Killing your unborn child because . . .

[Dos Equis]

you don't want to be pregnant.  Given that this happens hundreds of thousands of times a year, seems like this would be a more relevant discussion than the hypothetical "what if God ordered you to kill children" question.  I read portions of the thread jumping on McWay for giving an honest answer to a setup question, and then outrage over his answer to a scenario that's as realistic as the government shooting missiles into the Pentagon on 911. 

What's the difference between the killing of babies in the Old Testament and the dismembering of babies in many modern day abortions?  Besides the fact that one incident happened thousands of years ago and the dismembering of babies happens on a daily basis.   

[MCWAY]

you don't want to be pregnant.  Given that this happens hundreds of thousands of times a year, seems like this would be a more relevant discussion than the hypothetical "what if God ordered you to kill children" question.  I read portions of the thread jumping on McWay for giving an honest answer to a setup question, and then outrage over his answer to a scenario that's as realistic as the government shooting missiles into the Pentagon on 911. 

What's the difference between the killing of babies in the Old Testament and the dismembering of babies in many modern day abortions?  Besides the fact that one incident happened thousands of years ago and the dismembering of babies happens on a daily basis.   

Answer: The god of "choice". As long as someone with a Ph. D tells them that a baby is anything but that inside the womb, and they don't want that, it's abortion time.

[Government_Controlled]

God's view can be found in the Bible. (Psalm 139:16a) "Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing."

Common use often distinguishes between abortion and miscarriage, the former being defined as the deliberate and induced emptying of a pregnant uterus, the latter being considered as the accidental and unavoidable interruption of pregnancy. The distinction between abortion and miscarriage is not made in the Bible; there the terms are used in a broader and interchangeable sense. The Hebrew shakhal, meaning “suffer an abortion” (Ex 23:26), is also rendered “bereave” (De 32:25), ‘bereave of children’ (Le 26:22), ‘miscarry’ (Ho 9:14), and “prove fruitless” (Mal 3:11). The Hebrew word yohtseth, rendered “abortion” in (Psalm 144:14), is from a root meaning “come out.” (Compare Ge 27:30.) The expressions “miscarriage” and “one prematurely born” (Ps 58:8; Ec 6:3) render the Hebrew word ne′phel, which comes from the root naphal′, meaning “fall.” (Compare Isa 26:18.)

Unavoidable abortion or miscarriage may be caused by accident, infectious disease, mental or physical stress and strain, or because of a general organic weakness on the part of the mother. The waters near Jericho were death dealing, causing miscarriages, until God's prophet Elisha healed them. (2Ki 2:19-22.)

Deliberately to induce abortion or miscarriage by artificial means, by the use of drugs, or by medical operation, the sole purpose of which is to avoid the birth of an unwanted child, is an act of high crime in the sight of God. Life as a precious gift from God is sacred. Hence God’s law to Moses protected the life of an unborn baby against more than criminal abortion, for if in a fracas between men a pregnant woman suffered an accident fatal to her or the child, “then you must give soul for soul.” (Ex 21:22-25) Of course, before applying that penalty, the circumstances and degree of deliberateness were taken into consideration by the judges. (Compare Nu 35:22-24, 31.) But emphasizing the seriousness of any deliberate attempt to cause injury, Dr. J. Glenn comments: “The viable embryo in the uterus IS a human individual, and therefore destroying it, is a violation of the sixth commandment.” (The Bible and Modern Medicine, 1963, p. 176.)

Properly viewed, the fruitage of the womb is a blessing of God. (Le 26:9; Ps 127:3) Hence, in promising to prosper Israel, God gave assurance of successful culmination of pregnancy and the bringing forth of children, saying: “Neither a woman suffering an abortion nor a barren woman will exist in your land.” (Ex 23:26) As indicated in the prayer of the righteous, on the other hand, evidence of God’s disfavor to his enemies would be their having miscarrying wombs and their becoming like miscarriages that never see the sun. (Ps 58:8; Ho 9:14).

Job in his misery contemplated that it would have been better had he been “a hidden miscarriage.” “Why from the womb did I not proceed to die?” this tormented man cried out. (Job 3:11-16) Solomon, too, reasoned that a prematurely expelled fetus is better off than the person who lives a long time but who never comes to enjoy life. (Ec 6:3.)



