|
Post by LauraJean on Feb 10, 2005 15:55:55 GMT -5
I have a question for those of you who are pro-abortion or pro-choice:
If a pregnant woman is on her way to an abortion clinic to have her pregnancy terminated and she's mugged and beaten up and the baby dies as a result, is the mugger guilty of murder?
Looking forward to your replies! LJ
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Feb 10, 2005 20:26:40 GMT -5
Exodus 21:22-25
22"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. 23But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
I would gather that those of you who use the Old Testement as reasoning for not supporting homosexuals right to marry would also take this to mean that killing of a fetus is not murder.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 10, 2005 20:34:05 GMT -5
Exodus 21:22-25 22"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. 23But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. I would gather that those of you who use the Old Testement as reasoning for not supporting homosexuals right to marry would also take this to mean that killing of a fetus is not murder. On the contrary. This verse states very clearly that if harm is done (the baby dies for example), the offender shall be put to death. That would make abortion a capital offense.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Feb 11, 2005 0:21:26 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Feb 11, 2005 9:21:51 GMT -5
On the contrary. This verse states very clearly that if harm is done (the baby dies for example), the offender shall be put to death. That would make abortion a capital offense. It wouldn't make abortion a capital offense! It would make the attacker of the woman guilty of murder, a capital offense. That is how I read it. If a person attacks a woman who is pregnant and causes a miscarriage, yet the baby is not harmed, then the man is guilty of assaulting the woman and must pay the penalty for that. However, if the baby does come to harm (dies), then the person is guilty of murder and so must pay the price for murder (i.e. be put to death).
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Feb 11, 2005 15:35:39 GMT -5
It wouldn't make abortion a capital offense! It would make the attacker of the woman guilty of murder, a capital offense. That is how I read it. If a person attacks a woman who is pregnant and causes a miscarriage, yet the baby is not harmed, then the man is guilty of assaulting the woman and must pay the penalty for that. However, if the baby does come to harm (dies), then the person is guilty of murder and so must pay the price for murder (i.e. be put to death). You used a key word there, miscarriage, so I looked up the verse in another translation that I had read before. 22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, Miscarriage: The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for lifeTo me this seems to imply the life of the mother not the fetus.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 12, 2005 2:43:51 GMT -5
You used a key word there, miscarriage, so I looked up the verse in another translation that I had read before. 22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, Miscarriage: The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for lifeWhich translations is this that uses the word "miscarriage"?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 12, 2005 2:45:19 GMT -5
However, if the baby does come to harm (dies), then the person is guilty of murder and so must pay the price for murder (i.e. be put to death). Right, so wouldn't that also make the intentional harm to that baby any even greater crime?
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Feb 12, 2005 13:29:37 GMT -5
Which translations is this that uses the word "miscarriage"? Revised Standard Version
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 12, 2005 17:35:48 GMT -5
You used a key word there, miscarriage, so I looked up the verse in another translation that I had read before. 22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, Miscarriage: The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus. You are misusing this definition of the term "miscarriage". The expulsion of a nonviable fetus is only in the case of a natural miscarriage (spontaneous abortion). In the example from Exodus we may assume the fetus was viable until the woman was struck. The miscarriage in this case is a direct result of the woman being struck during the fight--that's the whole point of this law. Harm is done to an otherwise viable fetus as a direct result of being struck, therefore "you shall give life for life..."--the person who caused the miscarriage is to be put to death.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Feb 12, 2005 19:34:56 GMT -5
You are misusing this definition of the term "miscarriage". The expulsion of a nonviable fetus is only in the case of a natural miscarriage (spontaneous abortion). In the example from Exodus we may assume the fetus was viable until the woman was struck. The miscarriage in this case is a direct result of the woman being struck during the fight--that's the whole point of this law. Harm is done to an otherwise viable fetus as a direct result of being struck, therefore "you shall give life for life..."--the person who caused the miscarriage is to be put to death. I disagree there is never a case when a miscarriage occurs that there is no harm to the fetus, therefore I believe the that it is refering to the mother and not the fetus.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 14, 2005 3:44:28 GMT -5
Which brings us to my second point, the use of the word "miscarriage" is a very poor translation. The Hebrew word yalad (Strong's #3205) is more correctly translated "to give birth prematurely". It is quite common for "premies" to live and have perfectly normal lives. I'm no Hebrew scholar but according to a friend who is (MA, USF 2004) the structure of the sentence implies the word "injury" ('acown, Strong's #611) refers to the baby, not the mother.
Therefore, my point stands.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Feb 18, 2005 10:49:47 GMT -5
Okay, same pregnant woman, except this time she's on her way to her monthly OB check-up. Is the mugger guilty of murder? Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Feb 18, 2005 10:51:34 GMT -5
I would gather that those of you who use the Old Testement as reasoning for not supporting homosexuals right to marry would also take this to mean that killing of a fetus is not murder. Gosh, DD, you sound like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.... Anyway, the question was: What do YOU think? Care to answer? Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by kingsdaughter on Feb 18, 2005 12:52:39 GMT -5
In either senerio the mugger is guilty of murder, and the onlyreason that Drs. aren't guilty of murder is that abortion is legal. Hopefully that will change. Pam
|
|