If you vote democrat

Oh maybe because the same party that supports a woman’s right to not deal with the fallout of her promiscuity”
I thought this wasnt an anti-women thing? why “her promiscuity” wasnt he just as promiscuous?
THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION!!!!!!!
As a matter of fact it’s one that ”right to lifers ”are struggling to figure out.
When the promiscuous dad strenuously objects to having GPS baby aborted, the ”pro life? ” democrat party says, sorry. It’s not your business. It’s a woman’s right to choose. It’s her health care now.
So I have no answer to that question. As a matter of fact that question is part of my issues with the pro abortion position.
Welcome aboard.

I’d like to apologize to all the other readers of this thread here.
What ubiq did, is classic democrat tactic.
Mischaracterize something that is really simple, In such a way that to bring it back to what was originally meant requires long boring monologues which really add nothing to the conversation as they were really evident all along (its like if In middle of a conversation I say 2+2=4 and someone interjects no! It’s 3 . stop lying. So you need to go now and prove simple math. Thereby losing most of the audience. And I’m the process, people walk off thinking, maybe he is right, cause the other guy didn’t really prove him wrong.)
So most of the time people just don’t bother to respond, and a clueless observer would walk away unsure who is correct.
Here though, if that happened, someone would walk away thinking (as I read what he was saying) that ubiq has brought halachik sources to allow abortion on demand.
So I spent the time and effort to show that his sources, and the conversation at hand are not the same topic.
(yes of course also to back my position that the democrat party is a party of murder.)

KY

“The Gemmara is not pro abortion, so it wouldn’t follow.
That was a contention that only works if you are pro abortion.”

I dont understand. You said “by killing her innocent unborn baby, also supports the rights of all criminals to end the life of all innocents”

My question is: When a guilty women is executed. We kill “her innocent unborn baby”
why does this not suupport “the right” to kill all guilty women’s children?

I’m not even sure what you mean by “by killing her innocent unborn baby, also supports the rights of all criminals to end the life of all innocents” Is this a slippery slope argument?

Abortion for the sake of abortion means I want to have an abortion so I can say I had an abortion. Sort of like crossing it off a bucket list. ”
Again, so thats not really a thing.

EXACTLY! And that’s exactly what r Eliezer said.
That outlawing abortions won’t stop people from getting them since most people are not just doing an abortion for the sake of it.
So therefore since most people getting abortions have a reason to want it, they will figure out how to do it even if it’s outlawed.
Whereas if they were just doing it because, they walked past an abortion clinic and saw the right and said ”hey that looks cool! Let me get an abortion. ” then outlawing it would stop them from happening.
So therefore according to r Eliezer there is no point to outlawing abortions because since most abortions take place for a reason, they will happen even if it’s illegal.

That was his argument.
Clearly supporting keeping all abortions legal
To which Josef…..

Still not sure how you read that he is supporting only halachik sanctioned ones.

Right, Josefs question to a participant of a conversation of which I was part of.”
wow talk about oblique references . Neither your post nor the one you were replying to mentions abortion . If I missed the At bash code embedded in your weighing of Trump’s positive and negatives, that my bad . and I apologize.
This is getting tedious
You need to ”hold kup ”
It’s all part of a conversation
One does not need to comment on every line of a conversation to be considered part of the entire conversation, nor does one need to constantly keep refreshing each line. Sure my post didn’t mention abortion. It didn’t need to. I agree with the op so I had no need to reiterate.
You keep referring to specific lines as if each line is its own little world
That’s not how conversations work. If someone made a point about abortions, and then the conversation meandered a bit, when it gets back to abortion, it is referring to abortion as discussed earlier. That’s just how the world works. I’m sorry if that’s hard for you to deal with but I don’t make the rules

There are a lot of claims being made here without anything to support them, women having abortions so they can fit in prom gowns, women having abortions so they can say they had an abortion woman carrying a healthy pregnancy to term only to decide to have the child killed during delivery . Does anyone here have any documentation to support these claims?

Death penalty – well it doesnt deter crime,
One of my all time favorite arguments.
Does prison time deter crime?
Do fines deter crime?

