Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DaMoshe,
Is this an ironic spin-off from the “Modern Orthodox” thread?
rednecker ridiquel,
I would be an anti-semite; but then I read the Torah and it says not to hold a grudge.
So you assert that the Jewish people as a whole have wronged you?
mtydhd,
My wife feels I should not drive her.
Seriously, how can it even be a question after this?
newbee,
And every day people are wishing for moshiach to come to get rid of THEIR OWN problems so they can experience the bliss of what happens after death without the death process.
So what exactly is wrong with that?
Its human nature, but that does not mean its what Hashem sent us here for in the first place.
I would tend to disagree that it’s human nature in the long term. Humans by nature do not like to be indebted to anyone, so while a salvation might be welcome in the short term, some chafing might develop over the long term without character refinement.
And what do you think Hashem sent us here for? Does he need us? Does he need our mitzvos? Can we really do anything for Him? Not really. In reality, we are here solely because Hashem is giving us everything, so perhaps our purpose is to indeed become perfected receivers.
Ideally, I should have said I hope I don’t get the parking spot if thats what Hashem wants from me now and it will give me the best chance to grow.
That’s not what I would pray.
“Adam chose to pick a fight, so now we have to fight and deal with death. But that is not our ideal state!”
Again, this goes against the basic premise- that earning through fight and effort is better than receiving for free.
Suppose you ask your son to clean his room before dinner, and he suddenly starts smashing things, scattering papers and laundry everywhere, and rips his sheets off his bed. You say, “Why are you doing that?! That’s the opposite of what I asked you to do!”
He says, “So I can earn more reward by cleaning up a bigger mess!”
Does that thinking really make sense to you? Especially if his actions dramatically increase the chances that he won’t get his room clean by dinnertime? Would you really reward him more?
newbee,
When I lived in a certain city I went 2 years without a parking spot … After 2 years, I was finally able to afford a parking spot right next to my apartment. That “luxury” was needless to say, very, very nice.
Your moshol seems to prove my point – during those two years you were probably wishing every day for a parking spot, because you knew that with a parking spot, you could do your grocery shopping with less hardship. You didn’t secretly wish that you wouldn’t get a parking spot.
If I never would have gone those 2 years without the parking spot, or if I would have moved into a different town where there is parking everywhere, that pleasure of having that specific parking spot would never has been as great.
I think that speaks more to human nature than the way things should be. We don’t truly appreciate what we have unless we don’t have it, and that is unfortunate. I feel that one of the big points of Judaism is to learn to truly appreciate what we have when we have it, and I think this midda will be perfected during yemos Hamoshiach. I think eventually during the days of Moshiach, the “bad” years prior won’t even be remembered at all.
Thats how I view techias hameisim- you cant truly get the reward of fighting and working with the guf without the guf itself.
Hashem did not originally set Adam Harishon up for a fight. He placed him in a garden where all of his needs were cared for, where Hashem could “walk” with him (extreme closeness), and the Tree of Life was right there for the taking. There may not have been a techias meisim, because there didn’t have to be meisim at all! Adam chose to pick a fight, so now we have to fight and deal with death. But that is not our ideal state!
newbee,
But you must also say, “if I had a choice, I’d want to sleep in the warm bed in gan eden and learn Torah from the light of the shechina in olam haba.” So ideally, we all want to live in olam haba- in pure bliss and paradise with no problems.
From what you have written, you seem to see yemos Hamoshiach and olam haba as one in the same. I’m not sure that that is the case. I am certainly no expert in these things (nobody is, since it is all beyond us at this point, but I am really not an expert), but I personally see two different “worlds”:
1. The days of Moshiach, where we still have physical bodies, a Jewish nation, Eretz Yisroel, Torah and mitzvos. We still receive reward for mitzvos, and would be punished for aveiros. However, the world will be as full of knowledge of Hashem as waters fill the sea, and all nations would know and follow Hashem, so the prospect of committing aveiros would seem absolutely crazy to us, unlike now when there is confusion and temptation. Rather than reducing our potential for growth and merit, I see this period as a time of unlimited growth and merit.
2. Olam Haba – where it seems that we do not have physical bodies, and can thus be completely united with Hashem. Without bodies, there are no mitzvos. This seems to be the world that you are addressing.
