Would the Jews have knowingly stoned a pregnant woman found guilty of a capital crime?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ana_v
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ana_v

Guest
If so, how does this square with the natural law? Would the execution of a pregnant woman that results in the death of her unborn child constitute an “indirect abortion”?
 
“Would the Jews have knowingly stoned a pregnant woman found guilty of a capital crime?”

I don’t know the answer to that one.

“If so, how does this square with the natural law?”

I don’t think natural law makes a distinction between killing an unpregnant woman and a pregant woman.

“Would the execution of a pregnant woman that results in the death of her unborn child constitute an “indirect abortion”?”

If the death of this hypothetical woman was by stoning, then the hypothetical child she was carrying in her womb would die from asphixiation inside the womb. That is different than an abortion.
 
Pregnant women were not to be stoned under the Law. (Deut. 24:16)

I think they were even given a reprive for a year after birth to nurse.
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
“Would the Jews have knowingly stoned a pregnant woman found guilty of a capital crime?”

I don’t know the answer to that one.

“If so, how does this square with the natural law?”

I don’t think natural law makes a distinction between killing an unpregnant woman and a pregant woman.

“Would the execution of a pregnant woman that results in the death of her unborn child constitute an “indirect abortion”?”

If the death of this hypothetical woman was by stoning, then the hypothetical child she was carrying in her womb would die from asphixiation inside the womb. That is different than an abortion.
Click to expand...
Actually a direct blow to the womb can also kill the child. Although I think either situation would qualify as an abortion.

To add to this, in the movie The Nativity Story, Joseph has a dream of Mary about to be stoned. I realize this is just a movie, however, I wonder if the movie makers did some research and believed this to be possible in that culture.
 
40.png
LucyLight:
Actually a direct blow to the womb can also kill the child. Although I think either situation would qualify as an abortion.

Agree on your first point, disagree on your second.

Not all murders of unborn children are abortions.

Abortion Definitions:
  1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
  2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
  3. Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def. 1 ).
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
Agree on your first point, disagree on your second.

Not all murders of unborn children are abortions.

Abortion Definitions:
  1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
  2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
  3. Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def. 1 ).
Click to expand...
WHAT??
yes they are!
“murder” by definition is deliberately taking another person’s life.
so ALL murders of unborn children are CRIMES.
what you quoted is the secular definition of abortion. but since we believe that is fetus is a person, for us catholics abortion and murder are practically synoymous
 
someperson555 said:
WHAT??
yes they are!
“murder” by definition is deliberately taking another person’s life.
so ALL murders of unborn children are CRIMES.
what you quoted is the secular definition of abortion. but since we believe that is fetus is a person, for us catholics abortion and murder are practically synoymous
Click to expand...
I don’t think you read what I wrote carefully enough. Or you make a definitional or a logical error.

Voluntary abortion is murder. Not all murders are abortions. Abortion and murder are different words that have different definitions.

Is that a non-secular definition of abortion? What is it?
 
Here is the definition of abortion that I propose:

A procedure that designedly terminates an unborn human life.
  • “designedly” means purposed to that end (death of the unborn child)
(Note: terminates “a life” rather than “a pregancy” because 1) not all terminations of pregnacies are abortions, e.g. births 2) not all abortions result in the termination of a pregnancy, e.g. reduction-to-singleton abortions, where one twin is selectively aborted and the other is not, the pregancy is maintained)
 
Ana_v said:
Here is the definition of abortion that I propose:

A procedure that designedly terminates an unborn human life.
  • “designedly” means purposed to that end (death of the unborn child)
Click to expand...
I understand the confusion. It generally develops when we make up our own definitions of words that already have generally accepted definitions. When that happens, others get confused. If we all have our own unique defintion for a word, then clarity and therefore the actual communication of ideas suffers.

In the case of your definition, I would guess no one uses the word exactly as you have defined it. I searched around several available dictionaries, and they all define the word differently than you.

In the end, I don’t think we disagree on what is right and wrong concerning the termination of a life of anyone, born or unborn.
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
I understand the confusion. It generally develops when we make up our own definitions of words that already have generally accepted definitions …]

In the case of your definition, I would guess no one uses the word exactly as you have defined it. I searched around several available dictionaries, and they all define the word differently than you.
Click to expand...
The reason I stated my definition is because it takes into account the nuances of abortion scenarios. Secular definitions of abortion tends towards the “termination of a pregnancy” , which is the norm in terms of what an abortion accomplishes, so in that respect, it is a medically accurate definition. However, it is also the politically correct euphemism for the killing of an unborn baby.

To rephrase my original question: Would the execution of a pregnant woman (found guilty of a capital crime) that results in the death of her unborn child, constitute murder of the said child?
 
Ana_v said:
To rephrase my original question: Would the execution of a pregnant woman (found guilty of a capital crime) that results in the death of her unborn child, constitute murder of the said child?
Click to expand...
To constitude murder, there must be intent to kill the individual being murdered. It seems reasonable to assume that the intent is only to kill the mother; the child’s death is an unintended consequence. Therefore no murder of the child.
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
To constitude murder, there must be intent to kill the individual being murdered. It seems reasonable to assume that the intent is only to kill the mother; the child’s death is an unintended consequence. Therefore no murder of the child.
Click to expand...
Not if you knew she was pregnant. If you knew she was pregnant and your intention was to kill the mother that would be an abortion because you know that the child will die as a result or that the chances of the child dying are extremely high.

Although I’m not completely sure about this I still think that killing of an unborn child is an abortion even if it is not your intention. For example, If you accidentally killed a pregnant woman(not out of negligence) and her baby died you would’ve caused an abortion but you are not guilty of it.

Murder implies intent but abortion means to terminate or to end prematurely. So the word abortion does not imply intent. Morally speaking they are both murder if the intention is there. I think the words kill and abortion are more closely related than murder and abortion because you can accidentally kill someone and you can accidentally abort an unborn child but you can’t accidentally murder someone. I hope this makes sense:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top