Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Empty womb (Was: Empty tomb) Message-ID: Date: 5 Jun 91 04:08:19 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 35 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) cites Exodus 21:22-27: >22 "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 wone who hurt her is to >be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval >of the judges. 23 But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall >be life for life, (...)" >It would appear that the law gives much more attention to the woman than >to her unborn child. Even if the child is killed, the man is only fined. Well I would say an arbitrary fine would have to be considered a fairly major penalty. Some might make sure that the women is very soundly bruised to avoid the first penalty :-). Anyway I feel I would have to ask for the benefit of your wisdom regarding the preceeding passage. Exodus 21:20-22 20 "If a man takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female, and the slave dies on the spot, the man is to be punished. 21 But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished. The loss of his property is punishment enough." How do you view the discrepancy between an arbitrarily large fine for causing a miscarriage and no punishment for the fatal maiming of a slave? Why is this passage about the treatment of the unborn placed in the context of the treatment of human possesions? (Slave passages also follow.) -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.