Friday, July 13, 2007

Sometimes I Just Can't Help Myself

Anyway, you know what they say,
sharing is caring.
Apparently, this gentleman felt
much the same... (shrug)

The Nebraska Man
and
His "Big Bonnet"

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sydney, I had to re-read your post, and I'll enlighten you as to why there's a discrepancy. It's called "mens rea" in our legal system and deals with intent. Interpreting what you say is in the Old Testament (I'd like you to state specifically which book and chapter so I can see for myself), it just states that the woman was injured, and the loss of the child was a "side-effect" if you will. Killing was not the intent, the loss of the child was an accident (equates to manslaughter in today's terminology) so the punishment is not as severe. Because, as you so astutely state, intentional killing (murder) was punishable by death. That's my interpretation, and without seeing the actual "law" you say exists.

(I was unaware the Code of Hammurabi, which is what your so-called "Judaic law" sounds like, was Judeo-Christian and from God. To my knowledge King Hammurabi (who was pantheistic -- worshipping more than one god) is credited with this first code of laws centuries before Moses.)

Sydney said...

I've got a question. How'd you decide WHICH post to leave that comment on? I know exactly to which comment of mine you are referring, btw. My mind just marvels at the fact that someone with such "strong" convictions chooses to be anonymous. For me, anonymous in the blogosphere = coward. No name no face. Can't put it out there. No balls. Figuratively, of course.

The verse, Exodus 21:22, apparently does not equal manslaughter under Judaic law or they would have specified the proper remedies and refuge for manslaughter.

I know all about mens rea. Kind of you to spell it out for me as though I was an imbecile, though. Read Numbers 35. If by the killing of the unborn child the individual lacked the proper "mens rea," such that it was a manslaughter, that person would have been banished to one of the refuge cities set up for people who committed "accidental" murders or manslaughters, rather than paying a fine determined by the judges.

You cannot have it both ways. The Old Testament did not hand down the death penalty for the murder of the unborn. It did not see it as murder, but a potential loss of property, whereas, even women and children were covered as more than simple propery under the Judaic law, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, death for a death justice of the old Testament. The Old Testament distinguished the unborn from the born.

Mens rea is taken up separately --with refuge cities formed for anyone who killed "accidently," or without "intent" or "mens rea".

I just find it interesting that this is never brought up in any of the abortion debates. Perhaps, like you, many don't really know what's "in" the Bible.

That the Jews used the Code of Hammurabi as part of their basis (the Moslem Sharia law also bears more than a passing resemblance to the Code) has nothing to do with the point that Christians can hardly cite the Bible as "telling" them one thing about abortion rights, when, in fact, it supports something different and far more pragmatic.

Blayze said...

Intriguing. I'll keep an eye on your blog.

SecludedHabitat said...

Well, I have to say that is one of the weirdest things I have seen today. I will be interested in keeping up with your blog. I am having a really good read through now.

Lol on another note... dare I ask *how* you came across this?
Stuart

Blayze said...

Thanks for commenting on my blog Sydney. No, I'm not majoring in art, but something worse, history or perhaps.. gasp.. writing. Generally useless majors I know right? Most liberal arts degrees these days are pretty much a giant and costly waste of time to begin with anyway, what with academia being dead in the first place.

Anyway, thanks again.

Anonymous said...

writing? Oh fuck, just kill yourself now, Blayze lol

from Syd, just didn't feel like signing in...