It doesn't really qualify it as a person, so much as it qualifies it as the property of the father.

If it were property, it would be the equivalent of a slave and killing it would not result in death.

But it isn't the father who has destroyed his own property. In this case, it was the inadvertent actions of another man who has no claim to either the wife, or the fetus.

This also brings up another problem. Does the law regarding the beating of a slave to death apply to the slave owner? It doesn't really specify.

You don't get the death penalty for killing a slave whether it's yours or not. If someone kills your slave, he has to pay you for it. If you kill a fetus, you don't have to pay for it - you die. That seems to put it on the level of a person.

So God loves slavery.

Being that I haven't studied this stuff extensively and I certainly don't have the unquestionable knowledge of the Bible that Minon has, I have to ask, what's God's view on killing someone with their own consent?

I'd also like to make note that the passage says it makes her give birth prematurely. Is it possible to have premature birth six months in advance (or, in the case of the morning-after pill, eight hours after conception)?

I'm not sure about premature births, but I don't see anything wrong with the morning after pill. I guess since a dead fetus isn't technically born, the rule probably applies to all dead fetuses.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. And the point I'm trying to make doesn't take a biblical scholar to show.

Okay, here's how I feel on the issue. Keep in mind that I have actually had an abortion (and no woman should be ashamed of what she does), so I a bit of personal experience here.

If the pregnancy is a result of casual sex, or the man involved really has no stake in any sort of relationship with a woman, than the decision on whether or not to abort should be up to the woman, period.

If, however, the pregnancy occurs in a marriage, and the husband is the biological father, then I do believe that the decision should legally be up to both the man and the woman.

Some may wonder what the difference is . . . Well, while I will never have a husband (and may never even get married), I do believe that marriage means something. I believe that if a woman does get married (to a man or a woman), all decisions regarding either must be made together. Marriage is not just two individuals, it's one whole unit. This has nothing to do with religion (I'm Atheist) or tradition (I think tradition is a joke), this just has to do with the fact that marriage should be more than just words, it should be actions.

I've read most of Shakespere's tragedies, and a handful of his comedies. Nevertheless, common sense says there's a world of difference between a book that governs the religious and political beliefs of a huge portion of the world, a book that was written from many different people and taken from two thousand years ago, a book written in an entirely different language and of which no "original" scripts survive today, and entertainment plays written 500 years ago and which largely define the way we spell words today.

You're hilarious if you think there's anything other than superficial similarities between the two. No one opposes abortion because Shakespere was against it, dipwad.

Double Post:
Then what happens when they disagree?

Double Post:
Looking closer, it doesn't even say that in your outdated law quote. It says the eye for the eye law is if any injury further than what caused the miscarriage should be visited on the agressor; that is, if the woman is killed, then so should her assailant. The only punishment the assailant faces if the woman miscarries but is otherwise uninjured is what the husband requests and if the judges agree.

And even that only applies if the dumb bitch gets between her man and the assailant fighting. It says nothing about consentual abortion at all.

Christ, that teaches me to skim your posts.

That's because it's part of the context. I guess you started skimming my posts early.

They're both cornerstones of western literature, they're the two literary works most often alluded to in western literature, they are both often misunderstood by people who read them and, by the way, it is debatable whether or not "shakespeare" actually wrote all of what we attribute to him. It is very well possible that it was multiple writers working together. As a matter of fact, a lot of writers have taken their moral cues, or backed their morals up, with what Shakespeare said.

But that's not important. The point I was making (which still stands) is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and you either don't want to know or you're just being persistent and dense for the hell of it. Either way, going back and forth with you over it is a waste of time.

Repetition is often used in writing, and in teaching. The Bible is trying to teach is it not?

And in no way was I trying to imply that you were some religious idiot. But the fact remains that one can read what wish to see into that passage. Seems hard to tell what would be the 'correct' interpretation. This applies equaly to your interpretation as it does to Bradylama's or a Lurker's.

To be honest, I can't really make an accurrate interpretation. Looking at it from a modern perspective, as its language is far too ambiguous.

Perhaps if I was looking at it from the perspective of a Jew wandering in the Sinai I'd understand, but I'm afraid that's beyond my capabilities.

