Halachically okay to be liberal?

Ubiquitin, then what should have a bearing on law? Whatever the spirit of the time says? As we are seeing, no society can be without an ethos. If it will not be the traditional religion of the nation it has to be some other religion or quasi-religion. Secular liberalism has become this quasi-religion complete with dogma, heretics and burnings at the (so far) virtual stake. Russell Kirk wrote about this in his essay Civilization Without Religion? which you can read online.

“Ubiquitin, then what should have a bearing on law? Whatever the spirit of the time says?”

I don’t have the full answer to that one. but definitely not religion!

The Aztec religion called for human sacrifice, did that make it moral?

Now I know I know that was an exception and ancient history. Surely the larger modern Religions like Christianity and Islam would never ever kill without it being morally justifiable

ubiquitin,

“If it was black and white ie Mothers life is at risk then halacha is Faaaaaar more “lenient” than halacha.”

I’m assuming your second “halacha” was intended to read “medical opinion.”

“I face this often when patients ask if they should fast yom kippur, I tell them if you want a heter you are better off talking to a Rav. Especially pregnant patients (though I’m not an OB ) for a healthy woman with a normal pregnancy there is (generally) no medical reason not to fast , worst case she goes into pre-term labor. no big deal.””

I have witnessed different medical opinions, and have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water. And since we’ve had this discussion before, I’ll just save time and anticipate your response: “I asked my OB friend, and she said puk chazi.” But that doesn’t work, because apparently the rabbis give plenty of heterim, so how can we really see the impacts of 26 hours sans food and water when the weaker pregnant women are fasting in measures?

1. Those on the left are too smart to say outright they have a problem with Judaism. But they will do actions against everything Jewish. I’m not stupid enough to believe the lies of my enemies, I look at their actions.
2. Greece also allowed infanticide (I would not make them a barometer), question do you think that homosexuality is a chok?
3. Today’s left hates Judaism at least as much as any other enemy of klal yisroel’s history, why would I go against the torah, to help my enemies, go against me more. The biggest supporter of banning milah is the LGBT community, why should I support them in anything, even if it was neutral, kal vechoer if it is the anethma of the torah!
4. Since Same Sex “marriage” passed there have been much more LGBT being passed per year, in all states. The more you give them the more they want. Chazal teach that someone who has one manah wants two, so two the more the lgbt get the more they demand. And each new demand is harder to fight. The only way to protect Jewish freedom of religion is to fight those fighting us not giving them what they want.

NC

“but if that’s how you view all religion, including your own”

Lol nice try, I’m not sure why you have resorted to putting words in my mouth in your past few posts.
Early in this thread (and repeatedly therafter) I said in a perfect world the legal system would be (and will be) in the hands of the Rabbinate. Abortions will be allowed (though obviously rarely) Tzedaka would be enforced etc etc Do you really not remember my saying so early in this thread?
We don’t live in a perfect world. And the legal system will not be built around “my own” religion. I was responding to a specfici comment “then what should have a bearing on law? … it has to be some other religion or quasi-religion.” This argument falls apart after a quick perusal of world religions both past and present

“Yikes, this just stopped being a political discussion in my eyes”

It stopped being a political discussion a while ago. I think our main point of disagreement at this time is simply one of metzius, namely if there are halachicly sanctioned abortions that are not strictly speaking life threatening from a strict medical perspective.

A side argument that we haven’t gotten to, though which I thought we would , and about which reasonable people can disagree (note: not the above as mentioned earlier there is no room for disagreement on our main point of contention, as you are simply unaware of the facts) Is whether those rare cases are reason enough to allow (support?) all abortions. I think so, but as I said reasonable people can disagree in this second point .

“I think adultery should be illegal: not everything is for the criminal courts.”
Agreed, I assume though you will agree with me that it is immoral. My point is just because something is immoral isn’t necessarily a reason to legislate it.

