FOR SHAME!

SHAME, Irwin Graulich!!!
The horror of secularism's intentional misstating as to the intent of Judaic Law...
You have essentially taken a case of unintended consequences which is the accidental death of an unborn child, or manslaughter, and compared it to outright murder. HaShem definitely makes a distinction between these things. You would lead your people to SIN???
Your interpretation of the Torah, which I know and understand, left me gasping in stunned silence at the gross and unethical position you have put forth. G-d NEVER condoned the intentional murder of a child in the womb. You should feel intense shame at presenting this unthinkable position to Jewish women because they will NOT be absolved if they CHOOSE death for their children, nor will women of any other religion or no religion at all.
Understanding the original scripture, not updated to suit your times, is paramount to understanding G-d's Commandments. You have taken the context and spun it into lead so to blind those who haven't the teaching nor the common sense you have stripped away from the righteous to make the secular feel righteous when they aren't, and can't ever be, according to your interpretation.
Exodus 21: Verse 22-25:
22: *And if men strive together, and HURT a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall surely be fined, according as the woman's shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
*Note: "...yet no harm follow" means that the child did NOT die. You will see in the next verses that these passages have nothing to do with the mother per se, but rather with the life of the child.
23: *But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25: burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
*Note. These verses make no mention whatever of the mother or the life of the mother. It is clearly the unborn child that is the main concern of these verses. Hence, if the mother miscarries and the child is born prematurely but alive, no loss of life has occurred, so a fine is the recompense for carelessness, but should the child die, it is the same as murder and is treated as such.
Your updated version makes no sense as written.
SO!
How DARE YOU!!!???!!!
Excerpt by Irwin Graulich from an article on *Jewish Thought on Abortion*Arutz Sheva:
"""What pro-choice and pro-life advocates fail to realize is that their positions make them either accessories to murder, or accomplices to a meaningless beauty salon activity or cosmetic surgery procedure. Now that we see the inherent foolishness of both positions, there is a need to examine the Biblical context for an astonishing revelation on this Solomonic issue.
In Exodus, chapter 21, verses 22-23, it states, "If men shall fight, and they collide with a pregnant woman, and she miscarries, but the woman lives, the punishment on the men is financial, as determined by judges. But if the woman dies, there should be capital punishment." Watch the brilliance and wisdom of these two sentences.
These verses clearly illustrate two important concepts. First, that the fetus is not a full life. If it were, capital punishment would be called for, as mentioned in the second sentence. We are also shown that the fetus is not a worthless piece of tissue, like excess nasal cartilage, since financial remuneration is required by the offenders. In addition, there are later references to the health of the mother taking precedence to the unborn.
So how do we interpret this God-given posture and how does it totally resolve the issue? This astounding centrist Jewish position is equally distant between pro-choice and pro-life. It simply states that abortion is not murder...and is not nothing! The only way to enforce these seemingly contradictory positions is to allow an immoral act, while at the same time to discourage it strongly, which is exactly what is done in Israel in the majority of cases."""