This morning, I heard Mitt Romney say, “If religion is to be free of government intervention …” I can finish the sentence: then abortion must remain legal. Why? Because in certain cases, it’s required by Jewish law. For example, if pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, there’s little question that an abortion is required by Jewish law.

Of course, Jewish law applies only to Jews, so non-Jews (as far as Jews are concerned) are welcome to kill mothers in order to save their babies. Since Macduff was “from my mother’s womb untimely ripp’d,” something Macbeth discovered shortly before Macduff killed him, I bet Macbeth would have favored the Jewish approach.

I’ve been thinking about this topic since last Michael P. Warsaw’s op-ed in last Wednesday’s New York Times. Mr. Warsaw feels the government intrudes on his organization’s freedom of conscience by requiring medical plans to pay for abortion and contraception. Many people whom I respect share his views, but I hope they will admit it’s possible to differ, and the basis of this difference is rarely reported (as far as I can see).

I wondered about a source for the Catholic objection to abortion. To my astonishment, an article by Robert Brom, Bishop of San Diego, cited Exodus 21:22. But–I said to myself–that verse is the very proof that in the Bible’s view, destroying a foetus is not murder. The penalty for causing a miscarriage is monetary compensation; it’s not a capital crime like murder. I’ve always wondered how opponents of abortion who base their views on the Bible can cope with that verse.

But now I see that there are different ways to interpret one verse of Torah. Here is the verse, with a couple of my translations:

Exodus 21:22

וְכִֽי־יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסֹון עָנֹושׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָֽאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִֽים

If men are brawling and they hit a pregnant woman and her fetuses come out, and there is no other harm , somebody has to be punished as the husband demands and he presents to the judges.

If/when men are fighting and they push/hit a pregnant woman and out come her offspring and there is no harm, punish he-shall-be-punished as the master of the woman shall lay upon him and he-shall-give/it-will-present in/with/to the judges.

You can see the verse and several translations here. Click the letter C to see a word-by-word translation from Hebrew to English.

Room to Differ

The verse certainly has room for different interpretations. One question is whether “and there is no other harm” means harm to the mother or the offspring. For Jews, it’s harm to the mother, as Rashi (the greatest of Jewish commentators) says; for Bishop Brom, it’s harm to the foetus.

Now, we could spend a lot of time arguing which interpretation is correct, but cyberspace doesn’t have room for a full discussion.

Who is Right?

To me, it has always made sense–when a decision has to be made–to protect the mother’s life rather than that of the foetus. Others see the opposite, but their position seems to undermine women’s rights.

So who is right? I think it was the Pilgrims. They fled England to avoid religious persecution and found a safe haven “far from the storms’ and Prelates’ rage,” in Marvell’s words.

In reports on the question of abortion, I have never seen any mention that there is a Jewish position, based in part on the Jewish understanding of this apparently crucial verse. I hope that Jewish people can continue to follow their legal system, developed over millenia and still evolving to meet contemporary needs, without the governmental interference that Mr. Warsaw and Mr. Romney fear.

I think that both the Catholic and Jewish positions deserve consideration, and I believe there are competing valid claims that must be settled case by case. Mary Midgley, that very wise writer, says: “In the seventeenth-century wars of religion, as in earlier disputes, enormous issues of doctrine were repeatedly treated as factual questions with a single right answer, reachable through controversy. Once political sides had been taken, it became extremely hard to suggest that the truth is so vast that both these doctrines may be only attempts to grasp at the part of it” (Science as Salvation, 95).

Nothing I say will conclude the debate; I only wish that more people who base their position on their understanding of scripture would realize that valid interpretations can differ. Then, perhaps they would realize that scripture’s voice in government is advisory and not decisive, that government must regulate society in order to protect all citizens–even to protect them from religious doctrines that they do not share.

I have written this with trepidation because I mean no disrespect for any religion, for we all seek truth and (if we are honest) admit that our insight is limited.