tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19411997.post115638428399120177..comments2023-07-21T07:01:10.447-04:00Comments on A Jolly Company: Biblical justification for abortion?Nathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07288330419297657142noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19411997.post-1156628126966877632006-08-26T17:35:00.000-04:002006-08-26T17:35:00.000-04:00zhoen - as I attempted to say in reponse to Thaina...zhoen - as I attempted to say in reponse to Thainamu's comment, I think the assertion that women and children were considered chattel is poorly supported from the sources available.<BR/><BR/>The rest of your comment gets to the heart of the matter though. The disagreement over the Bible and Judeo-Christian morality in general hinges on this point (which is, as my most recent post demonstrates, rather outside the scope I initially set for this blog): If the accounts in Exodus are merely accounts of a tribal nomadic people thousands of years ago, what bearing do they have on us today?<BR/><BR/>There is of course a wide variety of answers to the question, pivoting on the degree to which the answerer subcribes to the position that the accounts are in fact, true accounts of God's revealing himself to mankind. <BR/><BR/>I would agree that arbitrarily basing our moral judgements on those of people <I>as people</I> thousands of years ago would be less than wise. Basing our moral judgments on universal truth as revealed to us by God would, on the other hand, be the only path to wisdom.<BR/><BR/>So the issue is, is this exemplary of univeral truth, and if so, how so?Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07288330419297657142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19411997.post-1156601253495503922006-08-26T10:07:00.000-04:002006-08-26T10:07:00.000-04:00I think basing our moral judgements on the customs...I think basing our moral judgements on the customs of a nomadic, tribal culture, that treated women and children as chattle, no matter how clearly written down, is perhaps less than wise.Zhoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03515663141425057088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19411997.post-1156427273960329182006-08-24T09:47:00.000-04:002006-08-24T09:47:00.000-04:00Though I don't have any new thoughts based on your...Though I don't have any new thoughts based on your comments as yet, I wanted to respond to something Thainamu said. Women were not possessions, in the sense that cattle or tents were. I'll freely grant that it was a patriarchal society, but if you look at Numbers 27, you'll find that not only are women not property themselves, they have the right to inherit land. And the promised land is a huge deal. This right is later restricted to add the caveat that they only keep the land if they marry within the tribe, but that actually makes sense, in a big picture way. Otherwise the tribes would be courting women from other tribes solely in a ploy to take over their land.<BR/><BR/>Also, for all the "if you kill a servant, you pay a fine" type statements, there is no "if you kill a woman, you pay a fine." The value gradations seem to be made on the basis of class.<BR/><BR/>All of that to say I think the blanket statement "women were property" is not well supported biblically.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07288330419297657142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19411997.post-1156425885037921682006-08-24T09:24:00.000-04:002006-08-24T09:24:00.000-04:00Interesting post. I haven't thought very long abo...Interesting post. I haven't thought very long about it, but my first thought was about <I>intent</I>. The harm described in Exodus 22 is incidental, not intentional, both to the baby and even to the woman. The situation describes two men having a fight and the woman more or less gets in the way. <BR/><BR/>Another point to remember is that in this culture, women and children were possessions--very important and valuable--but still possessions.Thainamuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04703711227603939227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19411997.post-1156416517766990032006-08-24T06:48:00.000-04:002006-08-24T06:48:00.000-04:00I don't know that it's necessarily a Biblical just...I don't know that it's necessarily a Biblical justification for abortion, but it is problematic to consider different lives have different values (not just with the woman's unborn child, but with the slave-master situation you cited as well). <BR/>NIV does translate it as 'gives birth prematurely,' but then in the footnotes uses 'miscarriage.' I'd like to know what the original Hebrew said. <BR/>The commentary I checked (which was not very good) focused on a big-picuture look at the Law versus common practices in the Ancient Near East. In essence, they said that this Law placed far more emphasis on the sanctity of human life than surrounding ANE laws. The majority of the ANE just practiced compensation for any physical harm (accidental death, murder, etc.) And the fact that the Jewish Law even suggested an 'eye-for-an-eye' was a huge improvement. <BR/>Like I said, I still find it problematic and was not satisfied with the commentators' I read. I'm eager to see what the rest of your readers think.Ryannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00627872012764433156noreply@blogger.com