Why Stop At Birth?

[kiwimacahau]

Nope. It is referring to the baby in the womb being born prematurely and then dying after.

It's the first fetal homicide law.



You're right, it is.

But it doesn't say what you want it to say simply because you say so.

Here's why it's talking about the baby, and not the mother:

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.But 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. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NKJV Exodus 21:22 is the first fetal homicide law and concerns the child harmed during a separate assault. Pro-abortion theologians wrongly interpret this passage to refer to miscarriage, and only if the woman also dies is the penalty then life for life. But the passage distinguishes between the baby who survives the assault and the baby who dies. The meaning turns on whether the woman has a miscarriage or gives birth prematurely. And the Hebrew verb used is NOT that for miscarriage. Therefore the passage imposes only a fine on the criminal who accidentally causes a premature birth, but the punishment is life for life if the baby then dies. This shows that God equated the life of the unborn with that of the born, and abortion with murder. This passage, like Exodus 21:33-36, 22:5-6, and others, teaches that those who cause injury are responsible for their actions, even if the harm was unintentional. Therefore, this passage is the biblical model for any principled Unborn Victims of Crime Act. However, if the harm to the unborn in Exodus 21:22 spoke only of miscarriage, the teaching would then support legalized abortion by valuing the life of a fetus only with a fine, and only if the mother later died, would her death require taking the criminal's life. But note the word used to describe the consequence of the crime described in Exodus 21:22, "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely," the Hebrew word for miscarriage, shaw-kole, is NOT used. If the baby came out dead, a monetary fine would indicate a less than human value for the life of the fetus. (And that is exactly how the pagan Code of Hammurabi, section 209, undervalued a child.) However, because Exodus 21:22 says premature birth, and not miscarriage, the passage does not support a right to kill an unborn child, as contended by many who mistranslate this text. Rather, the text values the unborn child's life equal to that of any other person. The author Moses (Mat. 12:26) mentions the idea of a baby coming out of the womb twice within three chapters. In Exodus 23:26, he uses the Hebrew word for miscarriage, speaking of barrenness and shaw-kole (miscarriage). But the word at Exodus 21:22 is yaw-tsaw, which means to come out, come forth, bring forth, and has no connotation of death but in fact the opposite. The Hebrew Scriptures use yaw-tsaw 1,043 times beginning with Genesis 1:24 where God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature…” In Genesis and Exodus alone Moses uses this word about 150 times such as in Genesis 25 describing the births of twins Jacob and Esau. Thus the Mosaic law requires the criminal to pay financial restitution to a woman unintentionally injured by a criminal if she "gives birth prematurely." But then if that living being dies (i.e., the baby, soul, nephesh, which Hebrew word is always feminine, e.g., Lev. 19:8; Ps. 11:1) the text then applies the full Hebrew idiom which means that the punishment should fit the crime. If there is harm beyond a premature birth, and the unborn child dies, then the punishment is "life for life."​

From: http://americanrtl.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion#Exodus21

You are wrong as is the source you are quoting. No reputable exegesis of the passage will come to the conclusion you and your source do.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You are wrong as is the source you are quoting.

Prove it. I dare you.

No reputable exegesis of the passage will come to the conclusion you and your source do.

And yet, you won't even bother trying to provide a rebuttal to it.

Come on.

Show us why my position (and that of AmericanRTL) is wrong. You won't.

 

[Right Divider]

Prove it. I dare you.

Don't you realize that you're supposed to just take his/her opinion as fact?

 

[ok doser]

Before abortion was legalized most pregnant women who had an abortion had it for the sake of convenience.

Now they can do it legally for the same reason and many will.

i can't think of a more glaring example of selfishness


i wonder if the 1973 Burger supreme court gave any consideration to the role they were playing in promoting selfishness at the expense of selflessness

 

[Crucifer]

Nope. God says it, that settles it:

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.But 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. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NKJV

It's likely that it's speaking for the woman's life. There's no evidence to suggest abortions or any sort of killing of a fetus was ever punishable with death. Even when the Church was in full swing they weren't putting people at the stake for it.

No one claimed it was... What's your point?

No law has ever truly recognized a fetus as comparable to an autonomous person.

 

[ok doser]

No law has ever truly recognized a fetus as comparable to an autonomous person.

:doh:


:doh::doh:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
https://www.nrlc.org/federal/unbornvictims/statehomicidelaws092302/

 

[ok doser]

And I've seen the debate polarize greatly. Those on the side of life are learning that regulations are evil when they end in "and then you can kill the baby." Those who call themselves pro-life, but can't appreciate the sanctity of personhood are being marginalized.

This is a good thing. The debate should be between those who want to allow murder and those who don't. People like you who want the "status quo" — regulated, "safe" childkilling — are worse than those who want abortion at any time.

in my time here at TOL, i've seen a much greater recognition in the general public that the left doesn't want what they claim, for abortions to be "safe, legal and rare"

as well, a coalescing of thought around the idea that a new unique individual is created upon fertilization, and that all the arguments about brain function, heartbeat, etc are red herrings

 

[Crucifer]

And I've seen the debate polarize greatly. Those on the side of life are learning that regulations are evil when they end in "and then you can kill the baby." Those who call themselves pro-life, but can't appreciate the sanctity of personhood are being marginalized.

