Edward Coke on Unborn Children

[Scott]

A legal opinion of Sir Edward Coke in an old English common law case discussing the common law status of an unborn child stated the following:

if a woman be quick with childe, and by a potion or otherwise killeth it in her wombe, or if a man beat her, whereby the childe dyeth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead childe, this is a great misprision, and no murder; but if the childe be born alive and dyeth of the potion, battery, or other cause, this is murder; for in law it is accounted a reasonable creature, in rerum natura, when it is born alive.

So, according to old English common law, the victim's status at the time of death determines the crime, and not the victim's status at the time of the injury.

Thoughts?

 

[Craig]

Exodus 21:22-25

22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

 

[Scott]

Craig: Jewish interpreters traditionally interpreted that to mean any harm "to the woman." I think, though, that it is referring to the child.

I am surprised by Coke's take on things.

 

[Craig]

I also read many believe harm corresponds to woman...the problem justifying that is why God would include a needless fact such as the woman being pregnant...

It would have been just as easy for Scripture to say it this way:
“If men fight, and hurt a woman, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

 

[Scott]

I agree.

 

[Civbert]

Harm applies to either the child or the mother due to premature birth. That seems to be the most reasonable reading. If it meant harm to the mother or the child in particular, it could have said so. But since "harm" is not specific to either, it applies to both parties (and indirectly to the husband).

22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly

The harm is clearly due to premature birth. If the child is born dead, then harm has followed. If the woman dies from hemorrhage, the harm has followed. If the child is born alive, and both woman and child suffered no negative effects from the premature birth, than no harm has followed.

That's how I read it. Is there an alternative understanding of the meaning that is better?

 

[reformedman]

Coke might have misinterpretted because of the words in Exodus:
But if any harm follows,

You see; the first part talks about a premature birth, and talk about damage done to the child being negative. The second part talks about damage to the child being positive but doesn't refer to a premature death.

The misunderstanding by Coke could have been that the birth occurs on the first part but not the second and that he concludes that the birth is the determining factor of guilt. Birth being equated with live birth.

I don't know, just my 2 cents.