Ubiquitin,
1. Please find a proofreader.
2. Government enforces religion with the blessing of the courts. Two examples are blue laws ( Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299 [1896]) and Xmas being a legal holiday (Ganulin v. U.S., 71 F. Supp. 2d 824 [S.D. Ohio 1999 affirmed by the 6th Circuit]. SCOTUS itself has a Xmas party.
3. Unless you re an anarchist you obviously agree that morality should be legislated. So whose morality? Hillary Clinton’s? Bernie Sanders’?

Why shouldn’t adultery be a criminal offense? It is one of the sheva mitzvot. In fact, twenty states have criminal adultery laws although prosecutions are rare. Even a law which is only declarative has value. The Akeidat Yitzchak says that this is why Hashem blasted Sedom but not Geva.

ubiquitin,

“Define “ok””

I’m not a doctor.

“nope, not my response at all.”

It certainly was here.

“you are confusing two aspects.”

No, I’m not confusing anything. You are creating an artificial distinction with the purpose of submitting abortion to a double standard.

“to illustrate: I would oppose The government regulating wear and when eruv can be built, which shita can be followed , should we require actual mechitzos etc etc. The Government should not be legislating religion.”

But I’m sure you support the government having laws forbidding assault and battery, even though it hamstrings beis din from taking halachically approved measures to enforce a recalcitrant husband to give a get. And laws certainly do regulate where and how eruvim can be built, your silly example of civil law butting into eruv shittos notwithstanding. Laws impact our religious observance all the time, and inasmuch as they foster public welfare, don’t create undue burdens, and aren’t unfairly targeting religious groups, we accept that this is the case. Yet suddenly you get all bothered by this when it comes to abortion. Why? Your protestations that you are actually more stringent on abortion than the rabbis ring hollow.

avram
“I’m not a doctor.”

This was YOUR quote : “have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water”

you said that in response to my comment “for a healthy woman with a normal pregnancy there is (generally) no medical reason not to fast , worst case she goes into pre-term labor. no big deal”

”
“nope, not my response at all.” It certainly was here.”

“No, I’m not confusing anything.”
you are. My position is quite simple. The government should not enforce religion, at the same time they should allow woman who have a heter to have an abortion.

I really don’t get how that is an “an artificial distinction ” or a “double standard”
I gave my response in the very next sentence. See above .

your last paragraph is confusing. IF there was a law banning eruvim I would oppose it, I’m not sure wh yyou think otherwise.
“Laws impact our religious observance all the time, and inasmuch as they foster public welfare, don’t create undue burdens, and aren’t unfairly targeting religious groups”
that’s a lot of ifs.

“Yet suddenly you get all bothered by this when it comes to abortion”

I’m not bothered at all. I said from the get go, if a law could be passed that a woman who felt she needed an abortion had to have rabbinic approval I could get behind that. This was in my very first (or early) posts on the subject.

your one good point was regarding recalcitrant husbands.
That’s a good one it deserves its own response.

ubiquitin,

“This was YOUR quote : “have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water”

you said that in response to my comment “for a healthy woman with a normal pregnancy there is (generally) no medical reason not to fast , worst case she goes into pre-term labor. no big deal””

Yes, but so what? I can give you the reasons, and you or your doctor cohorts can laugh at my doctor and assert your superior medical prowess or whatever you want to do. But I am not a medical professional. Who do I trust? The doctors we saw in exam rooms and our own rav, or the out-of-sight colleagues of a person on the Internet I’m having a conversation with? I don’t need to be an arbiter of what is medical Truth. You claimed that medical opinion is more stringent than rabbis. My own real life experience has told me otherwise. I stated thus, and I have no more to add.

“you are. My position is quite simple. The government should not enforce religion, at the same time they should allow woman who have a heter to have an abortion.”

Ergo enforcing or allowing for religion, as you perceive it.

“your last paragraph is confusing. IF there was a law banning eruvim I would oppose it, I’m not sure wh yyou think otherwise.”

Now you’re putting words into my mouth. A law banning eruvim would be unconstitutional due to the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws. But neighborhoods and towns can set zoning laws intended to preserve a certain look and feel that happen to infringe on where and how an eruv can be constructed. Or they can build a superhighway right in the middle of an existing eruv, rendering it invalid. Would you support Jews being allowed to construct lechis and fences wherever they want, and having veto ability on any construction projects?

