GOP Rape Spin Off

[Kythia]

Continued from here

There was no fine for striking the mother in hebraic law at that point, any more than there would be for say striking a goat, a cow or a tent, unless you caused irreparable damage. That's religious folks for ya I guess.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make I'm afraid.  This (the passage from Exodus) IS Hebraic law.  It, in and of itself, is the relevant part of Hebraw law.

It seems like you're - to draw an analogy - looking at the legal code of a country, seeing that there's a punishment for murder in the section devoted to murder and then saying "well, there's nothing about murder in this legal code."  It is literally the part you're reading.

We are discussing laws laid down by Moses, a Hebrew man living some 2500 years before there was a Christianity. It means exactly the same then as it does now.

I couldn't disagree more.  I'm in the UK.  We won the American War of Independance and got to not be responsible for the US any more.  But when they left we had the same legal code.  However, case law diverges from that point (leaving aside the fact that we've both introduced new law.)  While,  IIRC, there is a premise in US law that UK case law applies prior to a certain date that needn't be the case. 

What it meant when written is not relevant, just as downloading music can be prosecuted under laws about theft.  Its what the divergent groups using it apply to it that matters, in my opinion.

See, and here is the main issue with Christians. They keep referring to the bible like it was the word of some almighty being or something. While in fact it was written by a lot of old men, and even women thousands of years ago. Then as soon as somebody points out that their bigoted views aren't supported by that book, they suddenly start blaming someone explaining it incorrectly, rather than accepting their views might be wrong.

It seems like you're in danger of tying yourself in knots a little here.  I suspect I'm not understanding you correctly.

Talking about biblical literalists (which I assume we are?).  If your belief is that an anti-abortion stance isn't developed from Christianity then where does it come from?  The standard opinion - I'm not saying its yours, just that it appears to be common - is that biblical literalists are using the out of date precepts of an old book and trying to apply it to the modern world.  Your argument seems to be the inverse of that - that they have bigoted views and are twisting the Bible to support them. 

Why, then, do they have those bigoted views?  Why on earth are they opposed to abortion?

Again. Any view contrary to my point would be based on the assumption that striking a woman would be a fineable offense in Moses' time, which it wasn't. Therefor, the mention of a fine implies irreparable damage to the property of the husband.

My fault for making the same point twice.  This is addressed above.

Finally:

"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and the fruit of her womb comes out but there is no misfortune then..."

Sure, I've cherry picked the translation a little but its valid.  I don't see how you can categorically state that it is about a miscarriage.  Sure, many people before thought it was.  *shrug*  Many people before may well have been wrong. 

EDIT:  Meaning chaning typo.  "Womb" in the sentence at the end beginning "If people are fighting..." originally read "woman"

[Slywyn]

I couldn't disagree more.  I'm in the UK.  We won the American War of Independance and got to not be responsible for the US any more.  But when they left we had the same legal code.  However, case law diverges from that point (leaving aside the fact that we've both introduced new law.)  While,  IIRC, there is a premise in US law that UK case law applies prior to a certain date that needn't be the case. 

I never post here, but I'm sorry, what.

[Iniquitous]

I think, and could be quite wrong here, that what Kythia is trying to say is that the British actually got the better end of the stick by us gaining our independence from Great Britain. Or their schools teach something wholly different than ours.  ??? Gives proof to the statement that history is written by the victor doesn't it?

[Slywyn]

The UK(Britan at the time) fought tooth and nail to keep the US, and the US managed to beat them back. They almost took over again (Which is part of what the war of 1812 was about, though not all of it), before the US was finally able to be like "We are our own county".

They lost the war, regardless of whatever else happened. You can't come back 200 years later and be like

"Oh no we won because we didn't have to take care of you anymore"

[Kythia]

I was being facetious.  Sorry for sidetracking this sidetracked discussion.  Would it be easier if I deleted that sentence?

[consortium11]

The UK(Britan at the time) fought tooth and nail to keep the US,

Off-topic in spoilers

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

That's not strictly true.

