Ad on Theology Online: "Save Roe." What does it mean?

[Jacob]

As referenced above, yes. Though that did not seem to apply prior to quickening so it was not from conception and not the same as a Human life.

An unborn child is certainly human. Nothing in the scriptures says anything against this.

What is quickening? Also, you said the life was not protected from conception? For when does life begin? I understand a baby taking its first breath or the birth with the birth canal though I am not married, but the unborn is human and alive as much as anything. A child is protected in the womb, and may survive at less than 9 months or so even so. Gestation is often 9 months.

What do you mean a financial loss to the father? I do not see that in what you are saying to have come from anything of the Torah. If you are saying that there is father and mother for the unborn, certainly yes.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

An unborn child is certainly human. Nothing in the scriptures says anything against this.

Depends on what you mean by a human, if talking biology correct, But if you are talking a person with a soul, not so correct.

What is quickening? Also, you said the life was not protected from conception? For when does life begin? I understand a baby taking its first breath or the birth with the birth canal though I am not married, but the unborn is human and alive as much as anything. A child is protected in the womb, and may survive at less than 9 months or so even so. Gestation is often 9 months.

My understanding is the quickening is when the baby can first be felt moving independently inside its mother.

What do you mean a financial loss to the father? I do not see that in what you are saying to have come from anything of the Torah. If you are saying that there is father and mother for the unborn, certainly yes.

In that legal system, the penalty for murder was death. But death was not the penalty for killing an unborn child, specifically causing a woman to miscarry. Instead, the penalty was to pay to the father a financial penalty as restitution for future income the father has now lost from the child that will not be born.

 

[Jacob]

Depends on what you mean by a human, if talking biology correct, But if you are talking a person with a soul, not so correct.

Interesting talking about people with a soul. A living being, yes. Adam and Eve. Is a person a human or a human a person? The word person applies to all living humans, but some may emphasize men or males or those who have a face, or whatever. It might have something to do with acting. But of course an unborn child is a person (human). And of course they are alive. Not the same as taking a breath, but I do not know what the difference would be in regard to personhood.

My understanding is the quickening is when the baby can first be felt moving independently inside its mother.

Oh. Okay.

In that legal system, the penalty for murder was death. But death was not the penalty for killing an unborn child, specifically causing a woman to miscarry. Instead, the penalty was to pay to the father a financial penalty as restitution for future income the father has now lost from the child that will not be born.

Interesting perspective. Do you have a scripture about the father? Causing a woman to miscarry... is that the same as killing an unborn child? The penalty for murder is death, yes. Are you meaning to argue or not argue that point?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Interesting perspective. Do you have a scripture about the father? Causing a woman to miscarry... is that the same as killing an unborn child? The penalty for murder is death, yes. Are you meaning to argue or not argue that point?

Exodus 21-22 The penalty for causing a miscarriage is a financial one unless the woman dies, in which case it is murder.

[FONT=&quot] “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.[/FONT]

So it would seem that the loss of the unborn child is not considered a serious injury.

 

[Jacob]

Exodus 21-22 The penalty for causing a miscarriage is a financial one unless the woman dies, in which case it is murder.



So it would seem that the loss of the unborn child is not considered a serious injury.

There is a commandment about two unmarried who have sex and there is money that is supposed to go to the father of the girl (he is supposed to marry her). Here the word is husband.

To cause a miscarriage or to have caused a miscarriage might be different. For one is an action with or without intent to do so, and the other is the end result of an action. This to say there may have been no intent to do so, but if this is the result there is a financial aspect to what is owed. If there was no intent it is the same law. If there was intent is there a greater bigger law or something based on intent, to kill, rather than to have cause injury substantial enough to end in a miscarriage? For example, an abortion is obviously different from hurting or harming the baby in the womb, or the mother, such as to cause a miscarriage. Intent to kill or take life should be assessed or taken differently.

 

[Jacob]

The Misuse of Exodus 21:22–25 by Pro-Choice Advocates

 

[Kit the Coyote]

There is a commandment about two unmarried who have sex and there is money that is supposed to go to the father of the girl (he is supposed to marry her). Here the word is husband.

To cause a miscarriage or to have caused a miscarriage might be different. For one is an action with or without intent to do so, and the other is the end result of an action. This to say there may have been no intent to do so, but if this is the result there is a financial aspect to what is owed. If there was no intent it is the same law. If there was intent is there a greater bigger law or something based on intent, to kill, rather than to have cause injury substantial enough to end in a miscarriage? For example, an abortion is obviously different from hurting or harming the baby in the womb, or the mother, such as to cause a miscarriage. Intent to kill or take life should be assessed or taken differently.

Well again, it is really one of the very few references we have because the Bible and Torah do not talk about abortion at all.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

The Misuse of Exodus 21:22–25 by Pro-Choice Advocates

So we again turn to translation error to say the passage is unclear.

 

[Jacob]

Well again, it is really one of the very few references we have because the Bible and Torah do not talk about abortion at all.

True.

But they do talk about murder and injury.

 

[Jacob]

So we again turn to translation error to say the passage is unclear.

Interesting, huh?!

 

[Kit the Coyote]

True.

But they do talk about murder and injury.

Yes but fail to adequately apply it to the unborn.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Interesting, huh?!

Yes, it the same sort of thing that allowed Northern Abolitionists and Southern Slaveholders to use the same Bible to justify both their positions. It provides fuel for Atheists and Skeptics who point out that an all-knowing God should be able to communicate better than this.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Yes, it the same sort of thing that allowed Northern Abolitionists and Southern Slaveholders to use the same Bible to justify both their positions. It provides fuel for Atheists and Skeptics who point out that an all-knowing God should be able to communicate better than this.

Who cares what moron idiot Atheists and Skeptics say.

 

[Truster]

Who cares what moron idiot Atheists and Skeptics and Catholics say.

 

[Jacob]

Yes but fail to adequately apply it to the unborn.

Yes, it the same sort of thing that allowed Northern Abolitionists and Southern Slaveholders to use the same Bible to justify both their positions. It provides fuel for Atheists and Skeptics who point out that an all-knowing God should be able to communicate better than this.

It may be that there is a death penalty for killing the unborn after all.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

It may be that there is a death penalty for killing the unborn after all.

If so it is not clearly communicated in Mosaic Law.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Who cares what moron idiot Atheists and Skeptics say.

Depends on what they say.

 

[Jacob]

If so it is not clearly communicated in Mosaic Law.

It may be if the article is correct.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

It may be if the article is correct.

May be being the relevant part of your statement.

At least, it does provide an adequate counter of the argument.

 

[Jacob]

May be being the relevant part of your statement.

At least, it does provide an adequate counter of the argument.

Okay.