“I would expect the one who used the word in a conversation to make sure it’s clear from the context what he is calling necessity at the moment he uses the word”

I dont know what you mean.
You grant (I think?) that there are rare times where abortion is allowed. (correct me if I’m wrong). ie you allow for abortion out of “necessity”
So I ask: who would you have define “necessity” ?

KY
“That outlawing abortions won’t stop people from getting them since most people are not just doing an abortion for the sake of it”
Where did he say that.
I’m not sure what that means .

“So therefore according to r Eliezer there is no point to outlawing abortions because since most abortions take place for a reason, they will happen even if it’s illegal.”

Exactly! so your line about “crossing off a bucket list” is nonsense. (and another example of you throwing in irrelevent points to muddle the conversation) and RE is only talking about abortions for a reason. Right?
Exactly as I said.

So the question is Does the torah allow abortion for a reason?
answer: Yes!
again, of course this isnt a blatant green light it depends on the reason.

to use our excellent analogy:
does the Torah allow amputations for a reason?
answer Yes!
Again of course this sint a blatant green light t depends on the reason.

“Still not sure how you read that he is supporting only halachik sanctioned ones.”
I didnt, and I never said that.
I dont get how you read that he is supporting abortions to cross it off a bucket list.
(Of course NOW you seem to grant that that wasnt what he was saying )

“So can I just make an abortion for no reason? Consensual?”
no absolutely not as I explicity said in THAT same post “Again, just because it is not a nefesh, doesnt mean it can be aborted to fit in a prom dress….”

“Or perhaps just maybe it means,…”

I dont know what it means. I know what it says. you asked why killing a fetus is ever allowed but not a child . you (pretended?) you couldnt figure out the distinction. so Rashi tells you once out of the womb its its own person. Until then it isnt.

“One does not need to comment on every line of a conversation to be considered part of the entire conversation”

Oh absolutely not! and more than happy to have you on board. but as you now concede RE was NOT talking about abortions done on a whim (if there is even such a thing) so AT NO POINT was that the topic of conversation . AS you now concede “So therefore according to r Eliezer … most abortions take place for a reason,”

to which Joseph asked how can you support abortion (again, when done for a reason)
to which I replied, that is the Torah view it allows abortion done for a reason (not any reason obviously)
to which you asked sources?
to which I provided sources .
( then we got distracted when you claimed that we were talking baout abortion done for no reason, which was never the topic., but now we are back on track)

to sum up:
Halacha allows for abortion in certain extenuating circumstances.
what these are need to be decided by a competent halachic authority, on a case by case basis.

Can you get behind those last two lines ?

I’m getting weary.
Sure I can agree to those last two lines.
It has nothing to do with the conversation

We were discussing the evils of the democrat parties position on abortion.
Can you agree that’s not going to be limited to Torah sanctioned abortions?
Reb Eliezer supported THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THEIR ABORTION PLATFORM
THAT’S WHAT JOSEF CALLED HIM OUT ON.
ubiq then claimed the torah allows it also slyly meaning the torah also allows abortion just not in the same cases as Josef called out Reb Eliezer on.
If this is too complicated to follow im out.

“…the same party that supports a woman’s right to not deal with the fallout of her promiscuity”. Factually the majority of women who consider surgical abortion are married. Do you suggest that these women are promiscuous? If you thought someone was promiscuous, why would you want them raising a child? Do you think that they would be able to provide the best possible parenting considering this lifestyle choice? It’s sad that a child would have to grow up knowing that they were born simply as punishment for their mothers actions. (Oh and the response of ‘adopt the children out’ doesn’t hold when there are hundreds of thousands of children waiting to be adopted across the country.)

Ubiq: I take it you support repealing all laws against manslaughter and, murder since sometimes killing someone is halachicly justified (self-defense, someone breaking into your home (even when you don’t know whether he’s armed), a Moser, etc.) and a competent halachic authority need to decide as such rather than killings being outlawed by the secular government.

Murder will not go away if homicide is outlawed. Legal manslaughter will be unavailable to most people. Rich people have always had access to hired hitmen; it’s merely a matter of money.

Joseph
” I take it you support repealing all laws against manslaughter and, murder since sometimes killing someone is halachicly justified”
I am not aware of that being an issue. If it ever comes up then we can think about how to draw that line. Though we would still need to wigh how it would affect frum Jews. Such a repeal would likely result in a free for all on Jews more so than resulting in Jews defending themselves.

Ubiq
Just read this quote in your post. Had to chuckle

”requires long boring monologues”
It requires nothing of the sort . I explain my position rationally and truthfully. I’m not the one who mislabels “infanticide” or lost the flow of conversation.”

The phrase ”requires long boring monologues” was me talking about what I had to do!!
So to follow it up with
”It requires nothing of the sort . I explain my position rationally and truthfully. I’m not the one who mislabels “infanticide” or lost the flow of conversation.”
Is irony at its best!
Your comment that you don’t lose the flow of conversations attached to your comment which totally missed the flow of the conversation!!!
Rich!

Woman Has Abortion Because She Couldn’t Fit Into Her Wedding Dress
NATIONAL
SARAH TERZO DEC 26, 2013 | 1:16PM WASHINGTON, DC

Share this story:

In 2005, the Los Angeles Times ran a story by Stephanie Simon entitled “Offering Abortion, Rebirth.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Ad Row 2
Simon interviewed an abortion provider named Dr. William F. Harrison and observed abortions at his clinic. Harrison died in 2010, after closing down his clinic because of health reasons.

The article quotes Harrison saying, “I am destroying life.”

Simon described witnessing an abortion on an 18-year-old girl. The author says the girl had not told her parents about her pregnancy. The unborn baby was 13 weeks along. At 13 weeks, the child has fingers, complete with fingernails. If female, the child has a uterus of her own. He or she can respond to touch and has both a heartbeat and brain waves. He can also suck his thumb. (See ultrasound pictures of 13-week-old babies here.)

According to the author:

Harrison glances at an ultrasound screen frozen with an image of the fetus taken moments before. Against the fuzzy black-and-white screen, he sees the curve of a head, the bend of an elbow, the ball of a fist.

“You may feel some cramping while we suction everything out,” Harrison tells the patient.

A moment later, he says: “You’re going to hear a sucking sound.”

The abortion takes two minutes. The patient lies still and quiet, her eyes closed, a few tears rolling down her cheeks. The friend who has accompanied her stands at her side, mutely stroking her arm.

When he’s done, Harrison performs another ultrasound. The screen this time is blank but for the contours of the uterus. “We’ve gotten everything out of there,” he says.

Right after her abortion, the teenager said:

“There’s things wrong with abortion,” she says. “But I want to have a good life. And provide a good life for my child.” To keep this baby now, she says, when she’s single, broke and about to start college, “would be unfair.”

The article also profiled several other women coming in for abortions.

A high school volleyball player says she doesn’t want to give up her body for nine months. “I realize just from the first three months how it changes everything,” she says.

Kim, a single mother of three, says she couldn’t bear to give away a child and have to wonder every day if he were loved. Ending the pregnancy seemed easier, she says – as long as she doesn’t let herself think about “what could have been.”

Many pro-lifers find it hard to understand why some women would rather abort than put the baby up for adoption – pro-lifers tend to think it would be better to adopt out a child than to kill that child. But often the thought of giving up a baby is painful for women, and many women have heard the message over and over again that abortion is not killing.

The article also describes:

Amanda, a 20-year-old administrative assistant, says it’s not the obstacles that surprise her – it’s how normal and unashamed she feels as she prepares to end her first pregnancy.

“It’s an everyday occurrence,” she says as she waits for her 2:30 p.m. abortion. “It’s not like this is a rare thing.”

Amanda was 15 weeks pregnant and has not told her boyfriend about his child. Amanda also says:

I’ve been praying a lot and that’s been a real source of strength for me. I really believe God has a plan for us all. I have a choice, and that’s part of my plan.

As much as pro-lifers don’t like to admit it, many religious people get abortions. There are some churches that support abortion. In a recent Facebook post, Abby Johnson mentioned that a member of her Episcopalian church told her to leave after she became involved in the “antichoice” movement. One study says that many women who have abortions claim to be Christian and that one out of five women coming in is a self-identified born-again or evangelical Christian (1).

Later in the article, two other women give their reasons for having abortions.

