[haubey]

>unanimously interpreted to cover abortion

Exodus 21:22-23 recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in homicides.

Jesus was Jewish and fetuses aren't considered persons under Jewish law.

[bjourne]

That is wrong. Fetuses are considered "living beings" under Jewish law and abortion is generally not permitted. Exceptions are made for pregnancies which threatens the life of the mother. See f.e. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/529077/jewish..., https://aish.com/48954946/, https://forward.com/news/501397/what-does-jewish-law-say-abo... This view is not materially different from the evangelical Christians' view which often also allow abortion if the mother's life is in danger, if the pregnancy was the result of rape, if the fetus is deformed and nonviable, etc.

[gjsman-1000]

> Jesus was Jewish and fetuses aren't considered persons under Jewish law.

A counterargument would be that the Jewish law does not address whether they are persons, but rather focuses on the fine being the solution to the matter. The law also only addresses if the incident should occur by accident (the miscarriage being a side effect), whereas deliberately inducing a miscarriage was not included.

EDIT: Adding more information (also due to reply timers):

@DangItBobby The verse in question:

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life."

A few notes.

1. The law only addresses unintentional injury, and does not address intentional injuries.

2. The law does not specify "injury." It could mean an injury that occurs to the pregnant woman, the unborn child, or both. One way to interpret the passage is that if the woman is caused to have an early delivery, then the penalty is a fine, but any further injury to the child is covered under the lex talionis law of “an eye for an eye.”

3. The law actually calls the fetus a "child," and takes foregranted that the woman "is with child" which pretty clearly shows that the personhood was taken foregranted.

[monocasa]

No, it's explicitly covered under Jewish law and has been for millennia. Under that the fetus is an organ of the mother under her complete bodily autonomy.

It doesn't say "with child" in the original Hebrew, that's added in your translation.

The way it's translated into English these days directly from the Hebrew is

> If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befell [her], then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befell [her], then shall you give life for life.

[DangitBobby]

> The law actually calls the fetus a "child," and takes foregranted that the woman "is with child"

And yet... If the woman is harmed, it's treated as if you harmed a human (eye for an eye), but if the fetus is harmed, there's a fine. It's quite clear that the fetus is not anywhere near the same importance in this law, not that this should have anything to do with modern law.

[DangitBobby]

> The law also only addresses if the incident should occur by accident (the miscarriage being a side effect), whereas deliberately inducing a miscarriage was not included.

Nope, that's covered. In the verse, accidental damage to the human mother was punishable by death.