Exodus 21.22 (Good News Bible translation):
Why, pray tell, does the anti-abortion movement connect to a religion whose oldest mention of anything resembling an abortion treats the matter as a PROPERTY crime? That is, the unborn child is clearly considered to be the property of the mother's husband, given the punishment applied.
From this section, it would tend to be safe to assume that an "owner" may do whatever they wish with their own property, despite the current positions of the modern churches.
(And no, I'm not a Christian. I'm just curious about this)
Quote:
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 one 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, (24)eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25)burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. |
Why, pray tell, does the anti-abortion movement connect to a religion whose oldest mention of anything resembling an abortion treats the matter as a PROPERTY crime? That is, the unborn child is clearly considered to be the property of the mother's husband, given the punishment applied.
From this section, it would tend to be safe to assume that an "owner" may do whatever they wish with their own property, despite the current positions of the modern churches.
(And no, I'm not a Christian. I'm just curious about this)
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=267891&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire