Posted on 05/13/2011 7:06:31 PM PDT by PotatoHeadMick
Yeah I dunno.
Eye for an eye I suppose.
And this is the “new civilization” we’re supposed to embrace ??? >PS
Brutal, but I am not going to dis them for this.
Therefore while he may adapt to disfigurement (not happily, of course) he would be much more devastated by his loss of manhood.
(Hmmm, maybe I had better sleep with one eye open.)
If not one of the principles, it would behoove you to get out of the room for this one. It would be like being at the pistol range with a blind guy in the stall next to you.
Wait, you are all missing somethihng........
Women arent’ supposed to have LOVERS in Iran. They are supposed to be married or with their father or brother at all times...........
I’ll go with pouring the acid on his testicles.
I don't think they are using the Old Testament in Iranian courts. Islam does not accept any of the Jewish or Christian scripture as authrative, but only the teachings and "revelations from Allah" of their "prophet" Mohammad. But if they were following the Old Testament, the eye for an eye clause would not apply, because it only applies to damage to unborn children when attacking the pregnant mother within the jurisprudence of an Israeli court. God was not asking gentile nations to have such a law. Moreover the law written in Exodous immediately lists a different remedy for another circumstances in which an eye is destroyed:
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] 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.
26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
I find it hard to disagree, though I would have preferred molten lava..
Look at her photo: http://www.virginiahaussegger.com.au/column_details.php?id=126
I can’t believe a woman won a case of any kind.
You’d think they’d sentence her to death for “making him mad” or something.
Wow. I saw the pictures of her at the link.
Hard to argue with the court’s decision.
They don’t see eye to eye on this.
Muslim men have been abusing women and getting away with it for a long time. As such, it’s about time that a man gets what he deserves.
On a funny note, she cannot see, so she may have to miss a lot before she finds his eyes!
On a religious note, I guess they never found out about Jesus Christ’s speaches about forgiveness...
They ought to just shoot him in the ear and see if it comes out the other ear.
Therefore while he may adapt to disfigurement (not happily, of course) he would be much more devastated by his loss of manhood.
If what I have learned is valid, your conclusion about loss of manhood is not correct. If he is castrated (i.e., removal of testicles) that does not mean he will be unable to get erections. That only works in the case of eunuchs who are castrated before puberty and therefore the onset of sexual feelings.
To get loss manhood, the whole package needs to be removed.
Thank you for that little piece of pedanticism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.