What happened to LDS apologist Doug Marshall?

[_beastie]

Exodus
22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

The LDS footnotes say that "mischief" means "other harm".

Obviously GOD did not consider the miscarriage of the woman from an act of violence as the equivalent of murder.

BC, your interpretation makes no sense. The fetus has already died when the "fruit depart from her". So the additional "yet no mischief follow" has to do with the loss of the woman's life. If the woman doesn't die, then the offender has to pay the husband a fine.

IF, on the other hand, "mischief follow" - which can only apply to the woman since the fetus already died when the fruit departed from her - THEN it's life for life.

In other words, the fetus' life didn't count towards "life for life". That's because the God of the Old Testament didn't view the fetus as "life" like you do. The Judaic tradition, If I recall correctly, is that the fetus counts as "life" after quickening, anyway, which is about mid-way through pregnancy (around the same time Roe V Wade provides more restrictions).

This isn't rocket science. Guy is correct, anyway - the god of the Old Testament and the accompanying culture cared very little for life in general. That you imagine this god and culture thought a fetus worthy of the same (little)consideration given to adults (after all, kids could get killed for being rude to their parents, so kids' lives weren't worth much, either, and virginal young women were given to God's conquering army, so teens' lives weren't worth much) is what you call... get ready for it... drumroll....

PRESENTISM.

snicker

[_bcspace]

which can only apply to the woman since the fetus already died when the fruit departed from her -

Which would then imply that the death of the fetus wasn't accidental and then there would be life for life which can only apply to the fetus because there is no mention of the death of the woman.

Checkmate.

[_Chap]

which can only apply to the woman since the fetus already died when the fruit departed from her -

Which would then imply that the death of the fetus wasn't accidental and then there would be life for life which can only apply to the fetus because there is no mention of the death of the woman.

Checkmate.

Same as before. It is not worth replying to a post like this unless there is some evidence that at least one other person on the board finds it convincing.

Anyone?

[_bcspace]

Same as before. It is not worth replying to a post like this unless there is some evidence that at least one other person on the board finds it convincing.

Anyone?

So you believe in the life for life statement even though the woman is not dead?

lol

[_Chap]

Same reaction as before. If anyone else cares to indicate, by rephrasing it in clear terms, what they think bcspace's argument is, and states that they agree with it, I shall discuss his post. Otherwise not.

Anybody out there see bcspace's point and agree with him?

[_bcspace]

Same reaction as before.

We should also find out where the "if the woman dies" comes from because it's not in those verses therefore making the fetus the only life to take another life for. Frankly, I think you've been hung out to dry.

[_Tarski]

There could be a hidden irony in all this:

"One day they came both, Joseph and [Doctor] Bennett, on horseback to my house. Bennett dismounted, Joseph remained outside. Bennett wanted me to return to him a book I had borrowed from him. It was a so-called doctor-book. I had a rapidly growing little family and wanted to inform myself about certain matters in regard to babies, etc., -- this explains my borrowing that book."

"While giving Bennett his book, I observed that he held something in the left sleeve of his coat. Bennett smiled and said: 'Oh, a little job for Joseph; one of his women is in trouble.' Saying this. he took the thing out of his left sleeve. It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end."

"[Dr. Bennett] endeavored to seduce them, and accomplished his designs by saying it was right; that it was one of the mysteries of God, which was to be revealed when the people was strong enough in faith to bear such mysteries - that it was perfectly right to have illicit intercourse with females, providing no one knew it but themselves, vehemently trying them from day to day, to yield to his passions, bringing witnesses of his own clan to testify that there were such revelations and such commandments, and that they were of God; also stating that he would be responsible for their sins, if there were any, and that he would give them medicine to produce abortions, provided they should become pregnant." (Affidavit of Hyrum Smith. History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.71)

[_bcspace]

There could be a hidden irony in all this:

There could also be an overactive imagination. Notice Tarski didn't give reference to the first quote. I wonder why?

[_beastie]

IF ANY MISCHIEF FOLLOW.

Your own LDS footnotes explain that "mischief" means further harm.

In other words - unless further harm follows - which can only mean the woman, since the fetus is already dead - then the only penalty is a fine. If the woman is further harmed, then the penalty is: a life for a life.

Honest to goodness, am I speaking a foreign language here? It is inconceivable to me that you cannot comprehend this, BC.

22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, [note - the fetus is dead at this point] and yet no mischief follow [note- YET means that even though the fetus is dead, no further harm takes place]: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow,[note: AND IF means that the situation is now different, and the women IS harmed] then [note] then means that this penalty does not apply if the is no following mischief, ie, harm to the woman]thou shalt give life for life, [note this penalty is invoked because there IS further harm to the woman.]

I'll try one more thing. Here's how the scripture would read if it said what BC thinks:

22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, the penalty shall be a life for a life.

[_bcspace]

Your own LDS footnotes explain that "mischief" means further harm.

That's correct. And double-checking in the Lexicon, harm and evil is pretty much all it means. So if death is not absolute in this case (not even implied), what life is the reason for taking another life? The fetus.

Bottom line: This verse does nothing to lessen the value of the life of a fetus. At worst, it is either neutral OR it places the value of a fetus at another life.