Random thoughts/comments

[Magical Realist]

Apparently I need to remind you to work on your reading skills again. When it clearly says the man is "not deserving of death" for an unintentional death, there obviously was an analog to manslaughter.

You can't be this stupid.

The verse didn't say that. It said this, speaking of any injury to the woman:

"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."

Once again, no consideration of manslaughter here at all. He would be killed for killing the woman. But the fetus' death would only require a fine. So no equivalence between the fetus' life and the woman's life at all.

[confused2]

That "human condition" is worrying more about social consequences that moral ones. But I can see why you'd have trouble prioritizing those.

I kind'a saw that coming. I may be wrong but wasn't there a time when Jesus was going somewhere and a whore touched his coat? Not my religion so I don't know what happened next. Can you share what happened next and why?

[RainbowUnicorn]

whore

pondering the word ...

he whored it very well
he was all whoren out


i think whore is a male gender word.
the action of whoring is the old world reptilian brain of destroying something... to rape and pilage

i think in todays society applying it to women as a term is making a statement that the person declaring it is pro domestic abuse.

the application of the word and its meaning is the man-baby screaming and throwing a tantrum that they can not sexually own a women.

[Syne]

Apparently I need to remind you to work on your reading skills again. When it clearly says the man is "not deserving of death" for an unintentional death, there obviously was an analog to manslaughter.

You can't be this stupid.

The verse didn't say that. It said this, speaking of any injury to the woman:

"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."

Once again, no consideration of manslaughter here at all. He would be killed for killing the woman. But the fetus' death would only require a fine. So no equivalence between the fetus' life and the woman's life at all.

Backpedaling, I see. You went from a very general "no such thing as manslaughter back then" to "there is no manslaughter consideration here", while there clearly was in the citation you just responded to.

But being generous and assuming you meant your Exodus citation...

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25

Again, a little reading comprehension would help you. That DOES NOT say "if there is serious injury to the woman, you are to take life for life". And it is not a foregone conclusion that a prematurely born child would die or suffer serious injury.

Here the child is miscarried or aborted prematurely but yet lives. It is important to note that according to Webster’s New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary abortion is defined as follows:

. . . the act of miscarrying or producing young before the natural time . . .” Webster’s New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary. 1975. p5.

In other words, the normal nine months of pregnancy is “aborted” or cut short and the baby is born before it is full term. An abortion does not have to result in the death of the young being.

Such an event would cause great pain to the woman and potentially injury to the child. Since no death occurred, no one is put to death; but the man who struck the woman is forced to provide financial compensation.
- https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa...-abortion/

They didn't have the modern, medical definition of abortion back then.


But again, by all means, keep digging yer hole.

---

That "human condition" is worrying more about social consequences that moral ones. But I can see why you'd have trouble prioritizing those.

I kind'a saw that coming. I may be wrong but wasn't there a time when Jesus was going somewhere and a whore touched his coat? Not my religion so I don't know what happened next. Can you share what happened next and why?

You seem to be conflating a sick woman who touched Jesus' cloak and a whore the Pharisees brought to test Jesus. The former was told her faith healed her and the latter was told he didn't condemn her and she should leave her life of sin (truly repented). Neither of which apply to whether abortion should be acceptable, as it neither heals, promotes faith, nor demonstrates any repentance.

[RainbowUnicorn]

sanctity of all life = vegan
sanctity of only human life = ...

im not sure vegans are anti abortionists.
if your an anti abortionist you have to be a vegan otherwise you are morally corrupt because the bible says ALL life is created by god and no one is allowed to take that life away
only god owns that life, which is why suicide is against the sanctity of all life.

such moral corruption is nothing new.

pro-lifers...
are they all pro-death penalty ?
are they all pro-death animals to eat ?

lol
how they couch their moral hypocrisy is such a travesty of modern intellectual evolution.
we have space travel for heavens sake.

[Leigha]

I should never have mentioned that lady bug fact. 

[Magical Realist]

I see you had to go to some crazy antiabortion site to find that twisted interpretation. Here's the verse again as it is interpreted in the Jewish tradition and according to Jewish law:

"Intentional abortion is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but a case of accidental abortion is discussed in Exodus 21:22‑23, where Scripture states: “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.”

The famous medieval biblical commentator Solomon ben Isaac, known as Rashi, interprets “no other misfortune” to mean no fatal injury to the woman following her miscarriage. In that case, the attacker pays only financial compensation for having unintentionally caused the miscarriage, no differently than if he had accidentally injured the woman elsewhere on her body. Most other Jewish Bible commentators, including Moses Nachmanides (Ramban), Abraham Ibn Ezra, Meir Leib ben Yechiel Michael (Malbim), Baruch Malawi Epstein (Torah Temimah), Samson Raphael Hirsch, Joseph Hertz, and others, agree with Rashi’s interpretation. We can thus conclude that when the mother is otherwise unharmed following trauma to her abdomen during which the fetus is lost, the only rabbinic concern is to have the one responsible pay damages to the woman and her husband for the loss of the fetus. None of the rabbis raise the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being involved because the unborn fetus is not legally a person and, therefore, there is no question of murder involved when a fetus is aborted.

Based upon this biblical statement. Moses Maimonides asserts as follows: “If one assaults a woman, even unintentionally, and her child is born prematurely, he must pay the value of the child to the husband and the compensation for injury and pain to the woman.” Maimonides continues with statements regarding how these compensations are computed. A similar declaration is found in Joseph Karo’s legal code Shulkhan Aruch. No concern is expressed by either Maimonides or Karo regarding the status of the miscarried fetus. It is part of the mother and belongs jointly to her and her husband, and thus damages must be paid for its premature death. However, the one who was responsible is not culpable for murder, since the unborn fetus is not considered a person."--- https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article...ewish-law/

[Syne]

That doesn't follow from the actual text. Again:

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
- Exodus 21:22-25

If "he must pay the value of the child to the husband and the compensation for injury and pain to the woman", why would it go on to say "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise"? Those are "injury and pain" that it explicitly says should be repaid in kind, not with monetary compensation.


And whereas the site I quoted isn't any more anti-abortion than any other Biblical site, many of the donors to yours also donate to or take donations from Planned Parenthood.

[Magical Realist]

"he must pay the value of the child to the husband and the compensation for injury and pain to the woman", why would it go on to say "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise"? Those are "injury and pain" that it explicitly says should be repaid in kind, not with monetary compensation.

Because it's talking about injury specifically to the woman, for which the punishment of like damage is demanded, including death. The verse and the interpretation are very clear as I have repeated it about 4 times already. If you don't get it by now, then move on. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

[Zinjanthropos]

Makes a woman sound like a baby dispensing vending machine. If someone’s negligence means you don’t get your doughnut then that someone has to pay.