Is there any chance a man can get the death penalty for causing a miscarriage?Is it a sin to escape the death...

Final exams: What is the most common protocol for scheduling?

The Maltese Falcon

Why sampling a periodic signal doesn't yield a periodic discrete signal?

Why is the Eisenstein ideal paper so great?

How to let other coworkers know that I don't share my coworker's political views?

Why did Jon Snow do this immoral act if he is so honorable?

What is the use case for non-breathable waterproof pants?

Can we assume that a hash function with high collision resistance also means highly uniform distribution?

Is there an idiom that means that you are in a very strong negotiation position in a negotiation?

Why isn't 'chemically-strengthened glass' made with potassium carbonate? To begin with?

Does an eye for an eye mean monetary compensation?

What is the recommended procedure to land a taildragger in a crosswind?

Shorten or merge multiple lines of `&> /dev/null &`

Why does FOO=bar; export the variable into my environment

Is "vegetable base" a common term in English?

Co-author wants to put their current funding source in the acknowledgements section because they edited the paper

Are there any German nonsense poems (Jabberwocky)?

Are runways booked by airlines to land their planes?

Did this character show any indication of wanting to rule before S8E6?

Navigating a quick return to previous employer

Why did Jon Snow admit his fault in S08E06?

Of strange atmospheres - the survivable but unbreathable

Has Ursula Le Guin ever admitted to be influenced by Kibbutz for the Dispossessed?

How was Daenerys able to legitimise Gendry?



Is there any chance a man can get the death penalty for causing a miscarriage?


Is it a sin to escape the death penalty?The application of “harm” in Shemot (Exodus) 21:22Are Segulot a Prohibition of Nichush?Is there a penalty under the law for attempted adultery?Can a parent “victim” forgive a child due the death penalty?Death penalty for non-JewsWhy does the torah on injured slaves call out eyes and teeth but not other damages?Nefesh tachas Nefesh vs. Nefesh BeNefeshCan non jews give death penalty for something other then the 7 laws of noahDoes an eye for an eye mean monetary compensation?













2















According to this article yes:




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. But if there is any [further] injury, then
you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound,
bruise for bruise.1




Men struggle and strike a woman with child so she has a miscarriage, he is fined.



What about if the child (not the mom, or the other strugglers) is injured or death?



Does that mean "life for life" works here?



NB: This argument is used by "pro-life" Christians to argue that God considers an unborn baby a human being. So causing miscarriage means murder.



I found it quite unlikely that a primitive society can have a law that value an unborn child so highly. Also, I suspect, with the state of medical advance at that time, people would normally expect a baby that "came out" due to a fight prematurely to die.



However, the article argues:




Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated
"miscarriage" in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any
different?




I suppose the Jews should know more. After all, the Torah used to be a working law in ancient Israel. There should have been some records on how it's actually interpreted by their supreme court thingy.



So what's the story?



I want Judaism perspective and actual historical perspective. How was the verse actually interpreted by ancient Jewish judges?










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    If the woman has a miscarriage, the baby dies. (Assuming nobody else was hurt, like you said in your question) the “killer” gets fined, not killed, you said it yourself. I don’t understand the question.

    – Lo ani
    9 hours ago











  • And btw, “life for a life...” isn’t taken literally by the commentators.

    – Lo ani
    9 hours ago











  • @Loani I think the OP is saying "it was alive, therefore 'life for life' should apply". I answered based on that understanding, anyway.

    – Monica Cellio
    8 hours ago
















2















According to this article yes:




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. But if there is any [further] injury, then
you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound,
bruise for bruise.1




Men struggle and strike a woman with child so she has a miscarriage, he is fined.



What about if the child (not the mom, or the other strugglers) is injured or death?



Does that mean "life for life" works here?



NB: This argument is used by "pro-life" Christians to argue that God considers an unborn baby a human being. So causing miscarriage means murder.



I found it quite unlikely that a primitive society can have a law that value an unborn child so highly. Also, I suspect, with the state of medical advance at that time, people would normally expect a baby that "came out" due to a fight prematurely to die.



However, the article argues:




Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated
"miscarriage" in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any
different?




I suppose the Jews should know more. After all, the Torah used to be a working law in ancient Israel. There should have been some records on how it's actually interpreted by their supreme court thingy.



So what's the story?



I want Judaism perspective and actual historical perspective. How was the verse actually interpreted by ancient Jewish judges?