CAN WE JUST SAY THAT MINION ISN'T ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THE BIBLE

CAN WE DO THAT

Look, we can compromise, let's all sit in a circle, ok? The person to our right chooses something we're not allowed to talk about, and then we choose for the person on our left, and so on! It'll be fun!

Ok, Minion, why don't you choose something Brady isn't allowed to talk about? And then Brady can choose for Squirrel, and Squirrel can choose for, say, Pug (If I may suggest something, "everything" is a good choice there).

Come on guys it'll be fun like summer camp wooooo~

No, it really isn't. The passage is clearly talking about the woman's injuries; it's hard to take tooth for a tooth from the injuries of a newborn who has no teeth.

you're a reasonably religious fellow, as far as fellows go anyway, and you're telling me that Shakespeare is at all similar on magnitude as the Word Of God Made Flesh (as you believe).

Dumb cunt.

Repeating that I don't know what I'm talking about will only work if no one read your post, or most of your posts in general.

So you might have a chance there.

Still isn't true though.

Double Post:
According to King James, it's not "child born prematurely", it's miscarriage. It's easy to forget, but both amounted to the same thing until very recently. Perhaps the law should be updated. If only we had some way of updating existing laws and creating new laws as society changes and adapts?

what I am trying to say is appealing to the bible for modern-day laws is stupid

minion

you do not believe in evolution

educated retarded

Wow. An amazing amount of hostility coming my way recently. Not sure why that is though.

Personally I like to read Minion's posts on religious topics. A great insight for those who share those views.

Luerker:
I don't think that Minion is equating the Bible to Shakespeare in the way that you are thinking. He is referring to the fact that these 2 collections have had a significant impact upon the formation of the modern English language. To interpret further than that would be just dumb, as that is clearly all he intended to say.

How did the bible impact modern english language?

Hey lurker - is it fun getting away with trolling all the time because you're popular? That must be awesome. Especially when you, ironically, called the thread starter a troll a little while back.


I'll reply to one of your points, since the rest are just tedious trolling attempts.

They mention "tooth for a tooth" because it's a reiteration of the eye for an eye law. Repitition is used in the Bible to emphasize points frequently (and before you open your mouth, note the difference between repetition and redundancy - redundancy is stating the same point and passing it off as a different one ie, that law as you are interpreting it, whereas repetition is a literary tool often imployed for the sake of reinforcement).

And by the way, if you're getting your information from the KJV, you're just complicating the issue. That translation is a piece of shit.


Oh and, in case you're interested (who the fuck am I kidding?) the "word of God made flesh" is Jesus, not the Bible.

I'm not trolling. I'm insulting you a lot, but I have a logical point and I'm not arguing with you to start a fight on the boards.

Becides, I don't think much will come of it. You think the quoted law is extracting vengeance for the "premature" fetus and says nothing about the woman. In fact you think premature fetopodes* are at all likely to survive in biblical times. That takes a certain amount of gullibility that I hope the rest of the readers don't have.

Meanwhile I believed gohan believed what he was talking about but nevermind that

The Word Of God Made Paper sounds less interesting to me, but if that's what you want. You're still reading something that isn't there.

* the new fetii.

The bible was the chief study material for all scholars and university students. Basically, all the smart people built upon the bible for their studies.
It was also the most printed and distributed book in the western world, English speaking nations no exception.
The first dictionary, by Webster, was built upon biblical passages for examples and clarification of definitions.

All I wanted to say was that that is the passage which is used to justify the belief that a fetus counts as a person. No Christian who knows his ass from his elbow treats Mosaic Law as actual valid law today. I mean, thats like one of the first things you should learn as a Christian.

You know minion, I have not followed this thread TOO closely, but I am awfully confused what your real stance is on abortion, and related topics. ;_;

I think it's something society allowed because after the 60s no one was going to even consider abstainence. That being said, I find it tragic, even when necessary and necessary only when the mother could die.

Minion doesn't need compliments from me. And it in no way implies that I regard him as an expert on the matter. But if we look at this example, it shows how those pro-lifers which argue this point, with this passage do so. Until someone presents a new point, then this is *the* Biblical refference which can be used to back up their stance.

You needn't agree with a person to be entertained or interested in their perspective. Otherwise, what would anyone be doing in PP other than patting each other on the back for like-mindedness? I took exception to the idea that those with valid, or even semi-valid points shouldn't be expressing them here.