His first patient of the day, Sarah, 23, says it never occurred to her to use birth control, though she has been sexually active for six years. When she became pregnant this fall, Sarah, who works in real estate, was in the midst of planning her wedding. “I don’t think my dress would have fit with a baby in there,” she says.

The last patient of the day, a 32-year-old college student named Stephanie, has had four abortions in the last 12 years. She keeps forgetting to take her birth control pills. Abortion “is a bummer,” she says, “but no big stress.”

People on both sides of the abortion debate often say that abortion is an agonizing decision for women. They say that women do not take abortion lightly. Many pro-lifers view women as the second victims of abortion. Although this is often true, it is the sad case that some women do use abortion as birth control.

The clinic that Dr. Harrison works at makes an effort to shield women from guilt. In the abortionists’ own words, “[w]e try to make sure she doesn’t ever feel guilty … for what she feels she has to do.”

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

The article goes on to say:

For the few women who arrive ambivalent or beset by guilt, Harrison’s nurse has posted statistics on the exam-room mirror: One out of every four pregnant women in the US chooses abortion. A third of all women in this country will have at least one abortion by the time they’re 45.

“You think there’s room in hell for all those women?” the nurse will ask.

If the woman remains troubled, the nurse tells her to go home and think it over.

“If they truly feel they’re killing a baby, we’re not going to do an abortion for them,” says the nurse, who asked not to be identified for fear protesters would target her.

This sounds all well and good, but right after this statement, the article goes on to quote this very same nurse saying to a teenager who is 5 weeks pregnant:

“It’s completely formed about nine weeks,” the nurse tells her. “Yours is more like a chicken yolk.”

According to The Biology of Prenatal Development:

Between 4 and 5 weeks, the brain continues its rapid growth and divides into 5 distinct sections.

….

The cerebral hemispheres appear, gradually becoming the largest parts of the brain.

Functions eventually controlled by the cerebral hemispheres include thought, learning, memory, speech, vision, hearing, voluntary movement, and problem-solving.

You can watch the heart of a 4-week-old unborn baby beating at this link. The baby, even at 5 weeks, is hardly an egg yolk.

Although Dr. Harrison admits that what he’s doing is killing, he contradicts himself later by saying, “It’s not a baby to me until the mother tells me it’s a baby.”

As of 2005, Dr. Harrison had performed over 20,000 abortions. He left practice in 2010 and died shortly afterward. When Harrison left practice, his abortion clinic closed its doors. He was unable to find another doctor willing to perform abortions at his clinic.

1. Barbara Vobejda “Abortion Reaches Wide Cross Section of Women; Study of U.S. Patients Seeking Procedure Finds Many Belong to Religious Groups That Oppose It” The Washington Post August 8, 1996

LifeNews.com Note: Sarah Terzo is a pro-life liberal who runs ClinicQuotes.com, a web site devoted to exposing the abortion industry. She is a member of the pro-life groups PLAGAL and Secular Pro-Life. This originally appeared at Live Action News.

Share this story:

ADVERTISEMENT

Home Sidebar 1
ADVERTISEMENT

Ad Row 4
ADVERTISEMENT

Ad Row 3
ADVERTISEMENT

Position 9
ADVERTISEMENT

Ad Row 1

Bottom Banner

COPYRIGHT © 2020

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

ABOUT
ADVERTISING
REPRINT
RSS FEED
DONATE
NATIONAL
STATE
INTERNATIONAL
BIOETHICS
OPINION

notification icon

“Abortion to fit into a prom dress is not cooled abortion for the sake of it it is abortion for a reason ”

Lol as if thats a reason. nice try.

“there are no limits as to what is allowable grounds for abortion”

Well yes. Because that isnt the governments rol. Lets imagine a woman wants an abortion to fit in her prom dress,

why should the government stop her? Kep im mind , a fetus is not a life. now remember hat doesnt mean that it can be terminated for nothing . But as far as secular law goes, we do have ownership over our bodies. The Government has no business mixing in .

KY
“Maybe then you should read what you comment on before commenting”

Got it!
youve misunderstood
RE said (with your explanantion) “That outlawing abortions won’t stop people from getting them since most people are not just doing an abortion for the sake of it. So therefore since most people getting abortions have a reason to want it, they will figure out how to do it even if it’s outlawed.”

