Whoosh…
I was being flippant. I’m not suggesting that the only rights we have are specifically enumerated in the constitution…(it makes as much sense as suggesting that all sinfull/wrong things are specifically enumertated in the boble)
That should of course read “bible” in the last sentence.
nah - I prefer boble
I dunno…the Good Book kinda frowns on that kind of idolatry. 
Here’s the Exodus 21:22 quote (and then some):
At least according to the RSV translation, the Bible seems to say that causing a miscarriage is a fine-worthy offense - but if any harm follows, then more severe punishments may be warranted.
The applicability to abortion seems direct: if you cause yourself to miscarry, you’d owe a fine to yourself, and that would be the end of it. No harm, no foul.
Another take on Exodus 21.
Maimonides, in his code of Jewish law (Laws of a Virgin Maiden 1:2), does discuss this exact case (and he must have had a source in the Talmud, but I can’t find it now), and in much the same phraseology: “Any woman who had relations in a field is assumed to have been forced against her will, and [the male involved] is considered a rapist, unless witnesses testify that it was with her consent. Any woman who had relations in a city is assumed to have been seduced [i.e., to have given consent], since she did not cry out, unless witnesses testify that she was forced - for example, if he pulled out a sword and threatened to kill her if she cried out.”
It’s worth pointing out, too, that under Torah law, a person cannot be executed for any crime unless he or she was warned by two witnesses and acknowledged the warning. The point about assuming that she gave consent, then, is not that this makes her liable to the death penalty, but that it may require her husband to divorce her: under Jewish law, a woman who willingly commits adultery becomes forbidden to both her husband and her paramour. (Of course, the actual determination of whether it was willingly or not can be quite tricky in practice - a couple of years ago, a rabbi in my community wrote a book of discussions on Jewish law, which I typed and edited, that devoted some twenty pages to this topic - and is best left to a qualified rabbi to decide.)
Correct - the difference is in the mode of punishment. For the rape of a betrothed woman (technically, actually, with a betrothed virgin within six months after puberty), the method of execution is stoning; for the rape of any other married woman, the penalty is strangulation. (Of the methods of execution used in Jewish courts, stoning is considered the most severe, strangulation the least.)
It’s worth pointing out that the woman herself - or her father, if she’s a minor - has the right to refuse (Maimonides, ibid. 1:4); it’s the rapist himself who isn’t given the choice.
Thanks for the cite, beagledave, but their arguments as presented seem awful weak.
For instance:
The website claims:
Well, it isn’t being used so here - they are talking about injury to the mother.
It does here - notice “you are to take life for life…”
I can’t find any other references to miscarriage in the OT. Is there someone whose Hebrew is better than mine who can tell me if this is accurate?
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, but it’s also a load of bullcrap. The fact that the Bible condones slavery pretty much put the kibosh on the as a reliable moral guide in my book.
Why is analysing issues on their substantive merits such as radical idea?
That’s according to Maimonides; the literal wording of Deuteronomy gives no hint of that. So the use of this Scripture in debate depends on whether one is debating someone (e.g. an orthodox Jew) who regards Maimonides as an authority, or someone who doesn’t (e.g. an evangelical Christian).
Only if she is married or betrothed. If not, she has to marry him and he has to pay a fine.
You an ugly somofabitch? Find a beautiful virgin, rape her, pay the fine and you got yourself a beautiful mate for life. Just another example of a disgusting and barbaric statement contained in that book. Literalists have no moral high ground that is not drenched in hypocrisy. Those who allow for errancy (wicked babylon induced) avoid this, but are left with the difficulties of deciding which parts were really the word of a god, and which parts were added by the babylon system. The intellectualy honest among these types must consider the possibility that it is ALL the work of babylon, so to speak, and represents nothing but the thoughts and motives of those primitive primates who wrote it.
DaLovin’ Dj
puts the kibosh on the Bible…
In the case of abortion, what are the ‘substantive merits’, and what do they fail to tell us? A great deal, in this debate, depends on what one chooses to believe.
Is the fetus a person, or a thing? Or does it go from being a thing to a person at some point in its development? If it’s a person at a given point, do we treat the value of its life as equal to, or less than, that of the mother? (If the doctors can save mother or baby, but not both, do they flip a coin to decide which one to save?) If it’s not a person at a given point, to what extent does the likelihood that it will become one in the normal course of events dictate that its life should be preserved even if inconvenient for the mother and father? Does that extent vary with the stage of fetal development?
