If you vote democrat

and you wont tell me where we argue
we argue on what r eliezer meant

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

KY

“that the question was how they can support the **** democrat position ***** on abortion”
Because it is more in line with halacha than the Republican one.

t he republicans would limit all cases unless the woman’s life was at risk (Of course it depend which republican some would not even allow that, which is a reasonable approach if you beleive, unlike halacha that life begins at conception., we never kill one to save another, why woul fetal life be different. Of course Hlacha has no such problem because we don’t believe life begins at conception) .

Democrats allow all abortions .

Halacha demands each case be judged individually .
Thus in practice this is closer to the Democrat position.

“start with this one Death penalty – well it doesnt deter crime, One of my all time favorite arguments.
Does prison time deter crime? Do fines deter crime?”

Sure I’m sorry I skipped it, Death penalty isnt the topic of this thread, and I’m not sure how I feel about it (I brought it up in passing to make a point that (I thought) was an obvious exaggeration . Of course Republicans don’t actually choose their positions based on what results in more dead bodies (though it does feel that way sometimes)
But since you asked: There are many studies showing the death penalty doesnt deter crime , I am not sure about prison or fines (it seems fines do deter crime I would speed more if not for fear of fine). Keep in mind when we say deter crime it means as opposed to prison not as opposed to no consequence so listing them in succession doesn’t make a whole lot of sense , when you say “Do fines deter crime” as opposed to what? as opposed to nothing? I’m not sure that needs a study. when we say Does the deat hpenalty deter crime, it isnt as opposed to nothing it is as opposed to life in prison. . That said I’m not convinced detering crime is the sole reason to punish criminals.

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

I’m sorry which part did I get wrong?
In the past you said
“If halacha allows but doesn’t require abortion (which I agree with Avram is a very rare case), then if the secular law prohibits abortion in that case (which is also very unlikely as any new abortion restrictions will likely be far less restrictive than halacha) she shouldn’t get an abortion. There’s no conflict in such a case between halacha and secular law as not getting an abortion violates neither.”

Ubiq: I take exception to your description that my definition of life at risk differs from Halacha. Furthermore, as I’ve said in our previous conversations, if there was a ban on abortion with a libral exception for life being at risk that more than covered any halachic exception permitting abortion, you still would oppose the ban abortion despite it allowing it in all cases where Halacha allows it. That demonstrates that your support for abortion-on-demand being legal is not based on any worry about Halacha.

Joseph

“I take exception to your description that my definition of life at risk differs from Halacha”

Got it. Oh obviously. But the gist of my characterization of your view was correct.

in the second half of my post I worded it more parave.
“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) .”

Is that a fairer representation?

“if there was a ban on abortion with a libral exception for life being at risk that more than covered any halachic exception permitting abortion, you still would oppose the ban abortion despite it allowing it in all cases where Halacha”

Of course not. I’d fully support such a ban. I just don’t see how it can be formulated.

KY
“Now your saying exaggeration is OK?”
Exaggeration is absolutly ok.
but if we went back and forth for several posts with me arguing that Republicans only support the death penalty becasue it doesn’t deter crime, and then saying ok I was just exaggerating.
Thats different.
It would still be ok, but its more frustrating and confusing.
do you see the difference?

KY

“and someone helpfully supplied the source.”
no nobody did. The source supplied id not at all refer to infaticide

“”Which position is more in line with the Torah?
I think it’s a no brainer The republican position is totally in line. For גוים are required to create דינים. I’m not Aware that they are required to create laws that mimic the Torah.”

Totally if goyim knew what was good for them they would ban abortion. If I recall correctly, (at least according to some) for goyim even to save mother’s life it isnt allowed ,

But my primary concern isnt for goyim. what they do is only my concern as far as how it affects us. And since frum people, (by definition) only get an abortion with their Rav’s approval. It is to OUR (not their) advantage to have a more permissive stance on abortion in place than one the Republicans would adopt

And since frum people, (by definition) only get an abortion with their Rav’s approval. It is to OUR (not their) advantage to have a more permissive stance on abortion in place than one the Republicans would adopt
No. It’s not to our benefit to have a government that condones and even glorifies murder.
It’s bad for us and for the society we live in.
Even in cases such as severe fetal complications, where it would be allowed in halacha it’s not mandated. So if our host country outlawed it, we would deal with it. If they disallowed it even in cases of danger to the mothers life, we would have an issue, but ultimately we would ignore it. However I don’t believe that is the case anyway.
In the democrat utopia, however they condone murder.
That is never good for us. And it’s unnecessary.
I completely disagree with you

Ubiq
The following is a clarification from that governers office

Northam’s office said in a statement on Wednesday that his comments were taken out of context and that Republicans “are trying to play politics with women’s health.”

“No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, *************/and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor,************×********” Ofirah Yheskel, Northam’s spokesperson, wrote in the statement.

So he is talking about a woman who wanted a third trimester abortion, ולא הספיק השעה
So they would birth the baby
(now it’s no longer a fetus)
Resuscitate it
(now it’s a live baby)
And let the absents decide if they should keep it or kill it
(murder, infanticide)

And you (I never claimed this) claim this takes place daily in hospitals.
So you are actually claiming that the democrat party does infanticide.!
I only claimed they support the idea
But hey, I’ll take help from all quarters.
And of course this is good for Jews because it’s more in line with the Torah.
Uh huh

“The following is a clarification from that governers office”

I didn’t need clarification I understood what he meant I work in hospitals and as I said what he describes occurs regularly and isnt controversial neither legally nor le\havdil halachicly. Though its not something lay people think about

first a few quick facts.
A. When a baby with “severe fetal abnormalities” for example anencephaly is born it cannot live very long. NO posek requires the baby to be resuscitated. Of course it cant be killed actively but not a single posek requires the baby to be resuscitated.

with me so far?