You stuck in reason as “being in the mood of one” or “prom dress” Which is why you are thoroughly confused. Those arent real things and were neveractually the topic I (or he, though obviously I cant speak for him ) was discussing . what he meant is life altering reasons not being able to afford it being a single mother etc .
so the consideration is twofold :
1) In those cases who would you have decide ? I know of a woman w/ 7 children at home she became pregnant 5 months after having had twins . who should decide? Is it crazy to say she should go to a rav and follow whatever the Rav tells her ? – this is my main argument
2) Even if illegal sInce most people feel pressured to do it, they have a pressing reason (not prom dress) they will get it done anyway (I’m not sure how convincing I find this argument), but it has some merit)

“The phrase ”requires long boring monologues” was me talking about what I had to do!!”
Don’t worry its both of us. I’m not sure why you think you get a monopoly on boring monologues

unless you are saying mine arent boring….

Ubiq, we move forward (finally)

Got it!
youve misunderstood
RE said (with your explanantion) “That outlawing abortions won’t stop people from getting them since most people are not just doing an abortion for the sake of it. So therefore since most people getting abortions have a reason to want it, they will figure out how to do it even if it’s outlawed.”

You stuck in reason as “being in the mood of one” or “prom dress” Which is why you are thoroughly confused.

********* Those arent real things and were neveractually the topic I (or he, though obviously I cant speak for him ) was discussing .*********

So first of all I posted an article, which somehow made it in before your comment, showing that actually they are real things and seem to take place quite often

Secondly, and more importantly, you are the one confused.
This is exactly what Reb Eliezer was talking about. This is what Josef called him out on. And this is what I challenged you to source as being allowed in Torah literature (subsequently you’ve stated that you don’t believe such types of abortions would be permitted in Torah literature.)
That’s why I told you you need to follow the conversation.
Go back and read the op again, and put Reb Eliezer comment in that context and you will see quite clearly that’s the only way to understand it.
You jumped the gun to shoot at Josef, and when confronted, instead of just backing down you doubled down and contorted everything

“I’m talking about me being boring …”

Relax your being to harsh on yourself. Yes your posts are boring and you don’t follow the flow of conversation so we get sidetracked on irrelevant side issues (that you end u dsyi g were never our point of argument.) But I enjoy them.
I don’t find them boring. But I’m sure other people do, which is whi you were address ing

Simple question do you think my relies are boring?

“So first of all I posted an article, which somehow made it in before your comment, showing that actually they are real things and seem to take place quite often”

They don’t take place quite often. Sure there’s a guy who remember s it once happening. Look up people’s reason the vast vast majority are financial pressures.

We seemed to be going forward but we took a step back.
Quick recap.
Let me know where I lose you

Prelude: People don’t get abortion for frivolous reasons or as re “abortion for its own sake” (sure some people might but this isn’t a common occurrence)
1) The vast majority of abortion (practically speaking rounded to the nearest whole number it’s 100% are done by people in extenuating circumstances.
2) The Torah allows abortion in certain extenuating circumstances.
3) obviously our circumstances are not going to allign with theirs
4) each case needs to be decided by a Rav
5) the government is not going to legislate that a rav should decide
6) the next best thing is the government should let a woman decide and a frum woman will go to her Rav.

(As an aside even if things were flipped and most abortion s were done for prom dress reasons my argument STILL holds, but that wasn’t the topic of conversation )

You lost me in your prelude which conveniently left out the op’s post which set the topic which is not what you claim.

You lose me when you don’t respond to direct questions.

You lose me when you mischaracterize posts and ignore repeated clarifications

I think other than that I follow you.
Tell me if I got it.

You jump into a conversation, interjecting something not really on target,
You double down on your Comments ignoring all attempts to get you back on target
You contradict yourself without bothering to explain
And your convinced that you are correct in the face of evidence to the contrary
Do i have it all correct or did I leave something out?

“o be repeatedly telling people they are missing their own points and contexts”

Its a “bug” of the coffee room

Anybody can join any conversation. So If I comment on a specific comment . Other posters assume that that applies to anything said on the trhed. Which of curse it doesn’t

“I find myself torn between admiring your self confidence and pitying your self assurance. ”
Its neither . I was commenting on a specific point . not whatever any other poster may have said (or thought) was included in that point.

