the original text. Your own references admit that. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/55 "2006-03-09T06:20:26Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > This is also consistent with he views expressed elsewhere in the OT that any any animal that a man has sex with is to be immediately killed and not eaten. The idea once again being that the animal is corrupted by the act of sex. This is OT but I find it interesting that in the bits you talk about above it is the men doing the corrupting but the blameless women, children and animals suffering the consequences. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/56 "2006-03-09T06:23:53Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > \*\*sciurophobic \*\* I hope that tyou reliase that posting Jewish religious opinion as historical fact is no more valid than posting the Book of Mormon or Roman Catholic Tradition as historical fact. Jews don’t get some special pass. It’s no more or less reasonable than posting quotes from any other religious work. One poster asserts that since the Bible doesn’t say otherwise, we must assume that the Hebrews really were, as \*\*sciurophobic \*\* put it, “poking each others eyes out.” **sciurophobic** asserts that since case law (Talmud) says something else, we may assume that the Hebrews did not routinely mutilate each other for this purpose. We have neither the tablets nor Moses at our disposal. I suggest that we regard _all_ renderings of the text in question, including the Hebrew, as being at some remove from the “original.” ---
**Author:** ![baronsabato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed655f/32.png) [@baronsabato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/baronsabato)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/57 "2006-03-09T06:28:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How do those books rank when weighing in on on determining the will of God? Are they supposed to have been divinely inspired? I am not trying to limit their meaning…just genuinely curious how to place them on a continuum with the Bible at one end and a religious screed some dude on the street hands me on the other. Well, for most moderate-liberal Christians who don’t think the Bible is the literal word of God, these verses aren’t too problematic. We generally see them as reflecting historical and cultural contexts and we try to understand why they came to be in the Bible when they clearly conflict with our understanding of God as a loving and merciful God for all people. This usually seems like cherry-picking to both non-Christians and conservative Christians, but most liberal Christians would disagree, although that’s a discussion for a different thread. One example of this way of reading the Bible would be how I see Psalm 137, which I think is actually a beautiful psalm, one of my favorites. > [@Psalm 137](#): > > Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock! When I read this Psalm, I see it as a prayer of desparation by the Psalmist during the period of Babylonian exile. The last line is not a godly thing to desire, nor does it reflect God’s will. Even so, as my study Bible puts it, “it is better to offer such sentiments to God in prayer than actually to enact such violence aainst the enemy. The anger needs to be vented and deserves attention.” As for literalist and fundamentalist Christians, well, I don’t know what they would think of these passages. Back when I was fundamentalist, I didn’t really know much about them, and when I found out about them by actually reading the Bible :rolleyes:, I found them disturbing. Most fundamentalists I’ve talked to believe these passages either don’t mean what the translation says, or they use the argument that those people were all just pure evil without any good, and that their children would have grown up to be evil people, and therefore did not deserve to live. Needless to say, I found these interpretations somewhat dubious at best. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/58 "2006-03-09T06:29:06Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > We have neither the tablets nor Moses at our disposal. I suggest that we regard _all_ renderings of the text in question, including the Hebrew, as being at some remove from the “original.” I agree. Then let’s look at the ealiest texts and see whether they say “eye for eye” or, as sciurophobic suggests, “eye for monetary value of eye”. That way we can know which is more recent. If the eraliest texts say "“eye for monetary value of eye” the I will retract my claim that such is more recent. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375/59 "2006-03-09T15:10:31Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > sciurophobic I hope that tyou reliase that posting Jewish religious opinion as historical fact is no more valid than posting the Book of Mormon or Roman Catholic Tradition as historical fact. Jews don’t get some special pass. > > The fact is that any translations of the text as being other than literal are recent inventions not in any way found within the original text. Your own references admit that. I am posting that it is a fact that there was an opinion, and that said opinion is markedly different from yours. What we have here is one definite fact (that the Talmud states that the “eye for an eye” rule was never taken literally) and one possible fact (it was taken literally, and the rabbinical compilers of the Talmud whitewashed history so as not to appear barbaric.) I am willing to accept evidence for this “possible” fact, as there are numerous instances of religious leaders lying (some on this board would say that’s all they do). Until such time I am going to take the not unreasonable stance that the rabbis of centuries ago knew Jewish history and law better than you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bible-explicity-mention-abortion/347375.md?page=2)