Is biblegod pro life?

I think the point with that specific passage from the Bible

quote:

---

'"If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."' Ex 21:22-25 GNB

---

is that apparently the law treats the fetus differently than the woman.In that specific passage, you have a clear punishment for a man committing manslaughter (accidental death) of the woman. The man will be put to death. There is no ambiguity - the man took the life of the woman and so his own life will be taken.The argument I often hear from pro-lifers is that life begins at conception. The assumption is that all life should be treated equally, that is, the taking of one human life is equal to the taking of some other human life. Now what follows will primarily affect religious pro-lifers.In that particular passage, we can see that is not the case. We know the taking of the woman's life is punishable by death but causing a woman to miscarry is subject only to a fine. This leads to one of two conclusions:
1) The fetus is not considered a life. Life does not begin at conception.
B) If the fetus is considered life, then the life of the fetus is less than the life of the woman.For religious pro-lifers, if either is true, then the primary argument for abortion falls through, especially if conclusion 1 is true.

I'm sorry, but the legal definition of manslaughter is

quote:

---

The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

---

as defined by http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Manslaughter. That means you murdered someone, but there was no forethought behind the murder (i.e. you didn't plan on it.) In fact, involuntary manslaughter could be stated as accidental murder (e.g. killing someone in a car accident would be charged as involuntary manslaughter.)You yourself also used the term when you said in Message 4,

quote:

---

The concern here is not with murder, but with manslaughter, accidental death.

---

My assumption, which I suppose now was a mistaken one, was that since you referenced the term then I would also be able to reference the term. Rereading your post now, I can see I was mistaken. So I'll deal specifically with what you posted, which still holds up my argument. In this statement you state that the accidental miscarriage of a fetus by a blow received by a man results in manslaughter. The punishment for said crime is a fine. In this statement you said that if the same man accidentally kills the wife, it is counted as murder. Lex talionis applies and the man will be put to death.Your argument supports my second conclusion from Message 5 which stated that This means not all life is treated equally. If all human life were treated equally, the punishment should have been the same regardless, but the punishment varied depending on the circumstance. Thus, abortion is not the dire sin that religious pro-lifers make it out to be.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Really? You're going to quotemine me? Really?! So... what? We agree on the definition of manslaughter...? I can agree that manslaughter is the slaying of a man without prior planning.All this doesn't exactly address my point, which is that the Bible apparently treats the fetus differently than it does the woman carrying the fetus. How do you explain that?

First, let's define a miscarriage. According to http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/miscarriage

quote:

---

Miscarriage means loss of an embryo or fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. Most miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion.

---

So a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. Can we agree on this definition or do you have another definition? If we agree on this definition, then let's move on.KJV of the bible has it written "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow..." (Exodus 21:22). Now, Fruit depart from seems suspiciously like a miscarriage. It doesn't talk about birthing prematurely. It talks about the woman losing the fetus. This makes sense as I'm sure people back in those days would have known that a blow with sufficient force could cause a woman to lose the fetus.Even the New American Standard Bible, which you linked to, says "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury..." (Exodus 21:22). Once again, the passage talks about the woman miscarrying, not giving birth prematurely.As you can see, in both versions of the Bible, there is a statement of a woman losing the fetus because of blow from a man forceful enough to cause a miscarriage.Now, to address your point that Nowhere in those two versions of Exodus 21:22 does it talk about a child being born prematurely. The issue of premature birth is moot because it isn't even being discussed in that particular passage. But they were dealing with a fetus. The blow didn't cause her to go into labor and give birth to a stillborn child. The blow is what caused her to miscarry. It says so in two versions of the same passage. It even says miscarriage in the NASB!A miscarriage is the loss of the fetus. A man causes a woman to miscarriage just means the man causes the woman to lose the fetus. Get it, a man causes the woman to lose the fetus! Obfuscating the issue by talking about children or prematurely stillborn birth does not change the fact that the Bible treats the fetus as less than the woman. Why? Because causing a miscarriage (i.e. the loss of the fetus) results in a fine as determined by the judges but killing the woman results in death. Do you see the difference? If the Bible treated the fetus as equal to the woman, then causing a miscarriage should also have resulted in death for the offender.So how do you address this issue? Why does the Bible proscribe a less severe punishment for causing a miscarriage than for killing a woman if not because the fetus is less than the woman?

You're joking right? The grammar is so horrific, I can't make heads or tails out of it. It's like Yoda-speak, but worse. Show me the site that actually has it written like this or prove to me that you know how to read Hebrew.Otherwise, I can't even begin to consider your point if all you did was rearrange words around to fit your point. Even I can do that, but I don't because that would be dishonest and I like to have honest debates.

You're right, you read HEBREW from right to left (assuming that is how it is read.) The text, however, is TRANSLATED into English, and ENGLISH is read from left to right. You don't read the translated version using the same method as the original. You read the translated version in the manner the language it is translated to is read.It'd be like me translating something into English that was written in Japanese and telling you to read the English translation the way you would read something in Japanese. It doesn't make sense. Understand?I don't know if you are multilingual, but my experience has taught me that a literal translation often produces sentences that either do not make sense or are grammatically incorrect. When you translate anything, you want to convert the meaning from one language into another without losing the meaning or producing a result that is incomprehensible to a native speaker.

Ok, let's look again at what two versions of the same passage say.King James Version (Exodus 21:22):

quote:

---

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.