GC/DEA_AGENT

[OzmO]

you don't want to be pregnant.  Given that this happens hundreds of thousands of times a year, seems like this would be a more relevant discussion than the hypothetical "what if God ordered you to kill children" question.  I read portions of the thread jumping on McWay for giving an honest answer to a setup question, and then outrage over his answer to a scenario that's as realistic as the government shooting missiles into the Pentagon on 911. 

What's the difference between the killing of babies in the Old Testament and the dismembering of babies in many modern day abortions?  Besides the fact that one incident happened thousands of years ago and the dismembering of babies happens on a daily basis.   

McWay, to the best of my knowledge wouldn't force a person to have an abortion, however he would kill an innocent child on god's orders.

A person who would kill an innocent child in an abortion is just as guilty as killing an innocent child who is already born.

There is no difference. It doesn't matter if it's a set up question or not.  The point is:   Killing innocent children is wrong.  Whether you do it on God's orders because you are so ignorant to believe that a child is destine to become evil or what stupid excuse has been cited in this discussion or you do it because you don't want to be pregnant or think the child will starve to death because you won't be able to feed it or what ever the reason is.

Killing innocent children is wrong.

Abortion is killing innocent children.

Killing innocent children is not godly.

Killing innocent children is EVIL.

[liberalismo]

Only Christians would compare destroying a tiny thoughtless zygote or embryo unable to feel pain to bashing a 2 year old girls head in.



Disgusting.




And Yes, I'm opposed to late term abortion unless the mother's life is at risk.

[MCWAY]

Only Christians would compare destroying a tiny thoughtless zygote or embryo unable to feel pain to bashing a 2 year old girls head in.



Disgusting.


And Yes, I'm opposed to late term abortion unless the mother's life is at risk.

No more "disgusting" than dismembering a baby by ripping off its arms and legs, crushing its skull and sucking out its brain.

Of course, you excuse it by not calling the baby what it really is. And, your whole "late term" qualifier is worthless, because it's a sliding scale.

[MCWAY]

McWay, to the best of my knowledge wouldn't force a person to have an abortion, however he would kill an innocent child on god's orders.

A person who would kill an innocent child in an abortion is just as guilty as killing an innocent child who is already born.

There is no difference. It doesn't matter if it's a set up question or not.  The point is:   Killing innocent children is wrong.  Whether you do it on God's orders because you are so ignorant to believe that a child is destine to become evil or what stupid excuse has been cited in this discussion or you do it because you don't want to be pregnant or think the child will starve to death because you won't be able to feed it or what ever the reason is.

Those aren't excuses; those are the actual scenarios involved, with regards to the Amalekites. And regardless of what happened to them, you had some "excuse" to whine and complain about the outcome. At the end of war, you have three options with regards to the fate of the survivors:

- Death
- Capture
- Abandonment

They die; you cry "genocide"; they get captured; you whimper about "slavery"; they get abandoned; you call that "cruelty". And, no, putting on another planet doesn't solve the dilemna. All that does is take the problem of sin, beyond Earth's borders (Of course, with no one else to persecute, the Amalekites would simply turn on themselves).

Killing innocent children is wrong.

Abortion is killing innocent children.

Killing innocent children is not godly.

Killing innocent children is EVIL.

The point you don't seem to get is that the Lord makes the rules, not you or me. If you claim something is "ungodly" or "evil", the question becomes, "ungodly" or "evil", based on what?

Again, the only one who has the authority to take life, at any time for any reason, is the One who created life. And, contrary to another claim of yours, His doing so is not "hypocrisy", because the Lord makes it clear that He blesses and curses to the 3rd and 4th generation. In other words, it's as I've said several times, regarding this issue: In certain situation, your family can pay the price for YOUR evil actions.

[Butterbean]

embryo unable to feel pain

How do you know this?

[MCWAY]

How do you know this?

He doesn't. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there's a book/video called "Silent Scream", written by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the founder of theNational Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), who is now pro-life. He became such after his scientific research concluded that unborn infants are capable of feeling pain.

http://www.silentscream.org/

[OzmO]

Those aren't excuses; those are the actual scenarios involved, with regards to the Amalekites. And regardless of what happened to them, you had some "excuse" to whine and complain about the outcome. At the end of war, you have three options with regards to the fate of the survivors:

- Death
- Capture
- Abandonment



They die; you cry "genocide"; they get captures; you whimper about "slavery"; they get abandoned; you call that "cruelty". And, no, putting on another planet doesn't solve the dilemna. All that does is take the problem of sin, beyond Earth's borders (Of course, with no one else to persecute, the Amalekites would simply turn on themselves).

