Retroactive Death Penalty for Abortion?

[Crucible]

Exodus 21:22 KJV - is obviously speaking of a fetus.

It's speaking of the woman bro skillet.

This was never even a passage to condemn abortion. There has never been a time in Jewish or Catholic history where it was standard for the death of a fetus to be paid with eye for eye. For Protestants, I'm not so sure, because there have been a lot of loony Protestants over the past five centuries. But, in those times, and now, it still stands to reason that the death of a fetus cannot constitute murder in an equal sense of murdering another person.

For most of Catholic history, women rather were excommunicated for aborting their fetuses, as it was seen as a general act against nature and a work of perdition. This conviction was largely due to the social gambit of females, living in patriarchy, halting legacy. It's not really a hard thing to realize, except when the bias that it is murder takes over one's perception.

 

[Traditio]

Quoting the NT in response to my comment on the Jewish interpretation of an OT scripture is not as useful as perhaps you seem to think, old boy.

Of course. St. Elizabeth wasn't Jewish, not in the least. lain:

[/sarcasm]

At any rate, I wasn't specifically commenting on the particular OT scripture cited earlier. I'm simply pointing out that St. Elizabeth refers to her unborn child as "the infant in my womb." She thought it was a real baby. Just saying.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Exodus 21:22 KJV - is obviously speaking of a fetus.

No, actually it is not.

. . .The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in halacha is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being – but not quite.2 In most circumstances, the fetus is treated like any other "person." Generally, one may not deliberately harm a fetus. But while it would seem obvious that Judaism holds accountable one who purposefully causes a woman to miscarry, sanctions are even placed upon one who strikes a pregnant woman causing an unintentional miscarriage.3 That is not to say that all rabbinical authorities consider abortion to be murder. The fact that the Torah requires a monetary payment for causing a miscarriage is interpreted by some Rabbis to indicate that abortion is not a capital crime4 and by others as merely indicating that one is not executed for performing an abortion, even though it is a type of murder.5 There is even disagreement regarding whether the prohibition of abortion is Biblical or Rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion. . .

Source:

Further:

. . .Intentional abortion is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but a case of accidental abortion is discussed in Exodus 21:22‑23, where Scripture states: “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.”

The famous medieval biblical commentator Solomon ben Isaac, known as Rashi, interprets “no other misfortune” to mean no fatal injury to the woman following her miscarriage. In that case, the attacker pays only financial compensation for having unintentionally caused the miscarriage, no differently than if he had accidentally injured the woman elsewhere on her body. Most other Jewish Bible commentators, including Moses Nachmanides (Ramban), Abraham Ibn Ezra, Meir Leib ben Yechiel Michael (Malbim), Baruch Malawi Epstein (Torah Temimah), Samson Raphael Hirsch, Joseph Hertz, and others, agree with Rashi’s interpretation. We can thus conclude that when the mother is otherwise unharmed following trauma to her abdomen during which the fetus is lost, the only rabbinic concern is to have the one responsible pay damages to the woman and her husband for the loss of the fetus. None of the rabbis raise the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being involved because the unborn fetus is not legally a person and, therefore, there is no question of murder involved when a fetus is aborted. . .

Source

 

[1PeaceMaker]

As I've said before: I'll leave mercy, reconciliation, etc. to the theologians. The business of the State is justice, and the people in question, in justice, deserve to die.

The State is the servant of the People, making us the ruling authority. It means that we have the right to grant mercy like Jesus did to the woman caught in adultery and the State may bow to that wish.

It's that simple.

Many of the people in question are parents, doctors, nuke plant operators, essential people in infrastructure and social life of all types, many of whom actually came to repent of their evil acts and fight for an end to abortion themselves, like a reformed Saul-to-Paul character, serving God.

If God can grant mercy to David and not stone him for his capital crimes, then God can grant mercy to the Body of the Son of David via the governing body of the State.

1. I doubt that the number is that great.

Since you speak on matters of both State and theology, keep in mind that your justice system, to be fair, would include all adulterers, too. And the list doesn't stop growing there. But just adulterers and abortion enablers constitute the majority of the adult population.

2. Granted that it is, I am sure that accommodations can be made even for this number.

The smilie looks creepy as you propose making tens of millions of orphans who will starve miserably.

 

[Clete]

Please show me where in the Bible God addresses abortion.

Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.

 

[kiwimacahau]

The Jews do not see Exodus as being applicable here.

 

[The Horn]

NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not to blame for abortion . They do not force women to have abortions against their will .
No organization in America or anywhere else in the world other than the Chinese government does this .
Except for China, women have abortions of their own free will and because of their own personal problems .
To compare this to the Nazis causing the holocaust is the height of arrogance, press,option and intellectual dishonesty .

 

[1PeaceMaker]

NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not to blame for abortion . They do not force women to have abortions against their will .
No organization in America or anywhere else in the world other than the Chinese government does this .
Except for China, women have abortions of their own free will and because of their own personal problems .
To compare this to the Nazis causing the holocaust is the height of arrogance, press,option and intellectual dishonesty .

That's just incorrect. In reality, even in first world countries, the color of law "legality" of abortion gives people other than the mother leverage in her life to pressure or force an abortion.

 

[ok doser]

Most Rabbis consider that passage relates ONLY to harm to the woman not to the foetus at all.

most rabbis reject Christ's divinity


iow, most rabbis are retarded

like you

 

[Rusha]

NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not to blame for abortion .

So you shouldn't have a problem with closing them down.