This is a good thing. The debate should be between those who want to allow murder and those who don't. People like you who want the "status quo" — regulated, "safe" childkilling — are worse than those who want abortion at any time.

Even if it were possible to universally make abortion felonious, you would first need to take necessary steps toward making it so and nothing that you're talking about is of any real effect.

The first thing to do would be to start talking about the societal problems that come with abortion- it's not solely about the termination in and of itself, but rather the fact that woman do not gain anything from it. Most women will end up with a child regardless often within five years after the abortion, and along with that a huge burden of guilt after beginning motherhood.

>All 'population control' arguments fail at the simple observation that women will have as many kids as they would have either way.

>Abortion causes bad parents in that woman are less likely to choose good partners in the first place because of the 'safety net' abortion provides; ironically in these cases women are more likely to actually make the decision to have the child than abort them though they would've likely never ended up in such a situation in the first place if they didn't have the option available

There's a WHOLE LOT that could be taught about abortion, which would lower the abortion rate and put into society's mind another perception other than what pro-choice advocate have poured into it.
That's where you would actually start getting some traction- but just shouting that it's murder? No. Been trying that for a half a century and it's gotten nowhere.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's likely that it's speaking for the woman's life.

More likely is that you're not reading it carefully enough.

What do you think of this:

Nope. It is referring to the baby in the womb being born prematurely and then dying after.

It's the first fetal homicide law.



You're right, it is.

But it doesn't say what you want it to say simply because you say so.

Here's why it's talking about the baby, and not the mother:

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.But 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. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NKJV Exodus 21:22 is the first fetal homicide law and concerns the child harmed during a separate assault. Pro-abortion theologians wrongly interpret this passage to refer to miscarriage, and only if the woman also dies is the penalty then life for life. But the passage distinguishes between the baby who survives the assault and the baby who dies. The meaning turns on whether the woman has a miscarriage or gives birth prematurely. And the Hebrew verb used is NOT that for miscarriage. Therefore the passage imposes only a fine on the criminal who accidentally causes a premature birth, but the punishment is life for life if the baby then dies. This shows that God equated the life of the unborn with that of the born, and abortion with murder. This passage, like Exodus 21:33-36, 22:5-6, and others, teaches that those who cause injury are responsible for their actions, even if the harm was unintentional. Therefore, this passage is the biblical model for any principled Unborn Victims of Crime Act. However, if the harm to the unborn in Exodus 21:22 spoke only of miscarriage, the teaching would then support legalized abortion by valuing the life of a fetus only with a fine, and only if the mother later died, would her death require taking the criminal's life. But note the word used to describe the consequence of the crime described in Exodus 21:22, "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely," the Hebrew word for miscarriage, shaw-kole, is NOT used. If the baby came out dead, a monetary fine would indicate a less than human value for the life of the fetus. (And that is exactly how the pagan Code of Hammurabi, section 209, undervalued a child.) However, because Exodus 21:22 says premature birth, and not miscarriage, the passage does not support a right to kill an unborn child, as contended by many who mistranslate this text. Rather, the text values the unborn child's life equal to that of any other person. The author Moses (Mat. 12:26) mentions the idea of a baby coming out of the womb twice within three chapters. In Exodus 23:26, he uses the Hebrew word for miscarriage, speaking of barrenness and shaw-kole (miscarriage). But the word at Exodus 21:22 is yaw-tsaw, which means to come out, come forth, bring forth, and has no connotation of death but in fact the opposite. The Hebrew Scriptures use yaw-tsaw 1,043 times beginning with Genesis 1:24 where God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature…” In Genesis and Exodus alone Moses uses this word about 150 times such as in Genesis 25 describing the births of twins Jacob and Esau. Thus the Mosaic law requires the criminal to pay financial restitution to a woman unintentionally injured by a criminal if she "gives birth prematurely." But then if that living being dies (i.e., the baby, soul, nephesh, which Hebrew word is always feminine, e.g., Lev. 19:8; Ps. 11:1) the text then applies the full Hebrew idiom which means that the punishment should fit the crime. If there is harm beyond a premature birth, and the unborn child dies, then the punishment is "life for life."​

From: http://americanrtl.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion#Exodus21

Thoughts?

There's no evidence to suggest abortions or any sort of killing of a fetus was ever punishable with death.

And why would that mean anything, if the goal was to deter, rather than to prevent?

Even when the Church was in full swing they weren't putting people at the stake for it.

And?

No law has ever truly recognized a fetus as comparable to an autonomous person.

See Doser's reply.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Even if it were possible to universally make abortion felonious, you would first need to take necessary steps toward making it so and nothing that you're talking about is of any real effect.

The first thing to do would be to start talking about the societal problems that come with abortion- it's not solely about the termination in and of itself, but rather the fact that woman do not gain anything from it. Most women will end up with a child regardless often within five years after the abortion, and along with that a huge burden of guilt after beginning motherhood.

