Exodus 21:22-25
Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn’t badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.
Discuss.
Not sure if this one was pregnant. If she wasn’t then maybe it was justifiable by the little book that the gullible need as guidance to be bigots.
Russian lawmaker killed by husband detonating hand grenade http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....-1.2449316
I wonder if her hands were flopping around like a retard as she was getting rapped – I know, let’s ask Donald.
This was before god invented the F-16.
This does not bode well for the Center for Medical Progress and the terrorists who fund them.
@1 Those Russians, they don’t screw around. They die young, too.
I don’t see anything there about the fetus. It doesn’t sound like the Bible considers a miscarriage a tort against the fetus, only the woman, so maybe that’s the answer to whether an unborn child is a person. If you won’t want to go by what the Supreme Court says (3rd trimester), then maybe you should go by what the Bible says (not until birth).
@ RR @ 4
Well, it’s no wonder.
Russians are almost the worst drivers in the world.
@6 looks like they don’t have brakes in Russia.
@ 7
They don’t need brakes when they have Vodka. Alcohol is the number one cause of all preventable deaths amongst all age groups in Russia. There are vids of little kids, 6, 7, 8 years old chugging on bottles of Vodka in parks and such, and staggering around. They start really early there.
@6 @7 @8 That’s why there’s so many Russian women on dating sites. There are no Russian men left, so they come here.
My understanding under Jewish law like under British Common Law a fetus is not a person until it’s born. No action can be made against the mother prior to that event. If the baby is stillborn no action can be taken against the mother. If you kill the mother you can be tried for that murder but no charges if the fetus dies. Things get a little weird if the baby takes a breath and then dies.
Of course in a world where pregnancy caused a lot of young women to die puts a different spin on things. Legally there is not a whole lot of support to the concept of the fetus having rights. Generally there is a lot denying a fetus any rights for the above reason. The attempts by those wanting to give fetuses rights is an end run around Jewish tradition and European law. Yep the attempt in making a fetus a person is just an end run around current law and an end run around the bible. If it’s so important to some groups that Saturday be the day of the Lord then shouldn’t what the bible really says in this area be equally important. Fetuses aren’t people is what this says. Miscarriages were and are not uncommon. Even in cases where a woman has been attacked it’s most difficult to determine if in the end the baby would be born. True medical advances has put us in the situation where the mother can just be a husk and kept alive until the baby is born. Lot of moral questions and ambiguity with that kind of situation. The old do the ends justify the means.
One other thing in here is important as in it’s whatever punishment the woman’s husband demands. With the judges stamp of approval. This is one area where we are going to have some issues with any refugees from the middle east where they very much live a lot closer to this concept. To the concept of women being chattel. Where what we would consider spousal abuse if done by the man is completely accepted by society. Not saying that doesn’t happen right here in the US, it does. even when frowned up, and the law will act when it happens. Always makes for some great songs though like “Frankie and Johnny”.
@2 Ummm why does God need an F-16? If he does need F-16’s then why angels? Or do angels find F-16’s cool? Does God have a patent on the F-16? Whole different spin on the old: “Gee it’s swell it’s made by Mattell.” (Do you get that one RR? Or did you serve in Nam too early?)
@13 Why ask me? I didn’t invent them. But they are superior tools for revenge.
@14 Well it appears you have a twitter account and you are buds and I thought you would know or present some kind of answer. I thought God already had the superior tool for revenge. Angels and flaming swords and all that guarding the entrance to the Garden of Eden for example. Angels doing their thing in Sodom and Gomorrah. Lots of other mentions of Angels for instance that appears Gods chief weapon of revenge. That and he can harden the heart and mind of Pharaoh and other world leaders of the time for or against Israel. The ultimate in mind control, hmmm so why doesn’t God create a perfect utopia? Thus making the need for revenge unnecessary or the weapons of revenge unnecessary. Perhaps the original inhabitants of Haiti had achieved this utopia.
Screaming eagles are impressive though.
That stuff has been around long before the bible. It was bull then and it’s bull now. Fairy tales only cut it for the mentally deranged. In case you missed my point, any god and all the rest, was created in man’s head. The same head bent on revenge.
This eye-for-an-eye thing was legislated out of the Torah by rabbis nearly 2,000 years ago. They decided that a fine was sufficient; you didn’t need to actually injure or kill anyone. And if the Jews don’t worry about this (when it was in their book), non-Jews shouldn’t either.