Doesn't seem to be read correctly. "If men strive..."
It means they're fighting.
That's right. According to the Hebrew Lexicon, it's two (or more) men striving together and the woman just gets in the way. No analog to abortion here.
Now if a woman intentionally gets involved ala Deuteronomy 25:11-12, THAT could be a problem. lol
Look at the penalties:
Woman hurt (and by implication killed): life for life - treated as murder.
Fetus killed: money compensation paid - clearly not as serious as killing an adult.
Doesn't seem to be read correctly. "If men strive..."
It means they're fighting.
That's right. According to the Hebrew Lexicon, it's two (or more) men striving together and the woman just gets in the way. No analog to abortion here.
Now if a woman intentionally gets involved ala Deuteronomy 25:11-12, THAT could be a problem. lol
Look at the penalties:
Woman hurt (and by implication killed): life for life - treated as murder.
Fetus killed: money compensation paid - clearly not as serious as killing an adult.
Point made.
The life of a real, live human being wasn't worth crap in the Old Testament cultures. Why would anyone in these cultures give a further crap about the well-being of a fetus?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
beastie wrote:I think it's a stretch - especially today when pregnancy is much safer than it was in the past - to try to make the case for self-defense in this scenario.
After all, if one is going to rely on the statistical chance of death to build a case for self-defense in this situation, then all abortions could be justified by the use of self-defense. For the self-defense to work at all (and I'm not convinced it does work, ever), it has to be a clear and present risk of death, not just a statistical chance.
The gynocologist told me that ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of death for women my wife's age (late 20's). That's in part because it can be difficult to determine that the pregnancy is ectopic in the first place.
As far as self-defense goes, I don't think I'd characterize abortion as self-defense nor as murder. The church says it is "like unto" murder. What does that mean? Is it more like manslaughter, or more like the needless killing of animals? The church does not say (that I'm aware of), but their policies seem to indicate that it is less than manslaughter and more than wanton destruction of non-human animals.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
guy sajer wrote:The life of a real, live human being wasn't worth s*** in the Old Testament cultures. Why would anyone in these cultures give a further s*** about the well-being of a fetus?
I could be wrong, but I believe that the life of your own sons was worth something. Also, the virginity of your sisters / daughters seemed to be quite important as well (at least as far as protecting them from gentiles).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
guy sajer wrote: The life of a real, live human being wasn't worth s*** in the Old Testament cultures. Why would anyone in these cultures give a further s*** about the well-being of a fetus?
I think we may be on different points here. The original Beastie post was simply designed to show that the deity portrayed in the Old Testament seems to consider killing a fetus (money fine exacted) to be a lot less serious than killing an adult (capital punishment inflicted). Hence he evidently did not consider causing an abortion to be the same thing as murder. I cannot in fact think of any traditional society I know of in which abortion, particularly at an early stage of pregnancy, was equated to murder.
I agree that in warfare in Old Testament times there was as little care for human life, whether of soldiers or civilians, as there is in some modern wars. But the illicit killing of an adult human being who was a full member of society (not a slave, for instance) under the conditions of civil life evidently was treated very seriously, since the death penalty was imposed for it.
Only if the woman or fetus was the object of the assault. By your logic, we should be having the death penalty for deadly traffic accidents.
Nope. The scripture says that if "more mischief" (ie, harm) results, then it is "life for life". In other words, if the woman dies, then it's the death penalty.
There is no death penalty for the fetus.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Nope. The scripture says that if "more mischief" (ie, harm) results, then it is "life for life". In other words, if the woman dies, then it's the death penalty.
There is no death penalty for the fetus.
Death penalty for acciental death? Hmmmm....I like it. But checking the Lexicon again on mischief, it seems that if such follows then perhaps it wasn't accidental after all and then the death penalty applies in the case of the fetus. No mention of the woman's death is made. You've just proven the opposite of the case you hoped to make.
Nope. The scripture says that if "more mischief" (ie, harm) results, then it is "life for life". In other words, if the woman dies, then it's the death penalty.
There is no death penalty for the fetus.
Death penalty for acciental death? Hmmmm....I like it. But checking the Lexicon again on mischief, it seems that if such follows then perhaps it wasn't accidental after all and then the death penalty applies in the case of the fetus. No mention of the woman's death is made. You've just proven the opposite of the case you hoped to make.
I find this post opaque and devoid of logic. I think bcspace wrote his last sentence first, tried to precede it with a logical justification, but just couldn't make it. But he posted all the same, on the good old principle that if he posts last, he wins.
Tell you what I'll do:
If anybody who agrees with bcspace posts here, and explains to me what the logic of bcspace's post is in a manner that my tiny intellect can comprehend, I'll argue back. If it is only bcspace who supports his position (whatever it may be) I'll just assume he is talking to himself, and let the matter pass.
Anyone agree with bcspace and can explain what his post means?