well, thats the word kjv chooses. other bibles dont imply that intent to harm is a requisite for equal consequence. besides, if the woman is harmed the man is not excused, even if he meant her no harm. this callousness is pretty consistent with the general understanding that ignorance does not spare you from its consequences. if a man is good but never knows christ, does he still go to heaven? no, otherwise why bother with religion at all, right?

i would have to research more on successful birth and morality rates of those times, i dont think ill find anything conclusive, but i cant imagine it they were nearly as well off as us modern folk.

__________________

__________________
"If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device."

Purists are intolerably dull-thinkers.

I think my remark had everything to do with the topic at hand. Pro-choice people squirm when you ask them to direct their remarks to the 23.999 week old baby inside mommy. When you ask them to give an answer as to why they feel its ok to rip that child into pieces, merely on the grounds that it is surrounded by amniotic fluid. They duck, run, wilt, shrink and all other kinds of things. How is that not germane to the topic at hand?

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

The Hebrew word used here is the word: âsôn

The word is veguely understood to mean "harm with intent". The passage implies that if any further injury follows, after she looses her baby, that the person resposible is also liable for that injury as well, and must make reparations.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

the word may vaguely mean mischief, but the passage still clearly applies separate consequences for each scenario, which indicates that unborn offspring arent viewed in the same way. this really isnt surprising when you think about how much more common still births and high infant mortality rates probably were in those times. plus, i believe the bible alludes to stillbirth on more than one occasion. examples:

posted earlier:

Ecclesiastes 6:3 (King James Version)

"If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he."

after comparing versions, "untimely birth" is most likely referring to stillbirth.

Job 3:11-19 (King James Version)

"Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest, With kings and counsellors of the earth, which build desolate places for themselves; Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light. There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master."

__________________

__________________
"If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device."

Purists are intolerably dull-thinkers.

Excuse me, but James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation) and weighed 1 lb. 6 oz. (624 g). He survived and is quite healthy. (Cut and pasted from Wikipedia and cross checked against citations)

His development is the exception rather than the rule, but he is definitely proof that viability and normalcy are possible. And if you read what the doctors wrote about his case, the baby definitely could feel pain, and respond to stimulus. So what now?

However, you did a nice job of framing your thoughts. You should be proud of your post.

I would consider revising that last line, it didn't make much sense.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

__________________
"If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device."

Purists are intolerably dull-thinkers.

The noticable absence of so many things in this reply, leaves me in complete shock...

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

__________________
"If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device."

Purists are intolerably dull-thinkers.