B. Now does that mean it can be aborted slightly before birth?
Halchicly not neccesarily (and in fact I dont believe ANY posek would allow such an abortion to take place. Even the Tzitz Eleizer who allows abortions for non-viable fetuses doesnt allow it all the way through pregnancy.

C. Again this does not mean once born they need to be (or even should be) resuscitated. Rather they can be kept comfortable until their inevitable passing rch”l .

Still with me?

The above 3 points are not controversial and shouldnt cause too much trouble

This part is a bit controversial, and is where it gets confusing. So halt kup.

D. to a secular ethicist , IF the fetus can be delivered and be allowed to die on its own. Why put the woman through the agony of delivery just abort it. The vast majority of late term abortions are of this nature.
Now Halacha would make a distinction as one is beyadayim and the other isn’t This is what he was clumsily trying to say

BUT regardless, before it is born it is a fetus and thus not “infanticide” So even these late term abortions, are by definition not infanticide. (infant = after birth)

But obviously they do serve to create “excitement” an abortion at 9 months sounds terrible (and it is) how can we (society not halacha) allow that? your aborting a full term Fetus! how can third trimester abortions ever be justified

now to the governor’s quote:

““[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

On to your post:

“So he is talking about a woman who wanted a third trimester abortion, ולא הספיק השעה So they would birth the baby (now it’s no longer a fetus)”

correct

” Resuscitate it (now it’s a live baby)”
correct

And let the absents decide if they should keep it or kill it (murder, infanticide)”

no not kill it, these are babies who die on their own . They are ” nonviable ” so we resuciitate it once or twisce and let the parent say goodbye and then “a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother”

As to how much longer to keep resuscitating

“And you claim this takes place daily in hospitals.”
Yes for babies not so often (though in the country im sure its daily lo aleinu). For adults its dozens of times daily in every hospital. A patient is resuscitated then “a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the family ” at what point to stop resuscitation.
No posek requires endless rounds of resuscitation in any case not for adults nor for children,
.

Ubiquitin and I had our own lengthy back and forth in this parallel thread a while back: https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/halachically-okay-to-be-liberal. אֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ so I’ll try not to rehash what’s already been discussed ad nauseam in both threads. Reading through this one provoked a few thoughts.

I really don’t like the “unlimited abortion on demand should be kept because otherwise poor people will do it unsafely” argument. Although I disagree with ubiquitin, he attempts to justify his position from a Torah standpoint. This argument, however, does not come from the Torah, but the horrible state of affairs in American culture. People are pushed towards abortion due to a combination of economic and cultural factors. If someone has an unplanned pregnancy, their local Planned Parenthood or college health center will help them… if they choose abortion. But prenatal care? Ha! Good one. Tell me, is that truly “choice”? Is that pro-woman and pro-family? And I blame both Republicans and Democrats.

For Republicans, who cares how much it costs, or whether someone undeserving benefits, if programs that help make having a baby no longer a “burden” can eliminate economics as an abortion pressure? A big part of what the conservative -funded crisis pregnancy centers do for women is help them to navigate the red tape to get benefits such as Medicaid and WIC. Why cut those programs? In my perfect world, prenatal and maternal care would be free, paid parental leave would be a given, and if Republicans and Democrats want to fight over child care benefits vs tax credits for stay-at-home parenting, fine. Having a baby should be a blessing, not an “oh no, how are we going to do this?”

As for Democrats? Where to even begin? Before 2016, the Democratic Party Platform stated that abortion should be “legal, safe, and rare.” In 2016? They dropped the “rare.” Buttigieg and Sanders have essentially stated that pro-life Democrats are unwelcome in the tent, even though Democratic supported programs could be touted as pro-life to win back the heartland. There is a cultural push from the left to put abortion on a pedestal. Women who have abortions with no regrets are praised and featured in media stories. Women who feel regret or sadness are somehow broken, wrong, victims of right wing propaganda. The secular culture surrounding us is shifting to a place where it could very soon be considered morally wrong, CV”S, to prolong the life of sick elders or to allow the birth of children with potential disabilities or to parents without means.

These things – cutting or deriding programs that make it economically feasible for people to have children in an urban/suburban society that make children expensive, while removing morality from the culture and making abortion, assisted suicide, etc. into virtues, work in tandem. A pox on both houses, I say.

Ubiq: What were the underlying reason the Rov(s) permitted the abortion(s)? Why did the parents want the abortions?

KY

“But In dealing with that one specific instance I learned that unfortunately this is way more common than we would like it to be.”

Well said, and obviously this is not something that would ever be advertised. We B”h have a large community and are growing. Unfortunately that means very rare problems become more common in the aggregate.
These problems include rape, and teenagers crossing the line.

“What were the underlying reason the Rov(s) permitted the abortion(s)? Why did the parents want the abortions?”

The reason the these heterim were given was combination of it being less than 40 days (“maya bealma”) with the fact that their lives would be destroyed potential resulting in physical harm to them . I don’t know of any case past 25 weeks. Most of the cases between 40 days and 25 weeks involved families with a lot odf children at home carrying a child that could not live too long , would put a big psychological strain on the mother.

If you say they are rare enough that allowing the millions of abortions to take place is not a price worth paying, I hear but I disagree.
If you say that the law can be crafted in a way to allow these exceptions, I don’t really hear that but I see why someone might think so.
but to argue that these things don’t exist in our community, doesnt make sense and won’t make them go away.

“I believe דינים allows them to be more מחמיר than the Torah. Not more lenient.
Ubiq seems to disagree”

Thats not my disagreement. I never said they are allowed to abort, I say thats not our (primary) concern.
And I’m not saying it “sits well with me” either.