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    If the woman has a miscarriage, the baby dies. (Assuming nobody else was hurt, like you said in your question) the “killer” gets fined, not killed, you said it yourself. I don’t understand the question.

    – Lo ani
    9 hours ago











  • And btw, “life for a life...” isn’t taken literally by the commentators.

    – Lo ani
    9 hours ago











  • @Loani I think the OP is saying "it was alive, therefore 'life for life' should apply". I answered based on that understanding, anyway.

    – Monica Cellio
    8 hours ago














2












2








2








According to this article yes:




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. But if there is any [further] injury, then
you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound,
bruise for bruise.1




Men struggle and strike a woman with child so she has a miscarriage, he is fined.



What about if the child (not the mom, or the other strugglers) is injured or death?



Does that mean "life for life" works here?



NB: This argument is used by "pro-life" Christians to argue that God considers an unborn baby a human being. So causing miscarriage means murder.



I found it quite unlikely that a primitive society can have a law that value an unborn child so highly. Also, I suspect, with the state of medical advance at that time, people would normally expect a baby that "came out" due to a fight prematurely to die.



However, the article argues:




Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated
"miscarriage" in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any
different?




I suppose the Jews should know more. After all, the Torah used to be a working law in ancient Israel. There should have been some records on how it's actually interpreted by their supreme court thingy.



So what's the story?



I want Judaism perspective and actual historical perspective. How was the verse actually interpreted by ancient Jewish judges?










share|improve this question
















According to this article yes:




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. But if there is any [further] injury, then
you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound,
bruise for bruise.1




Men struggle and strike a woman with child so she has a miscarriage, he is fined.



What about if the child (not the mom, or the other strugglers) is injured or death?



Does that mean "life for life" works here?



NB: This argument is used by "pro-life" Christians to argue that God considers an unborn baby a human being. So causing miscarriage means murder.



I found it quite unlikely that a primitive society can have a law that value an unborn child so highly. Also, I suspect, with the state of medical advance at that time, people would normally expect a baby that "came out" due to a fight prematurely to die.



However, the article argues:




Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated
"miscarriage" in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any
different?




I suppose the Jews should know more. After all, the Torah used to be a working law in ancient Israel. There should have been some records on how it's actually interpreted by their supreme court thingy.



So what's the story?



I want Judaism perspective and actual historical perspective. How was the verse actually interpreted by ancient Jewish judges?







halacha torts-damages mishpatim






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago









alicht

4,0231636




4,0231636










asked 9 hours ago









user4951user4951

1,65712238




1,65712238








  • 2





    If the woman has a miscarriage, the baby dies. (Assuming nobody else was hurt, like you said in your question) the “killer” gets fined, not killed, you said it yourself. I don’t understand the question.

    – Lo ani
    9 hours ago











  • And btw, “life for a life...” isn’t taken literally by the commentators.

    – Lo ani
    9 hours ago











  • @Loani I think the OP is saying "it was alive, therefore 'life for life' should apply". I answered based on that understanding, anyway.

    – Monica Cellio
    8 hours ago














  • 2





    If the woman has a miscarriage, the baby dies. (Assuming nobody else was hurt, like you said in your question) the “killer” gets fined, not killed, you said it yourself. I don’t understand the question.

    – Lo ani
    9 hours ago











  • And btw, “life for a life...” isn’t taken literally by the commentators.

    – Lo ani
    9 hours ago











  • @Loani I think the OP is saying "it was alive, therefore 'life for life' should apply". I answered based on that understanding, anyway.

    – Monica Cellio
    8 hours ago








2




2





If the woman has a miscarriage, the baby dies. (Assuming nobody else was hurt, like you said in your question) the “killer” gets fined, not killed, you said it yourself. I don’t understand the question.

– Lo ani
9 hours ago





If the woman has a miscarriage, the baby dies. (Assuming nobody else was hurt, like you said in your question) the “killer” gets fined, not killed, you said it yourself. I don’t understand the question.

– Lo ani
9 hours ago













And btw, “life for a life...” isn’t taken literally by the commentators.

– Lo ani
9 hours ago





And btw, “life for a life...” isn’t taken literally by the commentators.

– Lo ani
9 hours ago













@Loani I think the OP is saying "it was alive, therefore 'life for life' should apply". I answered based on that understanding, anyway.

– Monica Cellio
8 hours ago





@Loani I think the OP is saying "it was alive, therefore 'life for life' should apply". I answered based on that understanding, anyway.