These questions are all questions of values and beliefs. It would be great if they could be resolved simply by facts and logic, but I don’t see how that can happen.
Like it or not, we have to deal with people’s religious beliefs in this debate, even if they’re not our beliefs.
Celtic brehon law has a provision like this too. It does seem cruel, but there are two purposes behind it. First of all, the woman, after she’s been raped, is going to be unlikely to find a husband. Most men aren’t going to want to marry a non-virgin, especially one who was raped, so the man who raped her might be her only potential husband.
Also, if the rape impregnates her, the child would, if she was unmarried, be a bastard, not clamed by any tribe, with no one to protect him.
It’s a bitch, but…
Reminds me of husbands who beat their wives for their own good.
So translations disagree on Exodus 21:22. (Glad I said “according to the RSV translation.”)
Points (1) and (2) of the page beagledave linked to are circular in their reasoning: both points use their preferred translation of the disputed phrase to shore up the interpretation that it can’t be referring to a miscarriage.
Reviewing the bidding: yeled yatsa isn’t used for miscarriages; the Hebrew word for miscarriage is sakal. But sakal is invariably is used to refer to childlessness.
That’s as clear as mud. First of all, the Hebrews sometimes had multiple words for the same thing, just like we do. (The OT has not two, but several, words that are translated as “wine”, for instance.) So if “sakal” refers to miscarriage, that doesn’t prevent “yeled yatsa” from sharing that meaning.
The commentary doesn’t say how often “yeled yatsa” appears in the Bible, and that - not how many times “sakal” appears - is the key. Or rather, the other times it appears, and what we can infer from them, are the key. But if it only appears once, then we may have little to go on besides context, cognates, and common sense.
I’ll hope for one of our Hebrew scholars to deal with the first two. But shall we try Door #3 for a moment?
A woman in a technologically primitive society, who is pregnant enough to show, is present at a fight between two men. One of them bumps into her belly somewhat forcefully, and the fruit of her womb emerges quickly enough to give the impression that the miscarriage/premature delivery was caused by the blow. Which is it likely to be, a miscarriage or a successful delivery?
Certainly there may have been individual cases where such a baby lived. But in terms of probabilities, this one’s a gimme. IMHO, common sense would suggest that the law was about miscarriages, not successful births.
It was a different culture, with different values than ours. And the rapist/would be husband would be lucky if he wasn’t killed by the girl’s father and brothers.
RTFirefly: Issues need not be decided on others’s values and beliefs. Whether or not you think a fetus has a soul has no bearing on others. It’s the women’s damn bodies. They will have the ultimate right, laws or no. Also, you need evidence: If the bible (or other religious .doc of preference) does not explicitly state that fetuses have souls, you are left with the unenviable position of trying to determine this empirically. Barring that, you’re stuck with the uberealist, cluster-of-stem-cells theory, which kills any abotion debate as dead as laws about accepted hair length.
Dalovindj,
In a previous post, I noted that Jewish tradition explains that the woman herself has the right to refuse marriage, and that it’s only the rapist who isn’t given the choice. Now, if you want to argue (as implied by RTFirefly) that this tradition is not dispositive - that other interpretations of the verse are possible, including the most literal - then so be it: there can be reasonable debate about the role of interpretation, traditional or otherwise, in understanding what the Bible says. But to ignore all of this altogether - to claim that this is a “disgusting and barbaric statement” based only on a superficial reading of that one verse - strikes me as more than a little disingenuous.
[For the record: there is, in fact, no case - neither in the written nor the oral Torah - where a woman who is of age can be forced to marry someone against her will. Since it’s hardly likely that she would lose this right by being violated - a couple of verses earlier, the Torah makes it clear that she is in no way responsible for what happened (verse 26: “But to the maiden you shall do nothing… for as when a man rises up against his fellow and kills him, so too is this matter”) - then the reasonable inference is that the statement “she shall be his wife” establishes an obligation upon him, not upon her.]
Perhaps illustrating that, even in Biblical times, this was one debate that refused any easy answers.