Is that what happened to Japan?

Is that what happened to Germany?

We HAVE choices.  They HAD choices.   They chose to commit GENOCIDE.

Man up.

The point you don't seem to get is that the Lord makes the rules, not you or me. If you claim something is "ungodly" or "evil", the question becomes, "ungodly" or "evil", based on what?

Again, the only one who has the authority to take life, at any time for any reason, is the One who created life. And, contrary to another claim of yours, His doing so is not "hypocrisy", because the Lord makes it clear that He blesses and curses to the 3rd and 4th generation. In other words, it's as I've said several times, regarding this issue: In certain situation, your family can pay the price for YOUR evil actions.

Yes, your "lord" is a do is i say not as i do God.   A hypocrite. 

[OzmO]

It's amazing how brain washed a person can get in that they accuse someone of whimpering when they express there outrage at genocide and the killing of innocent children. 

[MCWAY]

Is that what happened to Japan?

Is that what happened to Germany?

We HAVE choices.  They HAD choices.   They chose to commit GENOCIDE.

Man up.

We bombed them; they said, “I QUIT”; they repented; they stopped warring with us…..GAME OVER!!! No more fighting (and it didn't take 300 years to do it). 

Yes, your "lord" is a do is i say not as i do God.   A hypocrite. 

Wrong again!! He says that those who continue to disobey Him and do not repent will be punished to the 3rd and 4th generation. And he back that up. 300+ years of Amalekite destruction of Israel and other people, with no repentance........IT'S JUDGMENT TIME, pure and simple.


He creates life; He judges as He sees fit. You DO NOT CREATE LIFE; you don't get to do as you see fit, NOR do you have the final say in how He judges, rewards, or punishes.

Again take your own advice....MAN UP (and, while you're at it, GET OVER IT)!!!!

[OzmO]

We bombed them; they said, “I QUIT”; they stopped warring with us…..GAME OVER!!! No more fighting (and it didn't take 300 years to do it). 

And it didn't take us committing genocide.  We provided humanitarian aid and rebuilt their country.  The god you worship murdered all the innocent children. 

If we followed God's example Japan and Japanese people would have ceased to exist in 1945. 

That's too hard for you to grasp isn't it?  Loyal blind follower.

Once again, take your own advice, because this simple concept appears to zip clean over your head: There are sins that people commit that have LONG-REACHING consequences. When people do wrong, at certain levels, the punishment extends BEYOND merely the trangressors. That is how life on this planet is, whether you like or not.

In the Enron case, the punishment was financial ruin, which affect the execs AND EVERYONE UNDER THEM.

In the extreme case of the Amalekites, the punishment was DEATH, which affected the Amalekite leaders, as well as their wives, children, and everyone under them.

Nope, he says do not murder and yet he orders the murder of innocent children.  And you worship that.

[residue]

God's view can be found in the Bible. (Psalm 139:16a) "Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing."

Common use often distinguishes between abortion and miscarriage, the former being defined as the deliberate and induced emptying of a pregnant uterus, the latter being considered as the accidental and unavoidable interruption of pregnancy. The distinction between abortion and miscarriage is not made in the Bible; there the terms are used in a broader and interchangeable sense. The Hebrew shakhal, meaning “suffer an abortion” (Ex 23:26), is also rendered “bereave” (De 32:25), ‘bereave of children’ (Le 26:22), ‘miscarry’ (Ho 9:14), and “prove fruitless” (Mal 3:11). The Hebrew word yohtseth, rendered “abortion” in (Psalm 144:14), is from a root meaning “come out.” (Compare Ge 27:30.) The expressions “miscarriage” and “one prematurely born” (Ps 58:8; Ec 6:3) render the Hebrew word ne′phel, which comes from the root naphal′, meaning “fall.” (Compare Isa 26:18.)

Unavoidable abortion or miscarriage may be caused by accident, infectious disease, mental or physical stress and strain, or because of a general organic weakness on the part of the mother. The waters near Jericho were death dealing, causing miscarriages, until God's prophet Elisha healed them. (2Ki 2:19-22.)