“that’s a lot of ifs.”

That’s why lawyers make big bucks and work long hours.

“I’m not bothered at all. I said from the get go, if a law could be passed that a woman who felt she needed an abortion had to have rabbinic approval I could get behind that.”

It’s easy to get behind a theoretical ideal that you know has no chance of passing in our current legal system.

“your one good point was regarding recalcitrant husbands.
That’s a good one it deserves its own response.”

Well, I consider it an example of my primary point, so by all means let’s pursue that. It might be more fruitful than a talking-past-each-other fest. I don’t want to challenge the legendary ubiquitin/Health debates.

Avram

I love your point regarding recalcitrant husbands.
I’m not sure my response is as good as your question.

Though before we get to it. I’d like to be clear on your position since our discussion has shifted a lot.

In a nutshell my position is thus:

There are instances where halacha would allow an abortion that is not strictly speaking, medically necessary (in the sense that not having it would result in the mother’s death). These woman should be allowed to have an abortion. Since there is no way to legislate that a Rabbi would approve every abortion, in order to accommodate those cases we should allow (almost?) all abortions. (I say almost because I have never encountered any such case late in pregnancy)

Is your argument that:
a. No such cases exist
b. That is not enough to allow all abortions. So we should ban abortions (except where life threatening) and even those women who get a heter should be forced to carry to term
c. something else

As for recalcitrant husbands.
first of all, it isn’t clear that hitting is allowed. Even if it is, we need to weigh the benefits vs risks.
what is the benefit to allowing hitting ? – it probably works faster than other forms of pressure that are still available
What is the risk of not “having laws forbidding assault and battery” – complete chaos

what is the benefit to allowing abortions? Not forcing woman in terrible situations undue psychological (and physical) burden – though not death since on that we agree and are NOT discussing here. (also It will keep them safe (illegal abortions don’t usually lead to less abortions but to unsafe abortions), the cases I’m referring to would probably have had abortions even if illegal) )
what is the risk of allowing abortions? geheniom for people who practice without Rabbinic approval.

so in weighing the risks and benefits of both: on abortion the Government should stay out, and on battery make it illegal

Again obviously if there was an option for the Government to outlaw battery unless received Rabbinic approval I’d be for that.

I grant this isn’t the best distinction, and If you choose option B above I think reasonable people can disagree on that, as I told NC.

ubiquitin,

“Is your argument that:
a. No such cases exist
b. That is not enough to allow all abortions. So we should ban abortions (except where life threatening) and even those women who get a heter should be forced to carry to term
c. something else”

The closest to my position (other than me trying to write out a C) is B. I think there’s a big difference between “risk to mother’s health and safety” and “life threatening”, so there can be way more nuance than the allow everything or allow nothing but death prevention dilemma that you’re presenting. As far as A, I don’t know that I’ve said no such cases exist, only that I think they are quite rare.

“As for recalcitrant husbands.
first of all, it isn’t clear that hitting is allowed. “

And, per Rav Moshe ZT”L, it isn’t clear that the abortions we are discussing are allowed. So for consistency’s sake, if that’s a “first of all” on the recalcitrant husbands, it should also be a “first of all” on the abortions.

“what is the risk of allowing abortions? geheniom for people who practice without Rabbinic approval.”

No, it’s the loss of potential life. And the potential for outright murder in cases where the abortion fails and life is taken outside of the womb.

Moral system Builds steadily National Character

One Example
A century previous when America was a relatively morally rigid country
Height For Men with 3rd highest and women fourth-highest in the world
A century later No longer even the upper 40 for males and barely hit forty For females

‘There was a time when most American children were expected to outgrow their parents.
Since data on Americans’ average height was first collected in the early 20th century, children and adolescents grew about an inch and a half taller every 20 years. But recent measurements suggest Americans’ average height has more or less hit the ceiling.
Data collected from the federal Centers for Disease Control show that average height for Americans has stabilized in the past 50 years to about 5 feet 9 inches for men and 5 feet 4 inches for women.
“We’ve pretty well maxed out in terms of stature. There’s been little change in adult height over last generation,” says William Leonard, an anthropologist at Northwestern’

“A 2016 study showed that Iranian men have seen the biggest change in height over the last century, gaining about 6.7 inches (17 centimeters)”.

