![]() |
Sarcasm, Dev.
|
Quote:
Under the current law, neither parent is free to abandon the living child. The father has to provide support, but he does not have to provide sole support. How does your plan make anything equal at all? There is also the fact that your plan will encourage more abortions, something that no one wants. Even pro-choice people want to limit abortions where possible. Also, under the current law, the phenomon of women raising their children without any support from the fathers whatsoever is only becoming more common because of deadbeats, which are against the law and not at all the mother's choice. Are you Gohan? Quote:
Double Post: Quote:
Does that help you? Double Post: Quote:
There was also very poor to non-existant health standards. People frequently buried their children. if they had less children from family planning, they would not have to bury any of them. This is less a concern in America (except in the really shitty places), and much much more of a concern in the third-world. Therefore, I would not expect you to know them, because you have a child's view of morality. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
But is the passage talking about the damage made to the fetus, or to the mother?
|
Clearly the fetus.
|
No, it's not clear at all. The passage only gives mention of the premature birthing, but no indication that a child has been damaged at all. Then it makes a general reference to the rule of an eye for an eye. Since it is the husband that has to sue for the damages, the assumtion is being made that the wife is incapable of such duties, which to me, implies damage to his pregnant wife.
What would be more important at this point, the baby or the baby factory? |
Uh... okay. And people wonder why the Bible gets interpreted "so many ways."
The husband sues because the wife has no rights. This is the kind of society you're dealing with. It talks about injury in the same sentence that it mentions premature birth. How could it be anymore clear? Like you said, there is already the eye for an eye rule. Why would they reiterate it for a pregnant woman? |
Because assuming that the premature birth had caused gynecological issues, or impaired her from ever being able to bear children, the same would be done to her assailant, or her assailant's wife.
Think about this. If damage to a fetus or baby is to be visited upon in equal measure, would the assailant's wife also be forced to a premature birth? |
That passage doesn't seem to have a whole lot to say about consentual punching of a woman in the stomach, though.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Really, it's not very clear at all. Double Post: Quote:
Really, that covers it all. $10 says he's going to reply with "if you think this is delusional then YOU MUST BE AGAINST FEMALE ABORTION TOO". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
he was a dirty old man though |
As if you could say whether or not a comparison is possible. How much of either have you honestly read?
|
Quote:
But on this issue I've got to say that although I can't speak for the US system, here things are not set up as well as they should be. I believe that a man should have to support his children, and that he shouldn't have a legal say in whether or not the woman has an abortion. The system wherein the support is determined and enforced could use some help though. Also, I find the whole ignorance defense when it comes to consequences of sex is pretty sad. I've never met someone who was ignorant to the extent that some have argued about in this thread. So this really comes down to a very poor education system wherever this is an issue. If you don't know that sex has an inherent chance of pregnancy, then you should have been taught better at an earlier age. Sounds like it's this education that needs a reform more than anything else. It sounds most unfair to legislate morality if you haven't done your best to *first* teach kids what they need to know before they get into trouble. Y'know, try to help people out first, and then if you really think you'd like to legislate morality, then do that second. |
Quote:
|
So, what exactly is the problem here? Is it the ambigious nature of the language used in the passage, or is it something wrong with me?
|
I'm gonna go with your complete ignorance of the context, which is usually the case when it comes to Bible interpretation.
|
How much of that verse is even applicable today, and how much is just 3000 year old hebrew law. If you look at the verse immediately preceding and following it, you get laws that are tossed because they are no longer applicable because of the evolution of human thought (or maybe because the New Covenant replaced all this stuff.)
Quote:
|
So why haven't you provided the proper context instead of just quoting the singular passage from the Bible?
Right, so he wasn't quoting verbatim. Or a different translation? In any case, that still doesn't solve the moral conundrum presented in the Eye for an Eye rule, if the passage truly applies to the fetus. Does that mean that the assailant's wife would be forced to premature birth? Presumably something of equal value would have to be given up, but there isn't an alternative solution given, as there are with the other violations of the law. |
The context would be the entire mosaic law. Not sure you want me to post that.
I'm not suggesting that the law still be followed, but what I AM saying is that it seems to indicate that according to the Bible, the fetus has the same rights as a person. It is considered a valid party according to the eye for an eye law. If it weren't, it would be the equivalent of a slave or something and damage done to it would not result in the same damage done back to the perpetrator. This, I think, justifies the belief that the Abrahamic God is against abortion. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.