However, that text in its various translations is not perfectly perspicuous. The RSV has it as follows:
When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
The Hebrew gives even less indication for a live birth (rather than miscarriage), as you can see here (LINK):
"And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (etc.)
Notice it refers to hurting the woman and the only reference to the baby is that "the fruit depart," without using the Hebrew words for child, infant or baby.
For this reason, even religiously observant Hebrew-speaking Jews who generally disfavor abortion, do not consider it the same as murder. I was intrigued by a recent article in Haaretz about a Jewish Pregnancy Aid organization in Israel being criticized by religious Jews for being too pro-life. Here's the story (LINK)
Here's an excerpt:
"The statements about abortion being the same as murder “are irresponsible with respect to human distress. Rabbis everywhere, from every stream of Judaism, have known how to weigh considerations of the life of the fetus against the life of the mother...and the slogan ‘Abortion is Murder’ is neither rabbinical law nor Judaism. ... Taking our Torah in the direction of Christian Catholic canon law is a terrible mistake.”
Catholic canon law interprets abortion as murder. Torah Judaism does not.
The Wycliffe Bible makes it even more definite that the death of the baby merits only a fine, and not a life-for-life retribution:
If men chide, and a man smiteth a woman with child, and soothly he maketh the child dead-born, but the woman liveth over that smiting, he shall be subject to a fine, as much as the woman’s husband asketh (for), and as the judges deem (appropriate).
Some (Protestant) commentators remark that if it had referred to the injury of a live-born baby (rather than the woman),it would not have mentioned "tooth for tooth" because babies do not have teeth; likewise it would have referred to "the baby's father" rather than "the woman's husband" if it was the baby's injury they were concerned about.
I am not claiming that there is any ill-will in this translation; I am only saying that the Bible in Hebrew and in some of its oldest Christian translations (e.g. Wycliffe) does not say beyond debate that killing a baby before birth is murder.
That, historically, is the Catholic interpretation.
Which you and I both apparently share.
So, good. We've got that in common.
Well, you did have a different understanding based on your post as reproduced below as you were attempting to argue abortion was not mentioned in Scripture as a means to somehow diminish Scripture on this topic.
But Scripture doesn't define what is meant by "abortion" because Scripture does not even contain the word "abortion" or any term equivalent to it. In the singular instance of the expulsion of a pre-viable child as the result of an act of violence, the penalty assessed is not the penalty for murder, but the penalty for property loss (Exodus 21:22-25).
In other words, you now have an Evangelistic understanding of the text in question.