---

New American Standard Bible (Exodus 21:22):

quote:

---

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

---

In both versions, two men are struggling with each other and one man strikes a woman. In the KJV, it states so that her fruit depart from her which is a metaphorical way of saying miscarriage. In the NASB, it actually says miscarriage.You said: Where in those two versions does it state to wait to see what damage was done to the fetus. I challenge you to find in Exodus 21:22 the exact sequence of words that states to wait until birth to see what damage is done to the fetus and then to apply the fine. But that's the point. They were only concerned if the man caused the woman to miscarry or if the woman received physical damage. If the woman miscarried but was otherwise unhurt, then the penalty would be a fine. But if the woman was injured in any way, then lex talionis applies.In other words, according to the Bible, the loss of the fetus by a man striking a pregnant woman would only result in a fine if the woman was uninjured. The injuries to a woman by the man striking the pregnant woman would result in a punishment as severe as the injury. I challenge you to show me how you could interpret that passage in any other way.

The fault is mine for not looking at your argument clearly enough. However it does beg the question as to which translation should be used. If some say miscarriage, some say fruit depart, and some say premature birth, it becomes a matter of picking and choosing which translation suits your needs the best.Disregarding that, my next step should be to do some research to verify what you have said regarding the two Hebrew words and to look at the Hebraic version of the Old Testament. Until then, I will concede that you did make an excellent point and that the meaning of that passage in Hebrew might not have come through to the translations.However, to continue with this topic, I have always thought of God as being pro-choice. Assuming the doctrine of free will and the idea that God is willing to let us believe in hom or not, I would think that God would let people have the choice of getting an abortion. Just like it is our choice to believe, it is a woman's choice to have an abortion.

True. Putting aside the debate on the existence of God, God punishing a person for making a "wrong" choice is akin to a person snorting cocaine and later dealing with the effects of doing so.I think that's why God, assuming the existence of God, doesn't really interfere in humanity - God let's us make our own choices. If we choose to do drugs, it is our choice and the consequences of that choice are ours to deal with (which can be quite severe.) On the same token, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is her choice and she will have to deal with the outcome of that choice. Making our own choices and dealing with the consequences of our choices are why I believe that God would be pro-choice even if God felt that abortion is wrong.Note: I would also like to add that pro-choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion. A person can be pro-choice but would also never choose to have an abortion. Pro-choice just means allowing people the option if they so desire it.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

I actually like your analogy better. Using your analogy, the police would prefer that you didn't speed; however, you still have the option to speed if you want to. The police are not going to stop you until you start speeding and a few minutes after you start, even if they know that you have had a history of speeding (at least, not in most societies.) However, if they catch you, they will punish you for breaking the law.Similarly, God would prefer you didn't get an abortion, but God won't stand in your way of getting one. But God will punish you for breaking the law if you are caught (and apparently everyone who breaks the law is caught under God's watch.) So God is like the ultimate police officer.The police are pro-don't-want-you-to-do-anything-stupid in the same manner that God is pro-don't-want-you-to-do-anything-stupid. Despite that, the police let you make the choice to break law, even if they prefer you didn't, just as God lets you choose to break the law, even if God prefers you didn't.So when I say God is pro-choice, what I mean is that God will allow you the option, but God does say that if you take the option there are consequences.Just to round out the analogy a little more, auto manufacturers have a device that can stall a car if it reaches a certain speed. If the legislature passed a law requiring all vehicles to have that device installed and set at a maximum speed of, say 65 mph (which is the standard speed for most states, I think,) the choice to speed would be taken away. Even if you wanted to, you could not speed. Similarly, if God, and again I will be making some assumptions, really didn't want abortions to happen, I'm sure that God would have done something to ensure that the choice would have been taken away.

Ok, I think we may just have a difference in philosophical views about choices and the consequences of those choices.For instance, if a man were to make the choice to break off an engagement with his fiancee, there would be no impact from the law. However, there would be consequences for the action which would later inform the man whether or not his choice was "right" or "wrong." There is nothing inherently wrong about the choice itself and nothing prevents the man from making the choice. It is the consequences of the choice upon which we judge whether we made the right choice or not. Hence the saying hindsight is 20/20. Our choices and the consequences of our choices are not independent of each other, but because we don't have prescience, we are only able to weigh the perceived consequences of our choices.For a man who is running late to an important meeting, that man has the choice to either follow the speed limit or to break the law. That man will weigh the consequences of each choice and then make a decision on what to do. He weighs the consequence of speeding versus the consequence of being late to the meeting. What happens afterwards follows from the choice he made.The person makes the determination of the consequences of each action and from that takes a course of action. That person is given the free will to live as they please. But I believe every action (or nearly every action) has a consequence, even if the consequence is infinitesimally small, and very few choices have a clear "good" or "bad" ending.In the case of our speeding man, he may have gotten a ticket for speeding, but because he got to the meeting on time and was able to make the presentation, he got the promotion. He may not have gotten the ticket but wasn't fired because he showed up on time for that meeting. Maybe he got the ticket and was still late and fired for arriving late. And so on and so forth.

I do have a slight problem with that statement since there are people out there with no compunction about murder, thievery, rape, or violent behavior in general.You know, sociopaths. Does that mean God won't punish their behavior simply because their conscience doesn't tell them it's wrong?

That seems terribly unsatisfying if you are making a supposition about it, especially since some sociopaths are born without a conscience. Could you specifically find the part of the Bible that actually says they will be reborn with their conscience?Assuming that you can't, wouldn't it be valid to assume that those people would actually get away with murder simply because they feel no guilt about it?

Well, perhaps genetically predisposed towards antisocial behavior is a better way of saying it. According to Wiki antisocial personality disorder might have biological or genetic factors.So if true, then yes, some people can be born without a conscience, or at least a malfunctioning one.

misrepresenting... what exactly?