Why does god want to cut off women's hands?

[Brakeman]

No it is not! Grabbing someone's junk is not disfigurement at all. You are being deceitful in your attempt to cover this.

http://men.webmd.com/guide/testicle-injuries

That link does nothing for your argument.
Let me make it simple. Every guy I know well has been "racked" or hit or pinched in the junk. None of them had any reproduction problems from it whatsoever. You yourself have probably been hit without lasting effect. The verse writer made no attempt to qualify the extent of injury necessary to require punishment, therefore all contact, even fleeting would be punishable.

The verse mentions neither injury nor sufficient pain to help her husband escape. I've already covered the fact that injury is not certain.

Furthermore, the verse does not make note or exception to the cause of the altercation with the husband. If the attacker were a criminal bent on doing evil to the husband, the wife would still lose her hand, Is that fair?

That would be for the judge to decide.

Nope, no human judge could lessen or mitigate god's commandment.

Even if she did affect his ability to reproduce, the loss of her hand as a punishment is barbaric and unjust.

You're right, it is unjust - in favor of the woman. Just punishment would be for her to lose her ability to reproduce, and fertility was a highly valued attribute of women in that culture.

Again, excessive conjecture as you've already conceded that there is no level of injury required in the edict. You're twisting around like a worm to try and make this look less barbaric and wrong. You are disgusting. Furthermore, the loss of a male does not affect the community as one make can fertilize many females, but it doesn't work the other way around, or didn't you know that? Did you know that men actually intentionally get snipped of their own accord? Wow, what a terrible punishment. The only loss is that of a man's pride in his kids looking like him, provided he even had more opportunity to reproduce.

We would never allow such a thing in our US courts because of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.

So what? Are you saying that US jurisprudence is objectively correct?

Subjectively correct, there is no magic skydaddy to be "objectively" correct.

Today we know that if you want to be unmolested, don't go around attacking people.

A point I made earlier - if the woman just stays out of the fight, she keeps her hand.

Asshole.