Why isn't the punishment for the death of a fetus the same as for the death of a person? It was punished with a fine! (Even people who had sex with animals were given capital punishment.)
This is From Exodus 21:
22 When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges.
23 But if injury ensues, 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.
2006-06-21 05:02:55 · 8 answers · asked by Adam 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
true infant mortality was so high that infants were considered human only at a month old- biblically
but that would not hold water (pun intended) today
as a fetuses have a better survival rate then football players
2006-06-21 05:07:36 · answer #1 · answered by kathyt11232 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know what interpretation you got that from but it is wrong. unless you typed miscarriage in there to prove your point I look under almost all translations from KJ and it is premature birth, not a miscarriage.
Exd 21:22"Now suppose two people are fighting, and in the process, they hurt a pregnant woman so her child is born prematurely. If no further harm results, then the person responsible must pay damages in the amount the woman's husband demands and the judges approve. NLT,NASB,DARBY,YOUNG,
Exd 21:23 But if any harm results, then the offender must be punished according to the injury. If the result is death, the offender must be executed.NLT etc.
2006-06-21 05:16:15 · answer #2 · answered by question man 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exodus says this. Jesus contravened this in Matthew 5:38 - 'turn the other cheek'. But that's not your question.
Exodus reflects that the PUNISHMENT for one who kills a fetus is not the same as PUNISHMENT for one who kills an adult. This does not mean that the deaths are not the same. Other passages in Exodus 21 reflects different punishments for the beating of a neighbor (pay lost wages and pay for recovery) and the beating of a parent (death), but the beaten person is injured just the same.
It is too much of a contrivance to say that this passage proves that fetuses are not alive.
2006-06-21 05:14:16 · answer #3 · answered by Veritatum17 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, in some translations it does appear that the issue was what happened to the mother. But taking a closer look at verse 23 we see something different. Some translations do make it appear that the law only dealt with what happened to the mother. But in the original Hebrew text, the fatal accident refers to either mother or child. So that if the child died, it was "life for life."
2006-06-21 05:32:12 · answer #4 · answered by Hannah J Paul 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look at the point that was made in 22 "he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him" so it was left up to her husband to make the judgment if he wanted that man dead or punnished some other way.
2006-06-21 05:11:31 · answer #5 · answered by Damian 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a strange verse, it does read as though the life of an unborn child isn't equal to the life of the mother. Of course we are dealing with a primitive people and their ideas of value.
2006-06-21 05:13:05 · answer #6 · answered by Swordsman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
These passages are from the Old Testament, and we are now under the law in the New Testament
2006-06-21 05:19:18 · answer #7 · answered by barbie 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was believed that the fetus wasn't "alive" until it drew its first breath.
2006-06-21 05:06:19 · answer #8 · answered by ohhhdan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