The bottom line is The torah allows abortion (in limited cases)
therefore we are better off with legal abortions so people who need a Torah alllowed one can get it.

That was my point . If I wasnt clear on this at first, I clarified in follow up posts.
I’m not sure why its on me if another poster still insitst we are discussing another case, then says we werent then says we were.

“when there is such a recurring theme, that it isn’t “everyone else who’re driving the wrong way around you.”
but if they are then they are. If there is any post that confused you I’d be happy to explain

Fantastic news!
I’m hear to get yo uback on track

“You lost me in your prelude which conveniently left out the op’s post which set the topic which is not what you claim.”

I wasnt commenting on the op.
I was commenting on this comment “Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support abortion being legal.”

“You lose me when you don’t respond to direct questions.”
My sincerest apologies.
which question?

“You lose me when you mischaracterize posts and ignore repeated clarifications”
you have that backwards.

I am not talking about the op. In fact I’m not even sure I read the op till recently . I commented on this comment “”Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support abortion being legal.””

“You jump into a conversation, interjecting something not really on target,”
Its a free country. I commented on one aspect you jumped in and misunderstood it. You are free to jump in as am I.

“You double down on your Comments ignoring all attempts to get you back on target”
I’m happy to explain it until you get it. I’m not sure what you mean ” by back on target” My target is simple. The best thing for us is abortions to be legal .
The Torah allows abortion

That was what I said from the get go

You contradict yourself without bothering to explain”
sincerest apologies. I’m happy to explain any thing .

And your convinced that you are correct in the face of evidence to the contrary”
Evidence that what? I’m not even sure where you disagree I laid out nice numbered points and you wont tell me where we argue .and you say I dont answer question lol! For that matter, I’m not even sure IF you disagree with me it sounds like you do but I honestly don’t know about what

Do i have it all correct”
No

“or did I leave something out?”
Yes! you left out the answer to my question . I neatly laid out my position defending my inital comment on this thread.
I’m not sure where you disagree (or even if you do in our latest conversation after an extensiv back and forth you said you exaggerated and didn’t mean what you said, why didn’t you clarify that at first? who knows. And you say I contradict without bothering to explain!?)

KY
“And it certainly wasn’t Josefs understanding of r Eliezer when he made his remark”

I think got where you got lost!

Ive had this conversation with Josef lots of times before .
He believes abortion should be illegal unless the mother’s life absolutely depends on it He has a very strict definition of “life at risk” that is in line with the conservative approach, but not lehavdil halachas’s He doesnt believe in “psychological harm” that poskim often take into account. He also doesn’t believe that there are actually frum people with these questions (Joseph please correct me If I’m wrong about your position).
Thus he supports the “pro-life” camp. And was surprised that anybody could “support abortion being legal.”
To which I replied that the Torah supports abortion being legal (in limited circumstances, but not as limited as Joseph believes)

You asked for sources.
I provided them.
note: the sources I provided are NOT cases where the “pro-life” conservative movement would approve of abortion. (Eg Tzitz Eleizer on Tay sachs, Yaavetz for a mamzer)
So the question becomes should a woman who wants an abortion (with her Rav’s allowance) be able to get one.
I say yes – The Torah allows it (I consider the Tzitz eleiezer Torah, and a woman who follows her Rav’s pesak is acting properly. Eve though obviously others will get unsanctioned (halachicly) abortions. I say thats not our problem.
he says those cases never happen, it isnt clear that we hold like those poskim (R’ Moshe argues), and even if do are sufficiently rare that the number of unjustly aborted fetuses far outweigh that concern. (Again Joseph apologies if I’m misrepresenting your view) .

“By the way you know what the Torah does approve of? Death penalty.”
does it though? do you cal the government that kills more than once in 70 years a חובלנית ?

I explained why a frum person would support legal abortion.
I am not sure what “greater context” my reply overlooked.

“greater context”
that the question was how they can support the
**** democrat position *****
on abortion

Ubiq: That’s absolutely false and a gross misrepresentation.