Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..

[DeistPaladin]

The passage is not about the mother it's about the baby. Verses 23 and 24 are not necessarily about a premature birth they are however about the result of the harm brought on by someone striking a pregnant woman.

And you know the author's intent how?

I'm just going by what's there. First it says "fruit depart from her but no further harm is done". Then it says "but if further harm is done..." and describes injuries consistent with, as you admit, the battery of the pregnant woman, not the premature birth.

My interpretation is also consistent with the whole nature of the OT's attitude toward children as property of the father. In a census, they're not even counted as alive until a month after birth.

Num 3:15 Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them

Now as for the blood, my reference to it was to show that God was saying that the life of the flesh is in the blood and that a fetus developes it's own blood type before a woman is certain she is pregnant.

So do you have an answer for my question? Is communion a sin because you're pretending to do something in violation of OT regulations regarding the consumption of sacrificial blood? Does Jesus' admonishment of the imagined sin still being a sin not apply?