My question to you: we believe that there will be a techias hameisim. Why would those who have passed on to olam haba want to come back to Earth?
The US, especially east of the Mississippi River, has considerable diversity in regional dialects as well, well beyond the New York vs. Southern vs. Midwest which was mentioned previously in this thread.
An Alabama “Southern accent” is different than a typical Georgia accent (the “drawl” is much more apparent), and South Carolina, Tidewater VA, etc. are also distinct from each other. Rural southern Appalachian (y’all becomes you’uns) accents are very different from other “Southern” accents, and can be difficult for outsiders to understand. Baltimore residents have a distinct dialect (Bawlmerese, hon!), which is similar to Philadelphia (their NFL team is properly known as the Iggles). In Boston (Bahstin), you pahk yaw cah neah da Dunkin Donuts to get a drink at the bubbly.
newbee,
You have to believe that problem you got from your computer was tailor made just for you. Isn’t that was gam zu letovah means?
Of course. But on Rosh Hashana we eat apples dipped in honey to show that we not only want goodness in the upcoming year, but sweet goodness. On Yom Kippur we daven to be cleansed without serious illness or suffering. If I were sleeping in the wilderness with a sefer, candle, rooster, and donkey because the nearby town turned me away, I would hopefully come to say gam ze letova like Rabbi Akiva did (although I am nowhere near his level though, and I’d probably feel very upset about it), but if I had a choice, I’d want to learn and then sleep in a warm bed in the town’s inn with food in my belly and have no bandits to fear.
You honestly believe 99.999999% of humanity exists the way it does for 99.99999% of the time humanity existed because of some fluke or mistake or sin one person did? I think thats a simplistic way of reading the parsha.
I think looking at the parsha as a fluke or mistake or sin that one person did is an incomplete/incorrect way of reading the parsha. Furthermore, on a simple level, since we are not living in Gan Eden, we have to work hard in agriculture, we don’t have complete mastery over animals, and pregnancy lasts 9 months, then yes, we do exist the way we do because of Adam and Chava’s sin.
newbee,
If moshiach came everything would be obvious and the entire fight of keeping miztvos while living in a world of illusion and trials would be lost. So I guess deep down some people dont want moshiach to come.
If my office computer broke, but I was somehow able to overcome that and finish my work on time, my boss would be very impressed. Even so, I’d much rather not have my computer break, because having a broken computer is very stressful and significantly ups the risk that my work won’t get done.
In a way, humanity broke its computer in Gan Eden by partaking of fruit from the etz pri hadaas. When Moshiach comes iy”H, the computer will be fixed, and we’ll be able to work the way we were originally intended to.
ubiquitin,
Ah but medicine and halacha define danger to life veeeery diferently.
Oh? Is there a consistent definition?
This comes up in many situations eg fasting (There is raely a medical indication for a person to avoid fasting for a day with the exception of the elderly) Rabbonim allow eating much more commonly especialy among pregant women, recent surgery etc.
1. The allowances for eating on fast days other than Yom Kippur are much more lenient than danger to life. And even when talking about Yom Kippur, there’s a big difference between permitting fasting in measures and eating normally.
2. I once heard a non-Jewish OB state that she was aghast that a pregnant woman would ever fast, because it would throw the baby and possibly the mother into ketosis. So I respectfully disagree with what seems to be your assertion that the medical definition of danger is stricter than Judaism’s, or that there is any real consistent definition at all. Additionally, due to the potential for liability or malpractice lawsuits, if an abortion ban with danger exceptions were passed, I’d imagine that most medical practitioners/panels would set the danger bar pretty low.
if abortions where illegal unless the life of amother was at risk, and your physician or medical expert felt there was no risk, and a competent Rav felt the life was at risk (either medicaly or psychologicly). What good would going to the Rav be?
Again, it seems like a big assumption to me that the “medical” definition (or to be more accurate with what we’re discussing, legislative definition interpreted by medical practitioners) will be stricter than the halachic one, especially when our lawsuit happy society would engender a tendency to err on the side of caution.
What do you support?
Here’s the thing: most abortions in the US are done for economic reasons or due to fear of disruption to life. Crisis pregnancy centers know this, so a big part of what they do is to steer pregnant women towards Federal programs such as Medicaid and WIC, offer counseling, and assistance with adoption if desired.