>All 'population control' arguments fail at the simple observation that women will have as many kids as they would have either way.

>Abortion causes bad parents in that woman are less likely to choose good partners in the first place because of the 'safety net' abortion provides; ironically in these cases women are more likely to actually make the decision to have the child than abort them though they would've likely never ended up in such a situation in the first place if they didn't have the option available

There's a WHOLE LOT that could be taught about abortion, which would lower the abortion rate and put into society's mind another perception other than what pro-choice advocate have poured into it.
That's where you would actually start getting some traction- but just shouting that it's murder? No. Been trying that for a half a century and it's gotten nowhere.

Education is important, but it's not the solution.

Consider that many doctors smoke.

They have an education which tells them that smoking is bad for one's health, yet being doctors, they still smoke.

 

[ok doser]

Crucifer thinks that a reasoned examination of facts and future potentialities will overrule panicked selfishness in the short term

crucifer is ignorant of human psychology


if crucifer was right, no woman would ever find herself with an unwanted pregnancy

 

[Jerry Shugart]

i can't think of a more glaring example of selfishness

Yes, and we know that all people's conscience bears witness to the fact that having an abortion is wrong but there are many liberals who Paul describes in the following verses who give excuses for this ungodly practice:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" (Ro.2:14-15).​

Those who give excuses trying to explain why abortion is a just practice are just as guilty of those who actually have abortions for the sake of convenience.

 

[Crucifer]

:doh:


:doh::doh:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
https://www.nrlc.org/federal/unbornvictims/statehomicidelaws092302/

So why aren't abortionists and women in prison?

They're not laws that truly recognize it as murder. The only thing they serve is to put more punishment into any harm that comes to pregnant women.

 

[ok doser]

So why aren't abortionists and women in prison?

They're not laws that truly recognize it as murder. The only thing they serve is to put more punishment into any harm that comes to pregnant women.

you didn't bother to read the links, did you?

 

[ok doser]

Yes, and we know that all people's conscience bears witness to the fact that having an abortion is wrong but there are many liberals who Paul describes in the following verses who give excuses for this ungodly practice:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" (Ro.2:14-15).​

Those who give excuses trying to explain why abortion is a just practice are just as guilty of those who actually have abortions for the sake of convenience.

i was thinking of the same scripture when i wrote mine, jerry - "the law written on their hearts"

1 Tim 4:2 decribes these people - seared hearts, seared consciences

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Seared conscience is right!

 

[Stripe]

Even if it were possible to universally make abortion felonious, you would first need to take necessary steps toward making it so and nothing that you're talking about is of any real effect.

Talking never achieves anything. :idunno:

All I've ever said is that abortion is murder and that the law should be enforced. I never claimed that my mere word would change the world.

So you think it should? :think:

The first thing to do would be to start talking about the societal problems that come with abortion.

Babies are murdered. What else do you want to talk about?

Woman do not gain anything from it.

They should lose everything for it.

Most women will end up with a child regardless often within five years after the abortion, and along with that a huge burden of guilt after beginning motherhood.

And you want to keep it regulated?

All 'population control' arguments fail at the simple observation that women will have as many kids as they would have either way.

Who is arguing for population control? :AMR:

Abortion causes bad parents in that woman are less likely to choose good partners in the first place because of the 'safety net' abortion provides; ironically in these cases women are more likely to actually make the decision to have the child than abort them though they would've likely never ended up in such a situation in the first place if they didn't have the option available

And you want to keep childkilling regulated?

There's a WHOLE LOT that could be taught about abortion, which would lower the abortion rate and put into society's mind another perception other than what pro-choice advocate have poured into it.

The law is the great tutor. The state should use the law to teach.

That's where we could start getting some traction: teaching that abortion is murder.

Been trying that for a half a century and it's gotten nowhere.

How do you know what one small voice in the wilderness might achieve?

 

[Crucifer]

Babies are murdered. What else do you want to talk about?

The fact that you seem to be getting along okay knowing that a supposed holocaust is going on this very second.
In truth, you don't really think it is murder.

That's where we could start getting some traction: teaching that abortion is murder.

You've been teaching that it's murder and it's done nothing. It didn't do anything the last 50 years, and won't for the next 50.
Now stop trying to dodge that reality with things like this:

How do you know what one small voice in the wilderness might achieve?

And accept the fact that you're just blowing hot air.

 

[Crucifer]

you didn't bother to read the links, did you?

Do those places still have abortion?
Yes?
Then they don't really recognize killing a fetus as murder.

A law can be dressed up to be for whatever reason; in this case it's just to give those like yourself a false sense of victory.

 

[Stripe]

The fact that you seem to be getting along okay knowing that a supposed holocaust is going on this very second.

Well, thanks for your concern over my wellbeing, but that is harldy relevant, is it?

In truth, you don't really think it is murder.

"I don't like this tiger, he reads minds."

You've been teaching that it's murder and it's done nothing.

I'm not the law, sunshine.

You're just blowing hot air.