From Reddit:
Quoting the bible to contradict a Christian almost never helps, but there is only one part that brushes against the value of an unborn life versus a fully formed human.
Exodus 21:22 –
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
We can extrapolate from this that the value of an unborn fetus is not equal to the value of the mother. As the passage says, cause a miscarriage and you’ll be fined, not put to death. There are pages and pages of research about this passage where pro-lifers try to twist and contort the meaning in the original Hebrew, but the context makes it quite easy to understand the message that was trying to be conveyed.
Biblical Scholars– the overwhelming majority of which are pro-life– argue that the verse refers only to live births. But at least one admits that “in fact, it is never used for a miscarriage, though it is used of a still birth.”
Further to that, does this passage make sense if it only refers to live births? Where is the harm, exactly, if the woman is struck and then gives birth? If it is the harm of being struck, then why the reference to “miscarriage” or “birth”– your choice? It really does not make much sense unless it refers to a miscarriage.
The pro-life partisans argue that the particular Hebrew word is not used elsewhere to refer to still-births, but, of course, the Bible isn’t a comprehensive list of all possible eventualities. The argument has some currency, but not very much, in my view.