 

[Crucible]

NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not to blame for abortion . They do not force women to have abortions against their will.

So if I walk into a sobriety house and leave a cart of liquor, heroin, and prescription pills, I take no responsibility for them relapsing.

That's your logic.

 

[Nick M]

Strange then that the Jews never saw that scripture as applying to zygotes / foetuses.

No more strange than Nazi's not applying that law to Jews.

 

[Nick M]

Most Rabbis consider that passage relates ONLY to harm to the woman not to the foetus at all.

So you are not going to refute the scripture? Because all you did was repeat your denial of the claim without saying what was faulty. In fact, you did a double logical fallacy with appeal to authority.

If it was about the woman, then this is redundant as You shall not murder is already covered. As is manslaughter, or accidental and accidental negligent death. Why the scenario for a pregnant woman if the baby doesn't matter?

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. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

It is established that the woman was hurt.

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. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So according to you, a woman is hurt but not hurt. Reading 101.

If men fight and hurt a woman then life for life. Why bring up the child?

 

[elohiym]

I think it's lawyer mumbo-jumbo tantamount to an outright lie.

Not that I'm saying that you don't believe it. It is the original source of this nonsense that is guilty of the lie, not you.

Thank you for clarifying. It's just another point of view to consider. The pro-life movement uses legal arguments, so someone may find the information useful.

The Supreme Court has the absolute right to say anything they want is "Constitutional" or not...

If the Supreme Court decides fetal homicide laws are necessarily void because abortion laws are legal, it has the same effect as the fetal homicide laws being void retroactively. See Marbury v. Madison.

The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is not just legal but that it is a Constitutional right!

If you read the Roe case you can see it's conditional on the fetus not being a person. Fetal homicide requires the fetus is a person, else it's not murder. Both laws cannot be constitutional. One is necessarily void now.

But we are to practice justice, not figure out fancy legal arguments to support whatever we want to see happen. That sort of thinking is what got us into the mess we're in to begin with.

If a legal argument got us into this mess then perhaps a legal argument can at least help get us out of this mess. It's my believe the conflict created between fetal homicide laws and abortion laws is the weak underbelly of this beast.

:e4e:

 

[Clete]

Thank you for clarifying. It's just another point of view to consider. The pro-life movement uses legal arguments, so someone may find the information useful.



If the Supreme Court decides fetal homicide laws are necessarily void because abortion laws are legal, it has the same effect as the fetal homicide laws being void retroactively. See Marbury v. Madison.



If you read the Roe case you can see it's conditional on the fetus not being a person. Fetal homicide requires the fetus is a person, else it's not murder. Both laws cannot be constitutional. One is necessarily void now.



If a legal argument got us into this mess then perhaps a legal argument can at least help get us out of this mess. It's my believe the conflict created between fetal homicide laws and abortion laws is the weak underbelly of this beast.

:e4e:

Non of this argues that it would be just to retroactively execute people.

 

[elohiym]

Non of this argues that it would be just to retroactively execute people.

Granted.

 

[The Horn]

Crucible, your comparison of abortion and liquor is ridiculous and totally specious .

 

[Traditio]

The State is the servant of the People, making us the ruling authority.

No. This confuses the rulers with the ruled.

It means that we have the right to grant mercy like Jesus did to the woman caught in adultery and the State may bow to that wish.

The State "may" administer the strict and rigid application of justice.

Many of the people in question are parents, doctors, nuke plant operators, essential people in infrastructure and social life of all types, many of whom actually came to repent of their evil acts and fight for an end to abortion themselves, like a reformed Saul-to-Paul character, serving God.

Doesn't change the fact that they're guilty. I don't care if a high ranking Nazi official ends up becoming a world famous philanthropist. If he's guilty of crimes against humanity, then he must die.

If God can grant mercy to David and not stone him for his capital crimes, then God can grant mercy to the Body of the Son of David via the governing body of the State.

Funny, I don't recall seeing God in any legislative assemblies recently.

Since you speak on matters of both State and theology, keep in mind that your justice system, to be fair, would include all adulterers, too. And the list doesn't stop growing there. But just adulterers and abortion enablers constitute the majority of the adult population.

I don't think that all adulterers should be put to death, nor do I think that everyone complicit in abortion should die. I am specifically asserting that those persons who, their guilt not lessened by grave mitigating factors (immaturity, ignorance, etc.), willingly and knowingly murdered unborn children or otherwise significantly assisted or conspired in doing so must be put to death by the State, should abortion become illegal once again.

The smilie looks creepy as you propose making tens of millions of orphans who will starve miserably.

Sorry, I was just thinking about gas chambers and incinerators.

At any rate: "Justice. Let Justice be done...That's all that matters, you said so yourself. Though the heavens fall" (Judge Dredd, Origins).

 

[ok doser]

God of course, considers it murder and all murderers will be dealt with justly on judgment day. Whether that means a person's crimes are paid for by the blood of Christ or by the damnation of their own soul, one way or the other, justice will be satisfied.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:thumb:

 

[Crucible]

Most Rabbis consider that passage relates ONLY to harm to the woman not to the foetus at all.

Exactly. I considered it to be speaking only of the woman from the get go, because it only makes sense that the woman's life is more concerned of than an unborn fetus- the woman can always bear another.

But good luck telling these folks that, who have fashioned abortion as murder out of virtually their own imagination.

In Israel, abortion is legal under not all, but many circumstances. It never was considered by them, rabbi or otherwise, that it's 'murder'.