While George III took it as a personal insult most of the political and intellectual class had far more mixed views on it, with some actually supporting it in principle, seeing as they did the leading revolutionaries as men simply putting British philosophical principals about liberty and freedom into action. While the press were pretty dismissive of the rank-and-file American revolutionaries (often presenting them as brigands and criminals) they were pretty gushing of their praise of George Washington especially, with him being presented as a model of citizen virtue and an ideal military leader; a sort of idealised gentleman-soldier. Many of the British military commanders actually refused to serve in the war as they either supported the rebellion or were neutral about it. In addition to (and partly because of) that Britain didn't actually put a vast amount of its own army into the conflict, thinking it was more important to keep it in other theatres, which is why the Hessians were brought over. It's also worth noting that the British were considerably outspent by the US/French during the conflict.

As for the War of 1812, there are many and varied reasons for it with little consensus but I'd suggest that a British wish to retake America was at most a very minor one. Of course Britain wasn't particularly happy with the US at the time but for obvious reasons its interests were focused on Napoleon and its actions in the build up to the war were more about maintaining its strength and making sure the US didn't become a more dangerous threat. Almost everything relating to the reasons for the War of 1812 from the British side was primarily focused on defeating France; the Empire needed impressed men for the navy and a total economic war (which is why it prevented trans-atlantic trade). The only really US focused reason was the British wish for an Native American buffer state between its Canadian provinces and the US. There's not much evidence to support the War of 1812 being caused by or conducted as a British wish to retake the US; the Whig political party (which had been pretty supportive of the US during the revolutionary war) was mainly supportive of the US throughout.

[Kythia]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Also, the name United Kingdom was in popular usage by the war of independance.

As an interesting side note, my uncle is doing our family tree and I had an ancestor who fought in the American War of Independance.  In India.  Only found that out today which is why its on my mind.

Anyway....

[Beguile's Mistress]

I never post here, but I'm sorry, what.

Sarcasm?

[Slywyn]

I didn't realize it was a joke.

Haven't had the best few days. v_v

[Vekseid]

Off-topic in spoilers

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

That's not strictly true.

While George III took it as a personal insult most of the political and intellectual class had far more mixed views on it, with some actually supporting it in principle, seeing as they did the leading revolutionaries as men simply putting British philosophical principals about liberty and freedom into action. While the press were pretty dismissive of the rank-and-file American revolutionaries (often presenting them as brigands and criminals) they were pretty gushing of their praise of George Washington especially, with him being presented as a model of citizen virtue and an ideal military leader; a sort of idealised gentleman-soldier. Many of the British military commanders actually refused to serve in the war as they either supported the rebellion or were neutral about it. In addition to (and partly because of) that Britain didn't actually put a vast amount of its own army into the conflict, thinking it was more important to keep it in other theatres, which is why the Hessians were brought over. It's also worth noting that the British were considerably outspent by the US/French during the conflict.

As for the War of 1812, there are many and varied reasons for it with little consensus but I'd suggest that a British wish to retake America was at most a very minor one. Of course Britain wasn't particularly happy with the US at the time but for obvious reasons its interests were focused on Napoleon and its actions in the build up to the war were more about maintaining its strength and making sure the US didn't become a more dangerous threat. Almost everything relating to the reasons for the War of 1812 from the British side was primarily focused on defeating France; the Empire needed impressed men for the navy and a total economic war (which is why it prevented trans-atlantic trade). The only really US focused reason was the British wish for an Native American buffer state between its Canadian provinces and the US. There's not much evidence to support the War of 1812 being caused by or conducted as a British wish to retake the US; the Whig political party (which had been pretty supportive of the US during the revolutionary war) was mainly supportive of the US throughout.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

The war of 1812 was also a comedy of errors on the part of the United States.

That said, the American Revolution also caused Britain to focus more of its energy on Africa and Asia, with positive benefits for it. I would buy the idea that neither Britain nor the US 'lost' either war, but rather native populations in the Americas and around the world did.