Are we reading the same text??
22“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23“But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
And we have the commandment against murdering. It is a blanket statement.
THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.
It's pretty clear to this ol'boy.
Scripture doesn't even contain a clear definition for what is meant by "life." The earliest, Genesis 2:7, is seemingly clearest. The first human became a “living being” (nefesh hayah, “a living breath”) when God blew into its nostrils and it started to breathe. Human life begins when you start breathing, biblical writers thought. It ends when you stop. That’s why the Hebrew word often translated “spirit” (ruah) — “life force” might be a better translation — literally means “wind” or “breath.”
I really cannot believe I am reading this from you.
It seems the Roman Catholic will go out of their way to NOT let the truth of Scripture speak to them. But this is what happens when Scripture is not the source of your truth.
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, ‘I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone . . .'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASV).
15But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased. Galatians 1:15 NASB
"For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed, and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them" (Psalm 139:13-16, NKJV).
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5, NIV).
Mary understood biology enough to know when a man and woman had sex a baby was usually the end result. Hence her question to Gabriel as to "how" she was going to have a baby as she had not had sexual intercourse with a man.
But from that you cannot get a principle about not killing the unborn, since they do not begin to have air-breathing pulmonary capacity until after they are born.
Wow. Mrs. D, I've always questioned the Roman Catholic understanding of the Scriptures.....but you're confirming what has been long suspected. Ya'll really have no idea on how to read the texts in context.
That's one reasons why taking the time to define things, and to analyze the relationship between fact and law, is so important.
No. It should be pretty clear from the texts.
On the other hand, Judge Noonan's extremely detailed analysis of the legal and moral evaluation of abortion through the ages, shows that Catholic opposition to abortion is as near as you can get to a principle or norm of justice that can be formulated exceptionlessly.
Depending on how you define abortion....as with seemingly all things Roman Catholic.
Rome cannot say, as much as you want to be able to, they have always opposed abortion from conception. That's been a latter development for Rome.
But you and Frances Kissling have your own ideas about that. Carry on. Don't let brilliant and superb scholarship deter you. You can always find dissenters, if there's a sufficiently strong motivation for dissent.
You now commit a mortal sin in for a second time attempting to equate me with Kissling in assuming, incorrectly, she and I are arguing the same position. Consider, per Roman Catholic, though not NT teaching, you've committed a mortal sin...are now without benefit of Heaven until you can see your priest, confess, perform penance and then attend Mass.
But in all of this discussion I've uncovered this little gem...should you wish to continue to appeal, in error, to Aquinas.
He opposed the Immaculate Conception on the grounds that a being (Mary) does not have a rational soul at conception.
www.University of Notre Dame School of Law.com page 101...footnote 75
75 That a being does not have a rational soul at conception formed a principal objec- tion for him to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which he denied, IN LIBROS SENTENTIARUM 3.1.1: she was "sanctified" in the womb, but "when it definitely was, is uncertain."
This is but one reason why Christianity rejects Rome's claims to "Sacred Tradition." The ECFs ya'll lean on are all over the place on the issues near and dear to Rome.
However, that text in its various translations is not perfectly perspicuous. The RSV has it as follows:
When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
The Hebrew gives even less indication for a live birth (rather than miscarriage), as you can see here (LINK):
"And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (etc.)
Notice it refers to hurting the woman and the only reference to the baby is that "the fruit depart," without using the Hebrew words for child, infant or baby.
For this reason, even religiously observant Hebrew-speaking Jews who generally disfavor abortion, do not consider it the same as murder. I was intrigued by a recent article in Haaretz about a Jewish Pregnancy Aid organization in Israel being criticized by religious Jews for being too pro-life. Here's the story (LINK)
Here's an excerpt:
"The statements about abortion being the same as murder “are irresponsible with respect to human distress. Rabbis everywhere, from every stream of Judaism, have known how to weigh considerations of the life of the fetus against the life of the mother...and the slogan ‘Abortion is Murder’ is neither rabbinical law nor Judaism. ... Taking our Torah in the direction of Christian Catholic canon law is a terrible mistake.”
Catholic canon law interprets abortion as murder. Torah Judaism does not.
The Wycliffe Bible makes it even more definite that the death of the baby merits only a fine, and not a life-for-life retribution:
If men chide, and a man smiteth a woman with child, and soothly he maketh the child dead-born, but the woman liveth over that smiting, he shall be subject to a fine, as much as the woman’s husband asketh (for), and as the judges deem (appropriate).
Some (Protestant) commentators remark that if it had referred to the injury of a live-born baby (rather than the woman),it would not have mentioned "tooth for tooth" because babies do not have teeth; likewise it would have referred to "the baby's father" rather than "the woman's husband" if it was the baby's injury they were concerned about.
I am not claiming that there is any ill-will in this translation; I am only saying that the Bible in Hebrew and in some of its oldest Christian translations (e.g. Wycliffe) does not say beyond debate that killing a baby before birth is murder.
That, historically, is the Catholic interpretation.
Which you and I both apparently share.
So, good. We've got that in common.