In her reply to the Catholic prelates who have criticized her appeal to the Catholic tradition in justification of her political decisions with regard to abortion, Nancy Pelosi appeals to a statement by St. Augustine in his comments on Ex 21:22. A few remarks:The proper citation is to Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, Book II, ch. 80 (PL 34, 624-25). Augustine is commenting on the old Latin translation of the Septuagintal Greek translation, which read: "It two men should quarrel and oneshould strike a pregnant woman, and her child comes forth not yet formed, he shall suffer whatever penalty the womans husband may require... But if the infant is fully formed, he shall give a life for a life (animam pro anima), an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, burning for burning, blow for blow..." On this, in the pertinent passages, Augustine says:

The fact that it does not think that an un-formed offspring has anything to do with homicide, shows that it did not consider such an offspring in the womb to be a man. Here a question is usually asked about the soul: whether what is un-formed can also be understood not to be en-souled (animatam), and it is not homicide because if it did not have a soul, it cant be said to be de-souled un-formed killed). ... If, then, that child was un-formed, but in some sense was in an un-formed way en-souled (animatum)--because the difficult problem of the soul must not be resolved in haste with the rashness of an opinion not subjected to careful examinationthe Law did not want it to be considered a homicide because a soul within a body still deprived of the senses cannot be called living, if it is such in a body not yet formed and therefore not yet endowed with senses."

Here is the dense Latin: Quod vero non formatum puerperium noluit ad homicidium pertinere, profecto nec hominem deputavit quod tale in utero geritur. Hic de anima quaestio solet agitari, utrum quod formatum non est, ne animatum quidem possit intelligi, et ideo non sit homicidium, quia nec examinatum dici potest, si adhuc animam non habebat. ... Si ergo illud informe puerperium jam quidem fuerit, sed adhuc quodammodo informiter animatum (quoniam magna de anima quaestio non est praecipitanda indiscussae temeritate sententiae), ideo Lex noluit ad homicidium pertinere, quia nondum dici potest anima viva in eo corpore quod sensu caret, si talis est in carne nondum formata, et ideo nondum sensibus praedita.

If you look at a modern translation of the Exodus text, you will find something like this: "If two men quarrel and injure a woman with child so that she gives birth [or: miscarries]but suffers no other harm, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the womans 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, etc." The Septuagint translator is the one responsible for turning this text into a casuistry about the penalties that shall be enforced depending on whether the fetus is "formed" or "unformed." You can find a fascinating discussion of the Septuagint translation, and of what it may have to say about attitudes toward abortion in ancient Judaism, at http://books.google.com/books?id=xh9vy_dvO6YC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=Exodu… text is careful and not as clearly in the direction of Speaker Pelosis position as she seems to thinkconsider that phrase "informiter animatum". In any case, his aside still is worth remembering: "The difficult problem of the soul must not be resolved in haste with the rashness of an opinion not subjected to careful examination."