– Monica Cellio
8 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5














Indeed, the classic Jewish understanding of this verse is that "Yatza [Yasa] Yeladeha" means the incitement of a miscarriage, which is only liable to a fine, not the death penalty.



This is evident from the Talmud in Kesubos 29b, that learns from this verse, the concept of "Kim Lei Bederaba Minei" - when a person is faced which multiple punishments for a single act - they only receive the worst of the punishments. It learns this from the implication that only if there is no Asone (tragedy, i.e. death of the mother) does one have to pay for the fetus, implying that if there is an Asone than one will no longer have to pay for the fetus, as they are now subject to the death penalty.



If Asone was referring to the death of the child as is suggested in that article, then the Talmudic derivation would make no sense, given that if they killed the child there would be no damages to pay for injuring the child. Therefore it is clear that the Talmudic understanding is that the Asone is referring to the death of the mother.



However, that said, it would incorrect to generalize from here that the Jewish perspective is that the fetus does not have the value of a human life, as there are other sources that may suggest otherwise. For Example: The Talmud Sanhedrin 57b that suggests that the verse in Genesis 9:6 prescribes the death penalty for killing a fetus (seemingly in contradiction to Exodus 21:22, see Rashi in Sanhedrin for a resolution).






share|improve this answer

































    1














    The verse tells us explicitly that the penalty for causing the death of a fetus (in a fight, at least) is monetary and not capital punishment. (Rashi explains how the amount is computed.) Even though the fetus will one day become a human if the pregnancy isn't interrupted, causing its death when it is a fetus is a matter of damages, not murder. Since the torah tells us this explicitly, it would be hard to argue for a stronger penalty. "Life for life" does not apply here.



    The Christian source you quote tries to make the argument that yasa only refers to living things, therefore a fetus is alive, therefore "life for life" should apply. That is not a credible Jewish interpretation.



    When the torah says "life for life" it means human life, which we can learn from the fact that if you cause the death of someone else's livestock, that too is a monetary case and not a capital case. If you had to give up your life because of an ox, that would not be "life for life"; it would be a disproportionate penalty. The same is true with regard to a fetus.



    Finally, this interpretation is not about a "primitive society" not knowing better and thus not valuing a fetus. This is the halacha today (or would be if we had capital punishment so you could tell the difference), and ours is not a primitive society. It's not about not valuing the fetus; it's about priorities. Actual born humans have the status of "human"; a fetus does not yet have that status, but as a potential human it is still valuable and many poskim forbid abortion in most cases. We do not say that a fetus is unimportant and mere property; we say that a fetus has a different, lesser status than a human does, one for which only monetary damages apply.






    share|improve this answer
























    • I think the interpretation he cites is arguing that the verse means if there's early labor but the child survives, there's monetary payment. But if there's a tragedy and and the fetus dies it's capital. And that's why the regular miscarriage word isn't used, it just means early labor.

      – Double AA
      8 hours ago











    • @DoubleAA oh, hmm. That wouldn't make sense (of course); the further injury referred to in the verse is the woman, not the fetus. So I probably filtered that out as nonsensical without sufficiently considering the source. So it's arguing on "miscarriage"?

      – Monica Cellio
      8 hours ago








    • 1





      Disclaimer: I'm no expert in Christian exegesis.

      – Double AA
      8 hours ago





















    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5














    Indeed, the classic Jewish understanding of this verse is that "Yatza [Yasa] Yeladeha" means the incitement of a miscarriage, which is only liable to a fine, not the death penalty.



    This is evident from the Talmud in Kesubos 29b, that learns from this verse, the concept of "Kim Lei Bederaba Minei" - when a person is faced which multiple punishments for a single act - they only receive the worst of the punishments. It learns this from the implication that only if there is no Asone (tragedy, i.e. death of the mother) does one have to pay for the fetus, implying that if there is an Asone than one will no longer have to pay for the fetus, as they are now subject to the death penalty.



    If Asone was referring to the death of the child as is suggested in that article, then the Talmudic derivation would make no sense, given that if they killed the child there would be no damages to pay for injuring the child. Therefore it is clear that the Talmudic understanding is that the Asone is referring to the death of the mother.



    However, that said, it would incorrect to generalize from here that the Jewish perspective is that the fetus does not have the value of a human life, as there are other sources that may suggest otherwise. For Example: The Talmud Sanhedrin 57b that suggests that the verse in Genesis 9:6 prescribes the death penalty for killing a fetus (seemingly in contradiction to Exodus 21:22, see Rashi in Sanhedrin for a resolution).






    share|improve this answer






























      5














      Indeed, the classic Jewish understanding of this verse is that "Yatza [Yasa] Yeladeha" means the incitement of a miscarriage, which is only liable to a fine, not the death penalty.



