“And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for sou l." Exodus 21:22-23 NWT
" If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life." Good News Bible
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [ e -"miscarriage"] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life." NIV
Band on the Run, that was the most clear and concise response I've read on this issue in a long time. That makes perfect sense, and explains why the Bible is silent on this matter.
Above I copied Exodus 21:22-23 that the Witnesses' "Reasoning" book uses as proof that God prohibits abortions. But comparing it with the Good News Bible, the NIV and other translations I find that the Witnesses seem to have deviated from what the others say. Some translations indicate that if the woman gets hurt and miscarries but is not injured in any other way, the husband can only ask for damages, even if the embryo/fetus dies. It is only if the woman dies, can the husband demand life for life.
The Witness Bible renders the verse differently, saying that if a man were to " hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs," then there will be just a fine. They include the woman and the unborn child in the fatal accident. They also claim that the children who "do come out" are born alive and not miscarried as some translations say. That would also mean that if a "fatal accident" did occur to either the woman or the unborn child, a life for life penalty would be imposed on the man who hurt the woman or the baby.
Now here's the flaw in their reasoning: If a baby were to be born -- albeit prematurely -- because of the struggle and did survive, that would mean that the woman was already near her due date to giving birth. You see in Bible times the technology and know-how to keep an extremely premature baby alive did not exist. Therefore, a baby who is born after a struggle and where "no fatal accident occurs" was likely going to be born soon anyway. That's basically the secular law on abortion today. It is against the law to abort any baby that can survive on it's own, even with medical equipment, outside the mother. In other words, this verse (according to the NWT) is not discussing an abortion, the type of which are legally performed today during the earlier weeks and months of a pregnancy, but rather, the death of an unborn child that was far enough along that it could have survived on its own outside the mother. Therefore, it is inappropriate and a gross twisting of the scriptures to use this verse, even in the NWT, in the modern-day abortion debate.
Is it just me, or do the men who are leading the Witnesses need to clarify this mistake, apologize to their congregations and then humble themselves before God and beg for mercy for having sacraligiously twisted God's word for so long? I'm just saying.