Deliberately to induce abortion or miscarriage by artificial means, by the use of drugs, or by medical operation, the sole purpose of which is to avoid the birth of an unwanted child, is an act of high crime in the sight of God. Life as a precious gift from God is sacred. Hence God’s law to Moses protected the life of an unborn baby against more than criminal abortion, for if in a fracas between men a pregnant woman suffered an accident fatal to her or the child, “then you must give soul for soul.” (Ex 21:22-25) Of course, before applying that penalty, the circumstances and degree of deliberateness were taken into consideration by the judges. (Compare Nu 35:22-24, 31.) But emphasizing the seriousness of any deliberate attempt to cause injury, Dr. J. Glenn comments: “The viable embryo in the uterus IS a human individual, and therefore destroying it, is a violation of the sixth commandment.” (The Bible and Modern Medicine, 1963, p. 176.)

Properly viewed, the fruitage of the womb is a blessing of God. (Le 26:9; Ps 127:3) Hence, in promising to prosper Israel, God gave assurance of successful culmination of pregnancy and the bringing forth of children, saying: “Neither a woman suffering an abortion nor a barren woman will exist in your land.” (Ex 23:26) As indicated in the prayer of the righteous, on the other hand, evidence of God’s disfavor to his enemies would be their having miscarrying wombs and their becoming like miscarriages that never see the sun. (Ps 58:8; Ho 9:14).

Job in his misery contemplated that it would have been better had he been “a hidden miscarriage.” “Why from the womb did I not proceed to die?” this tormented man cried out. (Job 3:11-16) Solomon, too, reasoned that a prematurely expelled fetus is better off than the person who lives a long time but who never comes to enjoy life. (Ec 6:3.)



GC/DEA_AGENT

 Exodus 21:22 says that unborn babies are of a lower value than fully grown human beings. As such we(Jews) believe that abortions are fully sponsored by god in many cases, least of which is mental anguish

[MCWAY]

And it didn't take us committing genocide.  We provided humanitarian aid and rebuilt their country.  The god you worship murdered all the innocent children. 

It didn't take "genocide", because unlike the Amalekites, the Japanese actually came to their senses, threw in the towel, repented, and CEASED ALL ATTACK AGAINST AMERICA.

Had the Amalekites done that, they would have been spared.

If we followed God's example Japan and Japanese people would have ceased to exist in 1945.

That's too hard for you to grasp isn't it?  Loyal blind follower.

 

Wrong again, Amalekite bleater   !!

We DID follow His example. We gave them a chance to surrender, repent, and make amends. They did.

Are they attacking our people now (or have been since '45)?? NOPE!!!

Are we fighting with the Japanese anymore?? NOPE!!!

Did we kill them simply because they're Japanese? NOPE!!!

Would we have hit them AT ALL, had they not "Pearl Harbored" us? NOPE!!!

Nope, he says do not murder and yet he orders the murder of innocent children.  And you worship that.

Not quite. He says "Do not murder" for one simple reason: We can't create life; therefore, we have no right to arbitrarily take life.

God, however, DID CREATE LIFE. Therefore, He has ultimate authority over what is His, regardless of how much blubbering you do over that simple fact. That is what I worship.

[Butterbean]

Exodus 21:22 says that unborn babies are of a lower value than fully grown human beings. As such we(Jews) believe that abortions are fully sponsored by god in many cases, least of which is mental anguish

No it doesn't 


Exodus 21:22-25

22 "If men who are fighting 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.


And don't forget to look at verses 23 - 25.  .....are you saying those only apply to the mother?  Looks like it applies to both mother and unborn child to me.

[liberalismo]

You people are pretty simplistic. You believe that a baby is a baby the entire time it is in the womb even from conception and stays the same and never grows until it is birthed?

This sort of thinking is something I'd expect from someone from the dark ages or perhaps some uncivilized society without science.


The TRUTH is that after conception the egg is fertilized and develops into a zygote:

Zygote. You wouldn't even be able to see this without a microscope!


Then it gradually turns into an embryo and then a fetus:





In the womb, all of the human attributes and capabilities do not suddenly appear. They appear gradually.

Fetal pain. The VAST CONSENSUS is that it appears only in the 3rd trimester of a pregnancy. This means that the Embryo or Fetus can not feel pain (since it has not developed the pain receptors or brain functions to feel pain) until the 3rd trimester.

Supported by peer reviewed studies of dozens of medical reports in JAMA.


Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16118385

Brain structures do not function until later in pregnancy, researchers say
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9053416/



The root of the issue is religion. People believe that the zygote, that little mass of cells that you can't even see without a microscope, has a soul and thus it is immoral to destroy it and thus immoral to abort an embryo or fetus. It's been proven that most abortions done do not involve late term abortions which would involve fetal pain, but anti-abortionists still rally against abortion as if it were a big deal.