      This is evident from the Talmud in Kesubos 29b, that learns from this verse, the concept of "Kim Lei Bederaba Minei" - when a person is faced which multiple punishments for a single act - they only receive the worst of the punishments. It learns this from the implication that only if there is no Asone (tragedy, i.e. death of the mother) does one have to pay for the fetus, implying that if there is an Asone than one will no longer have to pay for the fetus, as they are now subject to the death penalty.



      If Asone was referring to the death of the child as is suggested in that article, then the Talmudic derivation would make no sense, given that if they killed the child there would be no damages to pay for injuring the child. Therefore it is clear that the Talmudic understanding is that the Asone is referring to the death of the mother.



      However, that said, it would incorrect to generalize from here that the Jewish perspective is that the fetus does not have the value of a human life, as there are other sources that may suggest otherwise. For Example: The Talmud Sanhedrin 57b that suggests that the verse in Genesis 9:6 prescribes the death penalty for killing a fetus (seemingly in contradiction to Exodus 21:22, see Rashi in Sanhedrin for a resolution).






      share|improve this answer




























        5












        5








        5







        Indeed, the classic Jewish understanding of this verse is that "Yatza [Yasa] Yeladeha" means the incitement of a miscarriage, which is only liable to a fine, not the death penalty.



        This is evident from the Talmud in Kesubos 29b, that learns from this verse, the concept of "Kim Lei Bederaba Minei" - when a person is faced which multiple punishments for a single act - they only receive the worst of the punishments. It learns this from the implication that only if there is no Asone (tragedy, i.e. death of the mother) does one have to pay for the fetus, implying that if there is an Asone than one will no longer have to pay for the fetus, as they are now subject to the death penalty.



        If Asone was referring to the death of the child as is suggested in that article, then the Talmudic derivation would make no sense, given that if they killed the child there would be no damages to pay for injuring the child. Therefore it is clear that the Talmudic understanding is that the Asone is referring to the death of the mother.



        However, that said, it would incorrect to generalize from here that the Jewish perspective is that the fetus does not have the value of a human life, as there are other sources that may suggest otherwise. For Example: The Talmud Sanhedrin 57b that suggests that the verse in Genesis 9:6 prescribes the death penalty for killing a fetus (seemingly in contradiction to Exodus 21:22, see Rashi in Sanhedrin for a resolution).






        share|improve this answer















        Indeed, the classic Jewish understanding of this verse is that "Yatza [Yasa] Yeladeha" means the incitement of a miscarriage, which is only liable to a fine, not the death penalty.



        This is evident from the Talmud in Kesubos 29b, that learns from this verse, the concept of "Kim Lei Bederaba Minei" - when a person is faced which multiple punishments for a single act - they only receive the worst of the punishments. It learns this from the implication that only if there is no Asone (tragedy, i.e. death of the mother) does one have to pay for the fetus, implying that if there is an Asone than one will no longer have to pay for the fetus, as they are now subject to the death penalty.



        If Asone was referring to the death of the child as is suggested in that article, then the Talmudic derivation would make no sense, given that if they killed the child there would be no damages to pay for injuring the child. Therefore it is clear that the Talmudic understanding is that the Asone is referring to the death of the mother.



        However, that said, it would incorrect to generalize from here that the Jewish perspective is that the fetus does not have the value of a human life, as there are other sources that may suggest otherwise. For Example: The Talmud Sanhedrin 57b that suggests that the verse in Genesis 9:6 prescribes the death penalty for killing a fetus (seemingly in contradiction to Exodus 21:22, see Rashi in Sanhedrin for a resolution).







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 7 hours ago

























        answered 8 hours ago









        SilverSilver

        1035




        1035























            1














            The verse tells us explicitly that the penalty for causing the death of a fetus (in a fight, at least) is monetary and not capital punishment. (Rashi explains how the amount is computed.) Even though the fetus will one day become a human if the pregnancy isn't interrupted, causing its death when it is a fetus is a matter of damages, not murder. Since the torah tells us this explicitly, it would be hard to argue for a stronger penalty. "Life for life" does not apply here.



            The Christian source you quote tries to make the argument that yasa only refers to living things, therefore a fetus is alive, therefore "life for life" should apply. That is not a credible Jewish interpretation.