This will blow gaskets among the Republicans here, but to really reduce the number of abortions, we need more programs geared towards helping pregnant women and new mothers. For starters, insurance should cover prenatal care, birth, postpartum care, and a year of infant care 100%. To lower costs, low-risk pregnancies should be handled by midwives outside of a hospital setting. Paid family leave for the birth of a child should be mandated. University health centers should provide prenatal care. And there should be benefits for businesses that provide family friendly benefits such as flexible schedules, sick leave, teleworking, etc. Cultural changes are also needed, though this cannot be mandated. Babies are blessings, not burdens, and this message should be reinforced.
If my taxes go up so that abortions become exceedingly rare, then I’m happy to pay.
ubiquitin,
Avram
the problem is who decides what constitutes danger to life of the mother? Especially regarding “psychological factors”?
in this post http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/why-are-republicans-pro-life#post-579129
I offer some choices to the question. Feel free to pick. (Joseph claims he answered but I cnat find where)
Two options you do not suggest would seem to be the most reasonable for such legislation: the individual physician or an appointed team of medical experts who can assess each case individually. Consulting a knowledgeable rav is something Jews should do regardless of civil legislation, and I am sure that if needed, the rav would himself consult with medical experts.
I am aware that in reality, such a setup would be extremely complex, potentially inconsistent, and fraught with conflicts of interest and values. For those reasons, I think it is unlikely for such legislation to be enacted into law. I therefore tend to agree that given the current culture, outright bans are not the best way to reduce the numbers of abortions in the US at this point. However, this does not mean I support the status quo!
Because my number one priority is frum people.
What about non-frum Jews?
So a frum personj by definition will not get an abortion stam azoy.
I wish this were true. But previous discussions in this forum have made me fear otherwise.
As for the general public that is veryvery low on my prioritiy list.
I’m surprised that the wrath of charliehall has not yet fallen on your head for this comment 🙂
ubiquitin,
Whose position on abortion if turned into law is more compatible with you view, and how you would like the law in the country to be: Candidate A who favors abortion on demand or candidate B who would ban ALL abortions (and yes there are candidates who take these view, whether they “take a lot of heat” is irrelevant)?
…
If you are saying that the halachicly sanctioned cases do not exist, or that they can be worked into a viable constitutionally sound legal system. On either of those points you are simply wrong and there is no room for differing iopinions
You are making an argument here using a false dilemma fallacy. Your “valid” positions are:
1. Ban all abortions without exception (you declare this position “valid” in your mind, but disagree with it)
2. Allow all abortions
Joseph presents a 3rd option:
3. Ban abortions with exceptions for the life of the mother, including psychological factors
You reject this 3rd option as invalid because its exceptions would perhaps not be consistent with halachic exceptions. However, options 1 and 2 are also not consistent with halacha, so what makes option 3 worse than 1 in your mind? To play your game, if you were forced to choose between options 1 and 3, which would you choose?
Also, given U.S. viewpoints, the Catholic bogeymen and Scott Walker are red herrings. Option 1 could never pass Congress, and supporters of option 1 would line up behind option 3, since it’s better than option 2 to them.
Sam2,
So acknowledging that reality, I realize that it is disgustingly Chutzpah-dik to wear a hat into some DL shuls. They don’t feel he’s better than them. They feel that he holds himself as better than them because he wears a hat.
I do not have experience with these conflicts that you are describing, but your conclusion here does not make sense to me. If a person goes into a shul to daven, then it follows that he considers it advantageous to “package” his tefillos with those of the mispallelim there, and that they are kosher for a minyan. Therefore, it would seem to me to be the opposite of disrespect for a chareidi to take his hat and jacket into a DL shul to daven.
sushibagel,
The purpose of not eating meat during the nine days, which is to remember the churban beis hamikdash, so to that into a benefit isn’t quite right.
I think the fleishig restaurants’ “9-Days Menus” are intended to be an avoidance of loss, not a benefit. These are very different things.
WolfishMusings,
I absolutely agree with everything you wrote regarding talking during davening. However, why make the juxtaposition with hats and jackets?
ubiquitin,
Why are you labeling the song as a mashal? It seems more like a metaphor.
ubiquitin,
While this makes sense for life (the nimshal) the mashal doesnt make sense what kind of train cant you hide from?
