Life is in the blood...

JSN,

Interesting. I have never looked at it from that perspective.
I am not going to attempt to be a judge on this subject, but I do have my opinion and will hold firm for now. You have introduced something new for me on this topic and it is worth discussing. I will re-read your opening comments and study it out for myself.
But for me to completely understand what you are saying, I want to make sure I have it correct. Are you saying that:
1. Life does not begin until on or about the 7th week? if so, then
2. It is ok and/or acceptable to remove the child before that time because it, has no life?
3. God will be indifferent about this because there was no blood and no actual life?

If there is more I would be interested to hear it and if I have it wrong, I do appologize. If I do not have the correct understanding to what you are saying, please let me know.

God bless!

 

Sorry to do this backwards. Here is my post you replied to-

You seemed to agree with the first part of the verse, then seemed to retract it going off in some direction regarding how far along the woman is yet offered no scriptural support backing up that the Lord cares how far along a woman is. Except with regards to criminal justice, maybe that was your main point. Sorry, i am kinda tired.

To reiterate, the verse calls a pregnant woman with child.

A child is a person, though a person is not necessarily the Lord's criteria.

I'll leave with it seems we need to view a woman with child in the manner God views it. He doesn't care how far along she is with regards to this.

Also, if we attempt to murder someone, and this person is only maimed, we will be prosecuted.
If we attempt to murder someone, and we succeed (they die), we will be proscuted MUCH harsher.

You may want to compare that to the Exodus verse in the context of the criminal justice system instead of comparing it to "how pregnant God thinks she is or whether the child can live on it's own" though they overlap.

Hope this makes sense :saint:

 

I am not a medical person, so help me out with this.

Approximately when does the heart start beating?

 

About the 18th day of conception

 

If you look closer at this verse you will see it more supports the position that life does NOT begin at conception. It says if you hurt a woman who has a child in her womb and the fruit of the womb is destroyed you shall be punished. However, if mischief follows, in other words, if the child was fully formed as in ready for birth or if the woman looses her life because of the hurt then it is considered murder. The punishment is then life for life.

Look closely guys, why are there two different punishments if both equal life?

 

Good point... Yet it still uses the term "with child" right up front to establish how the Lord views a fetus thru a 9 month old child. Both are child. That is what I get hung up on.

It seems both fall under Thou Shall Not kill because both are considered a child.

Yet the criminal penalty as you noted, is different

I think all of us would agree that an 8 week old fetus being killed is less painful (for mother and baby) than an almost fully formed baby at 8 1/2 months. It is also less risk to the Mothers health when she looses it earlier on.

So that might play into what constitutes the "levels of prosecution" -based upon the "levels developing of life"

 

I don't think so in either case. If you look at the verse closely, the offence in either case is against the husband. They get the punishment the husband decides. The difference being he can choose death if the fetus is fully developed.

 

To be honest, I never looked at this verse as you do but I have to admit I could not dispute your view Biblically. I decided to do something I rarely do and looked in several commentaries I have in my office. I was surprised to see most didn't deal with this passage. The only one I could find was Adam Clarke who had this to say;

And hurt a woman with child—As a posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant, and as every man had some reason to think that the Messiah should spring from his family, therefore any injury done to a woman with child, by which the fruit of her womb might be destroyed, was considered a very heavy offense; and as the crime was committed principally against the husband, the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder—the person was put to death; Exodus 21:23.

He is more in line with my understanding however I am the first to say commentaries are the views of the writer and are not the Gospel or the Word of God so take this as you will. I want to stew on your view for a while. Interesting view.

 

Can't argue against that... :thumbs:

 

By this faulty logic, antibiotics are evil, since they prevent the course of nature. Same with surgery. Same with automobiles, airplanes, etc. Same with trimming my toenails or cutting my hair.

 

Alright but I don't read it that way

Here is the NIV translation, I will break it down verse by verse

Exodus 21:22-27
]22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise"

Verse 22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."
Otherwise, ONLY if the baby is born and there seems nothing wrong with it (unharmed) the husband decides the penalty. Maybe it's as simple as the wife walking right into a brawl, and it was an accident so he decides to let it go without a penalty.


Verse 23 "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life"
Life for Life. There is no distinction upon the development of the fetus/baby. The Lord considers both Life. It says if the baby/fetus or mother dies, then the perpitrator must die also.


Verse 24-25-"eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise"
Example: if the baby is born blind in one eye, the husband ensures the perpitrator is blined in one eye. Baby is born with a broken leg, then the perp is also to have his leg broken etc...Makes no distinction upon the babies development, and the Husband must follow these commands.

So he can't choose death "if the fetus is fully developed" as you say. There is no distinction upon any penalty being based upon the fetus/babies development.


And the offense is not against the husband imo. He is the head of his wife. He is to protect and care for her. Remember "her body is not her own" as a verse states. With her hormones likely out of whack due to the pregnancy itself, and now the stress of the trauma against her body and the life inside her belly, she isn't in a good frame of mind to make decisions. I enjoy your posts, learn a lot from them. But this time I think you are way off.

 

To summarize, the Lord considers a pregnant woman to carry "life"

THAT is a distinction in itself

He calls this life "a child"

So should we

 

As I stated earlier in the thread, I can see you and jsn9333 view of this passage even though I disagree. If you read various versions and various commentators I see some agreeing with each view. IOW, this is one of those things we'll just have to understand better in the by and by. It's hard for me to believe God would leave something as important as this issue to an arguable passage.

The way I studied this passage, the passage is there because the offence had more to do with the potential the woman might be carrying the messiah. All of Israel was looking to the coming of the Messiah. As many have preached the sermon before, "what if Mary had of had an abortion or a mis-carriage?" My answer, the fetus would have lived for He still had work and a purpose in the Will of the Father.

If it is God's Will the fetus have life, it will have life and no Man on earth can change that for God is the only one who can give or take life away.

 

Can't biblically argue with that

 

Not that the point I am about to make really has any bering on the discussion but ..
Actually, Adam Clarke is somewhat incorrect on this point (the one embolded) OR maybe he just didn't elaborate enough on it.

He seems to 'presume' that because the punishment is left up to the husband then the offence was committed against him. In truth, this is not really accurate only because the husband was the head and therefore the authority of the home. All things had to go through him. For example, if a wife made a vow/promise and the husband did not know about it, he could void that vow or allow his wife to be bound to it. If his children were hurt by another, the children do not determind the punishment to be given but their Father does. Just as the incident committed is not against the father but his children so it is with respect to the unborn child being hurt or killed. The offence is against the child who is under their fathers authority and therefore being their spiritual head, it falls to him to mete out the proper punishment that happened to his family. And as Adam Clarke concludes if death occures (including miscarage or premature death of the unborn) they must die according to the Law against a murderer (this includes a woman who could be 2 weeks alone with child). The important thing to remember scripture ALWAYS states that when a woman was pregnant there are not 2 phases that scripture state about the pregnancy (one the forming and the other life) but one - she is with CHILD meaning God sees it from inception as a person/life.