Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mightyjoemoon · 09-16-2004, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shven

Exodus 21:22-23 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."

Why exactly in this passage is the punishment for death to an unborn child a fine, but death to the mother a capital offence?

I guess I'm weird because to me, the mistake that Christians make now is not in trying to protect the life of the unborn, but rather in believing in a silly book that does not share that view. In the OT, women were chattel and children, unless they were male and Israelites, were property to be sacrificed or paid for if killed.

ten to the eleventh · 09-16-2004, 02:29 PM

Oh, but that was the Old Testament.

Shven · 09-16-2004, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightyjoemoon

I guess I'm weird because to me, the mistake that Christians make now is not in trying to protect the life of the unborn, but rather in believing in a silly book that does not share that view. In the OT, women were chattel and children, unless they were male and Israelites, were property to be sacrificed or paid for if killed.

As somebody who finds the morality of abortion somewhat troubling I am inclined to agree with you.

HAVOC451 · 09-17-2004, 04:19 AM

Would it be unreasonable to concider the beginning of life (personhood) to be the very first breath upon being born?
Gen 2:7

Shven · 09-17-2004, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HAVOC451

Would it be unreasonable to concider the beginning of life (personhood) to be the very first breath upon being born?
Gen 2:7

Yes (if you are a Christian) because the Bible disputes it in the passage quoted in the OP

Shven

Shven · 09-18-2004, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shven

Yes (if you are a Christian) because the Bible disputes it in the passage quoted in the OP

Shven

I just realised I misread Havoc in this reply. My bad. Apologies much.

Toto · 09-18-2004, 11:40 AM

I don't see how the passage in the OP disputes the idea that life begins with the first breath.

The passage gives different penalties for an injury resulting in miscarriage and an injury resulting the the death of the woman.

Putting a value on a fetus as potential life does not mean that life begins before the first breath.

HAVOC451 · 09-20-2004, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shven

I just realised I misread Havoc in this reply. My bad. Apologies much.

Thanks for going back for a re-read Shven.
I pose the question because It seems to me that many of those (more often than not, christians) who seek to grant personhood to the fetus overlook the passage I sited.

Chili · 09-20-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HAVOC451

Thanks for going back for a re-read Shven.
I pose the question because It seems to me that many of those (more often than not, christians) who seek to grant personhood to the fetus overlook the passage I sited.

There is nothing wrong with that if you value 'the persona' over 'the being.' The fetus is the baby and the persona is a condition of being as as it is described by your "personhood." Red hair is another such condition and an equally valid reason to grant status to the baby. So is its sex and you might want to read Aristotle on this in his "Categories."

HAVOC451 · 09-23-2004, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

There is nothing wrong with that if you value 'the persona' over 'the being.' The fetus is the baby and the persona is a condition of being as as it is described by your "personhood." Red hair is another such condition and an equally valid reason to grant status to the baby. So is its sex and you might want to read Aristotle on this in his "Categories."

The problem with granting personhood to the fetus is that it creates a conflict within the law wherein the rights of an existing "being" (a pregnant woman) are diminished.
I think the biblical notion that man (as in human) is only alive when breathing is sound wisdom and as such a fetus cannot be concidered a distict being untill it has been born and takes its first breath.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-16-2004, 02:29 PM	#12
ten to the eleventh Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 1,682	Oh, but that was the Old Testament.

09-17-2004, 04:19 AM	#14
HAVOC451 Junior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 9	Would it be unreasonable to concider the beginning of life (personhood) to be the very first breath upon being born? Gen 2:7

09-18-2004, 11:40 AM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I don't see how the passage in the OP disputes the idea that life begins with the first breath. The passage gives different penalties for an injury resulting in miscarriage and an injury resulting the the death of the woman. Putting a value on a fetus as potential life does not mean that life begins before the first breath.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.