Just as we were born and live against our will, in the context of this song, I assume the rider is going to take a ride against his will.
“you try to check your ticket but dont know what it means will you ride on velvet and dine on fine cusine or is a place to sit upon a worn out wooden seat with a slice of old and crusty bread your only food to eat.”
Again while an apt description of life (the nimshal) I have never heard of a train with randomly assigned seats and tickets that are indecipherable, have you? Again the mashal doesnt make sense.
It would make sense if someone handed him a ticket rather than purchasing it himself.
Real Jews run Fedora [ducking to avoid the rotten tomatoes] 🙂
old man,
I see that we can finally put to rest the idea that one must “dress his best” for every davening.
I’m not sure that anyone here was arguing for dressing one’s “best” for weekday davening. I think there is a difference between dressing one’s best and simply dressing up.
Therefore, the yeshivish way is only one of many ways to dress for davening, and the insistence on it is socially driven and nothing more.
Regarding specifically black hats and black jackets, I agree with you completely. Some do hold, however, that a jacket and hat are required for davening (and others do not). As gavra_at_work has been pointing out, even this requirement does not stipulate a specific hat and jacket, so what constitutes a respectable hat and jacket again goes to the culture of the community, but this is a somewhat different concept from the cultural “uniform” described above.
And yet, I have been the tenth man in a yeshivish mincha minyan (not in a yeshiva) more than once and watched them wait until another person dressed like them showed up before starting. But we have ten! Sorry, only nine.
This sounds like a horrible experience. I am sorry.
For the record, I wear long pants,a buttoned down shirt, and shoes.
And a kippa or some other type of head covering too, I presume?
gavra_at_work,
So as not to make the same mistake, what type of hat (and jacket) do you mean?
In my neighborhood, a cat-in-the-hat style hat, and a plaid jacket with a water squirting flower on the outside pocket. On Shabbos, same thing, but lose the flower. There is a growing subculture that favors big, yellow hats like Curious George’s friend wears. Other communities might be different.
DaasYochid,
We grow our own rabbits.
old man,
Virtually no one is careful about a clean and properly shaped hat, jacket and matching (clean) pants.
Ok, so what makes matching pants any more reasonable in the definition of dressing nicely for davening than a hat and jacket?
gavra_at_work,
So after all that misunderstanding that y’all agree that a skicap, football helmet, or baseball cap is sufficient
Not quite.
1. There is a concept in halacha of dressing nicely for davening.
2. In some communities, a hat and jacket are considered part of the requirement for dressing nicely for davening.
3. This does not mean that every hat and every jacket fulfill 1. As old man has repeatedly pointed out, a nice hat and jacket that are dirty do not fulfill 1. I would think that extremely casual or strange hats might also fail to fulfill 1.
RebYidd23,
Spiders don’t seek human blood. They don’t bite you if you don’t bother them.
Tell that to the one that bit me while I slept!
I only trust the hats that my wife makes.
hakohen53,
Until JFK decided to appear at his inauguration without a hat, that was what everyone wore.
I have heard this before, but I don’t think JFK had anything to do with US clothing styles moving away from hats. I don’t know the reason, but if I were to guess, I would say it had to do with cars becoming ubiquitous.
DaMoshe,
little froggie, my response was to a post by old man saying a BLACK hat might be the only respectful way of dressing. He didn’t say any hat, he said a BLACK hat.
I think you can relax about old man’s position. As he stated in his first post, he is in favor of this alleged trend to stop wearing hats. His statement about black hats was a polemical assessment of what he perceived to be his opponents’ position.
If you read through the thread carefully, the OP, hakohen53, and Little Froggie did not write anything about colors or styles.
gavra_at_work,
I’m bringing up a Fedora because of the claim that it is the “Mesorah” to wear one, over other types of hats that Jews wore over the ages (yes, including those that the Goyim made us wear).
Maybe hakohen53’s post was edited before I read it, but I did not see where he claimed that there was a mesora for wearing a fedora, or any specific style or color. He just said a hat. The first mention of a fedora in this thread that I read was DaMoshe’s, and the second was yours.
old man,
If a black hat and dark jacket are respectful, and possibly the only respectful clothing for men, is it also necessary to any extent that these garments be clean?
