Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then why don't you carry the fetus to term? Just leave the rape victim out if it.
Shouldn't the victem be indemnified?
The very human traditions Christ took to task.In all fairness to @KingDavid403 we need to be honest about how the Jews know their Hebrew language and the traditions that were pasted down by the oral law?
Rashi....
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.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
Ensoulment is not a halakhic issue, since full human status in Judaism pertains only at the birth of a full-term baby. The Hellenistic position and that of the early church stand in opposition to the position which developed in the Land of Israel and which became normative Jewish law. Although there was some tendency to accept the Hellenistic position by ascribing levels of vitality to the fetus, it never attained full human status. Consequently, abortion was never considered homicide in Jewish law.
The halakhic status of an embryo/fetus depends upon the stage of its development. From conception to the fortieth day, it is considered to be merely water. At three months the pregnancy is physically recognizable. Prior to labor the fetus is considered a “limb of its mother,” i.e. without independent legal status. During labor, before the head (or the majority of the body in a breech birth) is delivered, the fetus is considered a living being but one whose life is less valuable than the mother’s. After the head or the majority of the body is birthed, the fetus has a nearly equal status with the mother, especially if it is a full-term pregnancy. Only after a full-term pregnancy or survival of the premature fetus for thirty days does full human status adhere.
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion
I believe that Adam Clarke had the correct understanding of this verse as it pertained to Jewish understanding and Jewish law.
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; Exo_21:23. [emphasis mine]
Clarke's Commentary
John Gill's Commentary sites the Targums as he often does.
so that her fruit depart from her; or, "her children go forth" (z), out of her womb, as she may have more than one; through the fright of the quarrel, and fear of her husband being hurt, and the blow she received by interposing, might miscarry, or, falling into labour, come before her time, and bring forth her offspring sooner than expected:
and yet no mischief follow: to her, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra restrain it to the woman; and which mischief they interpret of death, as does also the Targum of Onkelos; but it may refer both to the woman and her offspring, and not only to the death of them, but to any hurt or damage to either of them: now though there was none of any sort:[emphasis mine]
It's been justified over and over and over and over in these threads. Just recently as a matter of fact. I'm tired of reposting and @redleghunter has posted this same information in detail, over and over.What makes someone a "human being"? If you can't justify your definition you can't claim that abortion is the killing of human beings. Right now the burden of proof is upon those that want to change things. It usually is. The problem is that prolife people cannot reasonably support there own claims.
Life:
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
Clearly a fetus is a life. What kind of life is a fetus? Its parents are human. Human parents beget human offspring. So a fetus is a human life. This is a biological fact. So why do some deny it?
ignorance
They don't have to. It's not a sentence. The abortion isn't being forced. It's just an option if that's what the woman wants.
And I would blame the rapist if you have a problem with it. He not only violated the woman, but he took the risk of creating a zygote where it isn't wanted.
I have yet to see an anti-abortionist post anything that justifies their claims. The Bible is not even clear about this matter, all I ever see are emotional responses to a difficult question. Again, I can't prove my claims. I will admit it in this topic. That only means that I won't tell women what they have to do with their bodies. You want to tell someone what they have to do with their body, that puts the burden of proof upon your side.It's been justified over and over and over and over in these threads. Just recently as a matter of fact. I'm tired of reposting and @redleghunter has posted this same information in detail, over and over.
Then abortion is justified. She wasn't pregnant before the rape, so the just thing to do is to return her to that state.
As soon as you point out the truth about the life of the unborn, they simply move to the "yeah? Well what about rape" question. But even if you granted them abortion in the case of rape, and incest, and the life of the mother, they'd jump to another objection. The so-called prochoice crowd jumps all over the place in these discussion. And they drag along plenty of false information with them.Interesting you have to point these truths out. Smh
You need to show that this is a full "human being" if you want to stop others from killing it. Again, the burden of proof is upon those that are telling others what they have to do with their body.Again what did the newly created human being do?
What justifies killing them?
Well thanks for the heads up then. I won't waste any more of your time.I have yet to see an anti-abortionist post anything that justifies their claims. The Bible is not even clear about this matter, all I ever see are emotional responses to a difficult question. Again, I can't prove my claims. I will admit it in this topic. That only means that I won't tell women what they have to do with their bodies. You want to tell someone what they have to do with their body, that puts the burden of proof upon your side.
As soon as you point out the truth about the life of the unborn, they simply move to the "yeah? Well what about rape" question. But even if you granted them abortion in the case of rape, and incest, and the life of the mother, they'd jump to another objection. The so-called prochoice crowd jumps all over the place in these discussion. And they drag along plenty of false information with them.
What justifies punishing the rape victim twice? What justifies involuntary servitude?Again what did the newly created human being do?
What justifies killing them?
"A sperm is a life." What??? Who here is being unintelligent???No actually you are being unintelligent. From a scientific view, it's a life. A sperm is a life. So you're simply wrong on the way you're stating it. You likely mean something else. Any embryology textbook will tell you that even a zygote is a human life. Not just alive. But a life. Your view rests on a philosophical position and is unscientific.
No, your initial statement, "a sperm is a life," has a different meaning than your second statement, "there is life in a sperm." Again, who is being unintelligent?Meaning there is life in a sperm...it's alive. There is no non-life involved
http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/guide/sperm-and-sperm-faq
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?