            When the torah says "life for life" it means human life, which we can learn from the fact that if you cause the death of someone else's livestock, that too is a monetary case and not a capital case. If you had to give up your life because of an ox, that would not be "life for life"; it would be a disproportionate penalty. The same is true with regard to a fetus.



            Finally, this interpretation is not about a "primitive society" not knowing better and thus not valuing a fetus. This is the halacha today (or would be if we had capital punishment so you could tell the difference), and ours is not a primitive society. It's not about not valuing the fetus; it's about priorities. Actual born humans have the status of "human"; a fetus does not yet have that status, but as a potential human it is still valuable and many poskim forbid abortion in most cases. We do not say that a fetus is unimportant and mere property; we say that a fetus has a different, lesser status than a human does, one for which only monetary damages apply.






            share|improve this answer
























            • I think the interpretation he cites is arguing that the verse means if there's early labor but the child survives, there's monetary payment. But if there's a tragedy and and the fetus dies it's capital. And that's why the regular miscarriage word isn't used, it just means early labor.

              – Double AA
              8 hours ago











            • @DoubleAA oh, hmm. That wouldn't make sense (of course); the further injury referred to in the verse is the woman, not the fetus. So I probably filtered that out as nonsensical without sufficiently considering the source. So it's arguing on "miscarriage"?

              – Monica Cellio
              8 hours ago








            • 1





              Disclaimer: I'm no expert in Christian exegesis.

              – Double AA
              8 hours ago


















            1














            The verse tells us explicitly that the penalty for causing the death of a fetus (in a fight, at least) is monetary and not capital punishment. (Rashi explains how the amount is computed.) Even though the fetus will one day become a human if the pregnancy isn't interrupted, causing its death when it is a fetus is a matter of damages, not murder. Since the torah tells us this explicitly, it would be hard to argue for a stronger penalty. "Life for life" does not apply here.



            The Christian source you quote tries to make the argument that yasa only refers to living things, therefore a fetus is alive, therefore "life for life" should apply. That is not a credible Jewish interpretation.



            When the torah says "life for life" it means human life, which we can learn from the fact that if you cause the death of someone else's livestock, that too is a monetary case and not a capital case. If you had to give up your life because of an ox, that would not be "life for life"; it would be a disproportionate penalty. The same is true with regard to a fetus.



            Finally, this interpretation is not about a "primitive society" not knowing better and thus not valuing a fetus. This is the halacha today (or would be if we had capital punishment so you could tell the difference), and ours is not a primitive society. It's not about not valuing the fetus; it's about priorities. Actual born humans have the status of "human"; a fetus does not yet have that status, but as a potential human it is still valuable and many poskim forbid abortion in most cases. We do not say that a fetus is unimportant and mere property; we say that a fetus has a different, lesser status than a human does, one for which only monetary damages apply.






            share|improve this answer
























            • I think the interpretation he cites is arguing that the verse means if there's early labor but the child survives, there's monetary payment. But if there's a tragedy and and the fetus dies it's capital. And that's why the regular miscarriage word isn't used, it just means early labor.

              – Double AA
              8 hours ago











            • @DoubleAA oh, hmm. That wouldn't make sense (of course); the further injury referred to in the verse is the woman, not the fetus. So I probably filtered that out as nonsensical without sufficiently considering the source. So it's arguing on "miscarriage"?

              – Monica Cellio
              8 hours ago








            • 1





              Disclaimer: I'm no expert in Christian exegesis.

              – Double AA
              8 hours ago
















            1












            1








            1







            The verse tells us explicitly that the penalty for causing the death of a fetus (in a fight, at least) is monetary and not capital punishment. (Rashi explains how the amount is computed.) Even though the fetus will one day become a human if the pregnancy isn't interrupted, causing its death when it is a fetus is a matter of damages, not murder. Since the torah tells us this explicitly, it would be hard to argue for a stronger penalty. "Life for life" does not apply here.



            The Christian source you quote tries to make the argument that yasa only refers to living things, therefore a fetus is alive, therefore "life for life" should apply. That is not a credible Jewish interpretation.



            When the torah says "life for life" it means human life, which we can learn from the fact that if you cause the death of someone else's livestock, that too is a monetary case and not a capital case. If you had to give up your life because of an ox, that would not be "life for life"; it would be a disproportionate penalty. The same is true with regard to a fetus.