Further example
Once Upon..

on the battlefield
the German was convinced that their moral probity make them perform better than the relatively looser French . and they were proven absolutely accurate

Being overly Jewish Centric we have our own compass therefore were not as affected
& usually miss these
It is the height of crude ruthless ungraciousness To the host country to uncaringly ignore these

To Paraphrase the famous quote:
Men build laws and institutions Then Institution and laws build men

ubiquitin,

“so in weighing the risks and benefits of both: on abortion the Government should stay out, and on battery make it illegal”

I’m not sure that we agree on what the risks and benefits are, nor what weights to apply to them.

Joseph,

“Do you oppose the death penalty for murder in the US?”

Yes.

“If so, could the law regarding capital punishment be enacted in any way that you’d support it (for murder or other crimes)?”

Not with jury trials, nor with the government serving simultaneously as witness (e.g., police), prosecutor, and judge.

Avi K,

“then for what?”

I’m not opposed to the death penalty per se; my concern is that the U.S. system is too flawed.

Avram, so what is your method? Any human system is flawed by definition. the Maharal says that that is the difference between אמת and אמת לאמיתותה. Being that the court (and in criminal law that includes secular courts a.k.a. משפט המלך) has permission to rule its decisions are אמת. The latter is what Hashem sees. However, it is necessary to have some system (see Ran, Derash 11). It should, of course, be tweaked as much as possible but there must be a system. Would you also oppose the death penalty for obviously guilty criminals like the Pittsburgh shooter, Son of Sam, Mob hitmen, etc.?

“Here I’m going to sound a lot like ubiquitin: ”

thats a good thing!

And I’m glad we got to the crux of our disagreement

“By abortion, the risk of an optional but halachically allowed abortion being stayed (which I think would be quite rare, but ubiquitin disagrees) does not outweigh the benefit of protecting the unborn babies.”

Well said, though
I think there is room for disagreement in that sentence as far as which way to err (though not regarding the metzius) .

Thanks for sticking around this far into the discussion I found it enlightening

Avi

you are doing the same strange thing you do when confronted with the uncomfortable fact that the Torah abhors pure free market capitalism,. you come up with all sorts of strange pretzels of “logic” to fit hings.

why can’y upu just say you support capital punishemtn, although unfortunatly sometimes (rarely?) it leads to a miscarriage of justice.

Leo Frank was found guilty his sentence was capital punishment. true the sentence was commuted, but practically speaking it was carried out. Those responsible for the lynching were not prosecuted although there are pictures of them
In other words, they had tacit government approval .
Regarding Ethel Rosenberg is more astounding. does not “naming names” warrant the death penalty? does turning her brother into a communist? What on earth are you talking about

Avi K,

Can you do me a favor and actually respond to what I’m writing, rather than constructing a liberal strawman? I’m not philosophically opposed to capital punishment. I’m not denying that a non-Jewish government has the authority to do it. But given the fact that we as U.S. citizens are allowed a voice in government policy through voting or lobbying, my position is that the death penalty shouldn’t be used in the U.S.

“Leo Frank was lynched not executed. In fact, GA Gov. John M. Slaton commuted his sentence”

He was originally sentenced to death. He was lynched because of that commutation. And his killers were not prosecuted.

“the extent of Ethel Rosenberg’s guilt is still a matter of dispute”

Thanks for proving my point.

“I find it interesting that liberals are so concerned about people who have rap sheets longer than height but care nothing for unborn babies”

Are you directing this comment to me? Because if so, you obviously have either not read or not understood this thread.

“But once she has created a baby ”

The discussion partly, hinges on Who decides at what point it becomes a “baby.” and perhaps more importnantly who gets to decide that. (note this isn’t a medical question)

Even you, clearly don’t fully define a fetus as a baby since you allow for its “murder” if ” the mother’s life must be saved.” something you wouldn’t (I assume) allow with born babies.

So clearly you too make some distinction between a born baby and an “unborn baby’