Late term(After 3rd trimester) abortion should be illegal unless the mother's life is at risk.

[Butterbean]

You people are pretty simplistic. You believe that a baby is a baby the entire time it is in the womb even from conception and stays the same and never grows until it is birthed?

 

Yes, I think some of us do believe that it is a human life.  It's not a chicken, not a lobster, not merely a happenstance glob of cells in our opinion, but a baby.  Even when it is an embryo, people will refer to it as a (human) baby. 

The TRUTH is that after conception the egg is fertilized and develops into a zygote:

Zygote. You wouldn't even be able to see this without a microscope!
 

Do you believe a zygote is a living organism?

Fetal pain. The VAST CONSENSUS is that it appears only in the 3rd trimester of a pregnancy. This means that the Embryo or Fetus can not feel pain (since it has not developed the pain receptors or brain functions to feel pain) until the 3rd trimester.

Do you agree that sometimes The VAST CONSENSUS can be wrong? 

The root of the issue is religion. People believe that the zygote, that little mass of cells that you can't even see without a microscope, has a soul and thus it is immoral to destroy it and thus immoral to abort an embryo or fetus. 

Do you believe in people having souls?  If so, when do you think it enters the body?

It's been proven that most abortions done do not involve late term abortions which would involve fetal pain, but anti-abortionists still rally against abortion as if it were a big deal.

Late term(After 3rd trimester) abortion should be illegal unless the mother's life is at risk.

Why do you think late term abortion should be illegal unless the mother's life is at risk?

[liberalismo]

Yes, I think some of us do believe that it is a human life.  It's not a chicken, not a lobster, not merely a happenstance glob of cells in our opinion, but a baby.  Even when it is an embryo, people will refer to it as a (human) baby. 

Do you believe a zygote is a living organism?


Do you agree that sometimes The VAST CONSENSUS can be wrong? 


Do you believe in people having souls?  If so, when do you think it enters the body?



Why do you think late term abortion should be illegal unless the mother's life is at risk?

It's not a baby. A baby is a independent living organism that has its own body functions and thought processes. A zygote is a microscopic mass of cells.
Is a zygote a "living organism"? Sure. But so is a finger. A zygote is no more a baby than a finger or a toe is. It can't feel, it can't think. It has no ability to exist outside of the womb. It's a microscopic mass of cells. That's it. It "might" become a baby one day, but as of now it's just a zygote.

Can the vast consensus be wrong? Absolutely. But is it wrong in this case? No. It's supported by facts observed from countless sources and repeatedly examined and published in peer reviewed resources. Prior to the 3rd or even the late 2nd trimester, the embryo doesn't have the required functions to feel pain or to think. They don't exist. They have not grown yet!


People do not have souls.



Late term abortion should be illegal unless the mothers life is at risk because we're talking about destroying a conscious, thinking, feeling organism. If it can think and feel and could possibly viable, then it should not be aborted. This means somewhere around the 22nd - 27th week.

[MCWAY]

You people are pretty simplistic. You believe that a baby is a baby the entire time it is in the womb even from conception and stays the same and never grows until it is birthed?

This sort of thinking is something I'd expect from someone from the dark ages or perhaps some uncivilized society without science.


The TRUTH is that after conception the egg is fertilized and develops into a zygote:

Zygote. You wouldn't even be able to see this without a microscope!


Then it gradually turns into an embryo and then a fetus:





In the womb, all of the human attributes and capabilities do not suddenly appear. They appear gradually.

Fetal pain. The VAST CONSENSUS is that it appears only in the 3rd trimester of a pregnancy. This means that the Embryo or Fetus can not feel pain (since it has not developed the pain receptors or brain functions to feel pain) until the 3rd trimester.

Supported by peer reviewed studies of dozens of medical reports in JAMA.


Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16118385

Brain structures do not function until later in pregnancy, researchers say
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9053416/



The root of the issue is religion. People believe that the zygote, that little mass of cells that you can't even see without a microscope, has a soul and thus it is immoral to destroy it and thus immoral to abort an embryo or fetus. It's been proven that most abortions done do not involve late term abortions which would involve fetal pain, but anti-abortionists still rally against abortion as if it were a big deal.

Late term(After 3rd trimester) abortion should be illegal unless the mother's life is at risk.

But, what you fail to realize (as shown by Dr. Nathanson in "Silent Scream") is that, before a women even realizes she's pregnant, the BABY has brainwaves, fingerprints, can suck his/her thumb, etc.