            Finally, this interpretation is not about a "primitive society" not knowing better and thus not valuing a fetus. This is the halacha today (or would be if we had capital punishment so you could tell the difference), and ours is not a primitive society. It's not about not valuing the fetus; it's about priorities. Actual born humans have the status of "human"; a fetus does not yet have that status, but as a potential human it is still valuable and many poskim forbid abortion in most cases. We do not say that a fetus is unimportant and mere property; we say that a fetus has a different, lesser status than a human does, one for which only monetary damages apply.






            share|improve this answer













            The verse tells us explicitly that the penalty for causing the death of a fetus (in a fight, at least) is monetary and not capital punishment. (Rashi explains how the amount is computed.) Even though the fetus will one day become a human if the pregnancy isn't interrupted, causing its death when it is a fetus is a matter of damages, not murder. Since the torah tells us this explicitly, it would be hard to argue for a stronger penalty. "Life for life" does not apply here.



            The Christian source you quote tries to make the argument that yasa only refers to living things, therefore a fetus is alive, therefore "life for life" should apply. That is not a credible Jewish interpretation.



            When the torah says "life for life" it means human life, which we can learn from the fact that if you cause the death of someone else's livestock, that too is a monetary case and not a capital case. If you had to give up your life because of an ox, that would not be "life for life"; it would be a disproportionate penalty. The same is true with regard to a fetus.



            Finally, this interpretation is not about a "primitive society" not knowing better and thus not valuing a fetus. This is the halacha today (or would be if we had capital punishment so you could tell the difference), and ours is not a primitive society. It's not about not valuing the fetus; it's about priorities. Actual born humans have the status of "human"; a fetus does not yet have that status, but as a potential human it is still valuable and many poskim forbid abortion in most cases. We do not say that a fetus is unimportant and mere property; we say that a fetus has a different, lesser status than a human does, one for which only monetary damages apply.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 9 hours ago









            Monica CellioMonica Cellio

            38.6k583271




            38.6k583271













            • I think the interpretation he cites is arguing that the verse means if there's early labor but the child survives, there's monetary payment. But if there's a tragedy and and the fetus dies it's capital. And that's why the regular miscarriage word isn't used, it just means early labor.

              – Double AA
              8 hours ago











            • @DoubleAA oh, hmm. That wouldn't make sense (of course); the further injury referred to in the verse is the woman, not the fetus. So I probably filtered that out as nonsensical without sufficiently considering the source. So it's arguing on "miscarriage"?

              – Monica Cellio
              8 hours ago








            • 1





              Disclaimer: I'm no expert in Christian exegesis.

              – Double AA
              8 hours ago





















            • I think the interpretation he cites is arguing that the verse means if there's early labor but the child survives, there's monetary payment. But if there's a tragedy and and the fetus dies it's capital. And that's why the regular miscarriage word isn't used, it just means early labor.

              – Double AA
              8 hours ago











            • @DoubleAA oh, hmm. That wouldn't make sense (of course); the further injury referred to in the verse is the woman, not the fetus. So I probably filtered that out as nonsensical without sufficiently considering the source. So it's arguing on "miscarriage"?

              – Monica Cellio
              8 hours ago








            • 1





              Disclaimer: I'm no expert in Christian exegesis.

              – Double AA
              8 hours ago



















            I think the interpretation he cites is arguing that the verse means if there's early labor but the child survives, there's monetary payment. But if there's a tragedy and and the fetus dies it's capital. And that's why the regular miscarriage word isn't used, it just means early labor.

            – Double AA
            8 hours ago





            I think the interpretation he cites is arguing that the verse means if there's early labor but the child survives, there's monetary payment. But if there's a tragedy and and the fetus dies it's capital. And that's why the regular miscarriage word isn't used, it just means early labor.

            – Double AA
            8 hours ago













            @DoubleAA oh, hmm. That wouldn't make sense (of course); the further injury referred to in the verse is the woman, not the fetus. So I probably filtered that out as nonsensical without sufficiently considering the source. So it's arguing on "miscarriage"?

            – Monica Cellio
            8 hours ago







            @DoubleAA oh, hmm. That wouldn't make sense (of course); the further injury referred to in the verse is the woman, not the fetus. So I probably filtered that out as nonsensical without sufficiently considering the source. So it's arguing on "miscarriage"?

            – Monica Cellio
            8 hours ago






            1




            1





            Disclaimer: I'm no expert in Christian exegesis.

            – Double AA
            8 hours ago







            Disclaimer: I'm no expert in Christian exegesis.

            – Double AA
            8 hours ago





            Popular posts from this blog

            Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

            Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

            Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...