Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[imayid2]

Is this question based on your interpretation of the Catholic Bible? If so, please provide me the passage and from what Bible?

I don’t have the King James edition so correct me if this isn’t accurate.
Exodus 21, 12 says that homicide gets the death penalty. Exodus 21, 22 speaks about causing a miscarriage and only a financial penalty is noted.

[imayid2]

I don’t have the King James edition so correct me if this isn’t accurate.
Exodus 21, 12 says that homicide gets the death penalty. Exodus 21, 22 speaks about causing a miscarriage and only a financial penalty is noted.

https://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=2&bible_chapter=21

12 'Anyone who by violence causes a death must be put to death.

22 'If people, when brawling, hurt a pregnant woman and she suffers a miscarriage but no further harm is done, the person responsible will pay compensation as fixed by the woman's master, paying as much as the judges decide.

[imayid2]

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/529077/jewish/Judaism-and-Abortion.htm

Read in isolation, one could conclude that abortion is akin to murder. But things are not so simple. Here is what we read in Exodus:

Should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarried but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished when the woman’s husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges’ [orders].3

Since the Torah obligates only a monetary compensation but no capital punishment, the Torah seemingly views the fetus as property, not as a human life.

This is a total error. There is no inference at all from that verse that there is no capital punishment for abortion. There was no intent to cause a miscarriage, therefore capital punishment isn't an option. The Talmud derives that there is no capital punishment from a separate place.

[aygart]

There was no intent to cause a miscarriage, therefore capital punishment isn't an option.

This is not simple at all since one who intended to kill one person but killed someone else is a machlokes in the mishna.

[imayid2]

This is not simple at all since one who intended to kill one person but killed someone else is a machlokes in the mishna.

No reason to assume that there was intent to kill at all in that part of the passuk. To the contrary, all indications are that there wasn’t.

[imayid2]

No reason to assume that there was intent to kill at all in that part of the passuk. To the contrary, all indications are that there wasn’t.

@aygart do you dispute this?

[aygart]

No reason to assume that there was intent to kill at all in that part of the passuk. To the contrary, all indications are that there wasn’t.

The next pasuk implies otherwise. See ksubos 33a

[imayid2]

The next pasuk implies otherwise. See ksubos 33a

No. The next passuk is talking about a different case in which a makas maves was given so clearly there was an intent to kill. Nothing in that Gemara indicates that where there was no death there was an intent to kill, and being that in that part of the passuk it wasn’t a מכת מוות, there is no reason to assume there was.

[aygart]

No. The next passuk is talking about a different case in which a makas maves was given so clearly there was an intent to kill. Nothing in that Gemara indicates that where there was no death there was an intent to kill, and being that in that part of the passuk it wasn’t a מכת מוות, there is no reason to assume there was.

The gemara says it on כי ינצו אנשים

[imayid2]

The gemara says it on כי ינצו אנשים

You are right on that specific point.

Either way the article is totally off. No one infers that there is no חיוב מיתה the way they say. The simple psukim are not contradictory at all, and the footnote which is coming to” answer” is quoting answers to true questions, not theirs.

[imayid2]

The gemara says it on כי ינצו אנשים

You are right on that specific point.

However that is only בדעת רבנן, according to רבי that nefesh is ממון there is no indication that anyone intended to kill at all.
This is besides שיטת רב שמעון.

[CountValentine]

https://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=2&bible_chapter=21

12 'Anyone who by violence causes a death must be put to death.

22 'If people, when brawling, hurt a pregnant woman and she suffers a miscarriage but no further harm is done, the person responsible will pay compensation as fixed by the woman's master, paying as much as the judges decide.

To understand anything in the Bible you first need to understand how one views the Bible. I can tell for a fact that Catholicism does not view the Bible (Old Testament) the same as Judaism.

[imayid2]

To understand anything in the Bible you first need to understand how one views the Bible. I can tell for a fact that Catholicism does not view the Bible (Old Testament) the same as Judaism.

Of course not.
Non withstanding a quick google search shows a number of Christian and Catholic sites trying to explain these verses.
I don’t know why they wouldn’t explain it simply, that there was no intent to kill, and therefore capital punishment isn’t applicable.

[CountValentine]

Of course not.
Non withstanding a quick google search shows a number of Christian and Catholic sites trying to explain these verses.
I don’t know why they wouldn’t explain it simply, that there was no intent to kill, and therefore capital punishment isn’t applicable.

We are getting into dissecting one's religion which never ends well. As the Pope once said. The word of G-d precedes the Bible and surpasses it.

The main point remains. Their position on abortion is crystal clear!!!

[imayid2]

We are getting into dissecting one's religion which never ends well. As the Pope once said. The word of G-d precedes the Bible and surpasses it.

I am absolutely not dissecting any religion. I am simply asking, in good faith, what their official interpretation is, or where to find it.

[CountValentine]

I am absolutely not dissecting any religion. I am simply asking, in good faith, what their official interpretation is, or where to find it.

I believe your question is in good faith. What I am telling you is Catholicism doesn't look at the scriptures the same.

This is from the passage you posted:
15 Anyone who strikes father or mother will be put to death.
16 Anyone who abducts a person -- whether that person has since been sold or is still held -- will be put to death.
17 Anyone who curses father or mother will be put to death.

Catholicism does not teach that.

[imayid2]

I believe your question is in good faith. What I am telling you is Catholicism doesn't look at the scriptures the same.

This is from the passage you posted:
15 Anyone who strikes father or mother will be put to death.
16 Anyone who abducts a person -- whether that person has since been sold or is still held -- will be put to death.
17 Anyone who curses father or mother will be put to death.

Catholicism does not teach that.

Of course they don’t teach that. They believe it was abrogated.
But my understanding is they would still have a need to explain why, before that, there “seems” to be a difference.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

[CountValentine]

But my understanding is they would still have a need to explain why,

The word of G-d precedes the Bible and surpasses it.

By surpasses it they are talking about the word of G-d from Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior.
When you accept that then there is no need to explain every passage in the Bible.

[imayid2]

By surpasses it they are talking about the word of G-d from Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior.
When you accept that then there is no need to explain every passage in the Bible.

So you disagree with this?
https://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/catholics-believe-bible/
At heart, the Bible has one author, so when Catholics interpret the Bible they understand that the Bible will never contradict itself.

[CountValentine]

So you disagree with this?

Yes