And, despite all the science that supports life in the womb, abortion clinics for some strange reason won't show ultrasound pics of the baby to the mother before the abortion. Reason: The "clinic" could end up losing a customer, because the mother comes the realization that the baby in her womb is just that......a BABY.

Late term abortion should be illegal unless the mothers life is at risk because we're talking about destroying a conscious, thinking, feeling organism. If it can think and feel and could possibly viable, then it should not be aborted. This means somewhere around the 22nd - 27th week.

Problem with that is that babies born prematurely at the 20th-week mark (or earlier) CAN SURVIVE, with proper medical care.

Basically, the only difference between a "zygote" and a baby is....LOCATION.

[liberalismo]

But, what you fail to realize (as shown by Dr. Nathanson in "Silent Scream") is that, before a women even realizes she's pregnant, the BABY has brainwaves, fingerprints, can suck his/her thumb, etc.

Women can know that they are pregnant even right away because certain things are different. This doesn't mean that the zygote or embryo can think and feel.

At what point does the embryo have brainwaves? And please prove that these brainwaves would equate to thinking and feeling in the fetus.

And, despite all the science that supports life in the womb, abortion clinics for some strange reason won't show ultrasound pics of the baby to the mother before the abortion. Reason: The "clinic" could end up losing a customer, because the mother comes the realization that the baby in her womb is just that......a BABY.

There's no point in forcing a woman to do something she doesn't want to do. If she chooses to see the picture, that is her choice.

Problem with that is that babies born prematurely at the 20th-week mark (or earlier) CAN SURVIVE, with proper medical care.

I'm talking about surviving outside of the womb without medical machines or anything like that.

Both being able to think, feel, and survive outside of the womb without artificial aid is required. This means the time area I mentioned earlier.

Basically, the only difference between a "zygote" and a baby is....LOCATION.

Umm....


The only difference between this:




and this:





is "location"?

Are you brain damaged? I'm beginning to think that this might be the case.

[residue]

No it doesn't 


Exodus 21:22-25

22 "If men who are fighting 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.


And don't forget to look at verses 23 - 25.  .....are you saying those only apply to the mother?  Looks like it applies to both mother and unborn child to me.

It's poorly translated, the Torah reads it like this.

"If men when striving strike a woman with child, and cause her to miscarry, but not to lose her life, the fine on account of the infant which the husband of the woman shall lay upon him, he shall pay according to the sentence of the judges. But if death befall her, then you shall judge the life of the killer for the life of the woman"

[OzmO]

Are you brain damaged? I'm beginning to think that this might be the case.

Just read this guys reasoning on the other thread about killing children. 

[Butterbean]

It's poorly translated, the Torah reads it like this.

"If men when striving strike a woman with child, and cause her to miscarry, but not to lose her life, the fine on account of the infant which the husband of the woman shall lay upon him, he shall pay according to the sentence of the judges. But if death befall her, then you shall judge the life of the killer for the life of the woman"

Yes, those 2 translations are very different from each other. 

Found these interesting also:

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"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.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"This is what you must do whenever men fight and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely. If there are no other injuries, the offender must pay whatever fine the court allows the woman's husband to demand.

King James Bible
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

American King James Version
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

American Standard Version
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.

Bible in Basic English
If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.

Darby Bible Translation
And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate.

English Revised Version
And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Webster's Bible Translation
If men shall contend, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit shall depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

World English Bible
"If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman's husband demands and the judges allow.

Young's Literal Translation
'And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;
 
 


residue, do you have a link for your translation?  I'm interested in looking at some other passages comparatively.  Thanks.

[Dos Equis]

McWay, to the best of my knowledge wouldn't force a person to have an abortion, however he would kill an innocent child on god's orders.

A person who would kill an innocent child in an abortion is just as guilty as killing an innocent child who is already born.

There is no difference. It doesn't matter if it's a set up question or not.  The point is:   Killing innocent children is wrong.  Whether you do it on God's orders because you are so ignorant to believe that a child is destine to become evil or what stupid excuse has been cited in this discussion or you do it because you don't want to be pregnant or think the child will starve to death because you won't be able to feed it or what ever the reason is.

Killing innocent children is wrong.

Abortion is killing innocent children.

Killing innocent children is not godly.

Killing innocent children is EVIL.

So you consider all of the women who get abortions evil, along with the doctors who perform them?