Wayne:

I will go in reverse order. I do think there are places where Jesus may have pemitted the state to exercise capital punishment (Just war is an analogy). However, it would be in a limited number of circumstances where there was nto doubt about the guilt or heinous nature of the crime. The very fact there was an eye for an eye in the Law says to me the category is a moral one. Now Jesus in the Beatitudes did realign the eye for eye appoach as a result of his coming. That is a reason to use that standard with care, but I do think there are cases where the State can and should exercise that right as a kind of last resort and deterrent when the crime is particularly intentional and heinous.

On your query about Exodus 21:22-25, this is where the eye for eye life for life standard comes from. It shows that a life that bears fo image of God, even a dependent life, is valued as a life. The passage indicates that the issue of freedom of choice over one's body is not the only question when it comes to a decision about abortion. There is a responsibility for the life one is nurturing. So this text is important in showing how important a fetus is regarded. Those who think through this will then realize that care for a life kept to term becomes important as an implication. Churches and denominations that work to care for such children a mother does not want to keep have thought through the issue conscientiously. They have put their service behind their words about defending life. So this Exodus text is a very important one in the discussion about how to view a potential life that bears the image of God.