EXOD543 Abortion in the Bible. The legislation of the Bible makes only one reference to our subject, and this is by implication: [Exodus 21:22-23]. A. The Jewish Interpretation. -- This crucial passage, by one of the most curious twists of literary fortunes, marks the parting of the ways between the Jewish and Christian rulings on abortion. According to the Jewish interpretation, if "no harm follow" the "hurt" to the woman resulting in the loss of her fruit refers to the survival of the woman following her miscarriage; in that case there is no capital guilt involved, and the attacker is merely liable to pay compensation for the loss of her fruit. "But if any harm follow," i.e., if the woman is fatally injured, then the man responsible for her death has to "give life for life"; in that event the capital charge of murder exempts him from any monetary liability for the aborted fruit. [Mekhilta and Rashi. For a translation of these sources, see 3 Lauterbach, Mekhilta 66-67 (1935); Rosenbaum & Silbermann, Pentateuch with Rashi's Commentary, 112-13 (1930)]. This interpretation is also borne out by the rabbinical exegesis of the verse defining the law of murder: "He that smites a man, so that he dieth, shall surely be put to death ..." [this verse] which the rabbis construed to mean "a man, but not a fetus." [Mekhilta and Rashi. For a translation of these sources, see 3 Lauterbach, Mekhilta 32-33; Rosenbaum & Silbermann, Pentateuch with Rashi's Commentary, 110-10a] These passages clearly indicate that the killing of an unborn child is not considered as murder punishable by death in Jewish law. B. The Christian Interpretation. -- The Christian tradition disputing this view goes back to a mistranslation in the Septuagint. There, the Hebrew for "no harm follow" was replaced by the Greek for "[her child be born] imperfectly formed." [The mistranslation, also followed in the Samaritan and Karaite versions, is evidently based on reading zurah or surah (meaning "form") for ason (meaning "harm" or "accident"). See Kaufmann, Gedenkschrift 186 (1900)]. This interpretation, distinguishing between an unformed and a formed fetus and branding the killing of the latter as murder, was accepted by Tertullian, who was ignorant of Hebrew, and by later church fathers. The distinction was subsequently embodied in canon law as well as in Justinian Law. [See Westermarck, Christianity and Morals 243 (1939)]. This position was further reinforced by the belief that the "animation" (entry of the soul) of a fetus occurred on the fortieth or eightieth day after conception for males and females respectively, an idea first expressed by Aristotle [Aristotle, De Anim. Hist. vii. 3; see 1 Catholic Encyclopedia 46-48 (1907)], and by the doctrine, firmly enunciated by St. Augustine and other early Christian authorities, that the unborn child was included among those condemned to eternal perdition if he died unbaptized. [See 1 Ploss & Bartels, Woman 483 (1935); 2 Catholic Encyclopedia 26-67 (1907)] Some even regarded the death or murder of an unborn child as a greater calamity than that of a baptized person [See 2 Lecky, History of European Morals 23-24 (3d ed. 1891)]. Eventually the distinction between animate and inanimate fetuses was lost; and since 1588, the Catholic Church has considered as murder the killing of any human fruit from the moment of conception.[See 1 Ploss & Bartels, op. cit, at 484; Bonnar; The Catholic Doctor 78 (1948)]. This position is maintained to the present-day [See, e.g., Catholic Hospital Association of the United States and Canada, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Hospitals 4 (1949)]. It assumes that potential life, even in the earliest stages of justation, enjoys the same value as any existing adult life. Hence, the Catholic Church never tolerates any direct abortion, even when, by allowing the pregnancy to continue, both mother and child will perish [See Bonnar, op. cit, at 84]; for "better two deaths than one murder." [Tiberghien, "Principles et Conscience Morale," Cahiers Laennac, Oct. 1946, p. 13].