Absolutely. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that there is no requirement to dress nicely for davening, which would obviously mean dressing cleanly. The argument is a halachic/cultural one over what specific clothing fulfills the requirement.
Some seem to interpret the halacha to dress nicely as meaning whatever the surrounding culture deems formal and nice. Therefore, since hats are largely out of style in the U.S., and a jacket and tie are considered formal (and in some places, it’s ok to even go without the jacket, or the tie!), they believe a hat is not required for davening.
Others seem to interpret the halacha to dress nicely as meaning whatever the surrounding Jewish community deems formal and nice. Therefore, since some communities consider hats and jackets to be formal attire, they believe a hat and jacket are required for davening in that community.
If the parents say they will give it back to the child, then they must do so. I don’t understand why there is any uncertainty about this.
zahavasdad,
The issue isnt bussing, its seperate busing which costs extra because many times the same buses have to do almost the same route at least twice one for the boys and one for the girls.
I would imagine that the impacts of separate busing could be mostly ameliorated by combining grades/schools on routes.
A loosely related question:
Is it possible for an action to be potentially defensible on halachic grounds, yet still immoral?
Sam2 and ubiquitin,
Ok. Thanks again for the discussion.
gavra_at_work,
Just like there is “no taxation without representation”, there should be “no representation without taxation “.
I know you wrote this 3+ years ago, but you do know that property and income taxes are not the only taxes that exist, right? Even poor people pay sales and utility taxes.
Sam2,
Avram: I’m sorry that the Shittah of many Rishonim and Achronim “bothers” you.
I will admit that I do not fully understand the shittos you are referring to or the reasoning that underpins them, but that’s not what bothers me. What bothers me is the use of these shittos to defend the cultural environment in which we find ourselves. I highly doubt that those shittos were intended to kasher the fact that almost 75% of abortions in the U.S. are done because of financial concerns or concerns about disruptions to life/career/etc.
Sam2,
Hence, it’s just Nezek to abort.
What really bothers me in this sentence is the word “just.”
ubiquitin,
IT is like her foot
I am saying that abortion in society’s view (which is not immoral or unreasonable)
These words are saddening to me.
Everyone,
I really appreciate this discussion, but have to confess that it’s rapidly going beyond my realm of knowledge (if it hasn’t already since the beginning of the thread). I would also like to mention at this point that I didn’t articulate what bothered me in my original story very well.
No, I do not think it is ok to perform tests that wouldn’t change the prenatal care or actions at birth, but are intended solely to determine whether the baby was wanted or not. But upon reflection, we’ve had other care providers offer the same testing, with no mention of abortion whatsoever. And we’ve just said no thank you, and I didn’t feel bothered. More so, it was the ease and quickness in which abortion was mentioned, like it was no big deal, and what any “sane” person would surely want to do. It was, as I mentioned above, the cultural mindset that bothered me.
So the point is taken that I can probably be more open minded about the morality of abortion for potential problems (though I’m extremely uncomfortable with the idea on an intellectual and emotional level), but I still think the doctor’s benevolent intentions were coming from a very wrong place.
ubiquitin,
But I was always under the impression that purposly being chovel oneself for no reason is against Halacha . I dont see where Sam2 said any different, all I see is that it is not immoral. but may still be against halacha (As to whether the 2 are synonyms, is the discussion on another thread).
Halacha informing the morality of an event – regardless of the intentions of the event’s initiator – is the linchpin of his debate with me. E.g.,
[Sam2:] And the Halachic Tzdadim are important. Again, they might not prove the doctor’s intentions, but they should have strong bearing on the relative morality of the case.
gavra_at_work,
Can you define a “shor” rodef vs. an “adam” rodef?
Thanks!
ubiquitin,
Please note you havent answered my question Here it is again:
“why only after head comes out do we say “ain dochin nefesh” why wasnt the fetus a nefesh before head coming out?
What changed? “
Sorry, I thought that you had assumed in your question that since we don’t say ain dochin nefesh before the head emerges, then the infant is not a nefesh. I challenged that assumption as an answer to your question. To directly answer it, what changed is the baby’s viability. Once the head emerges, the infant can breathe on his/her own, whereas before that time, if the mother died, the infant most likely would too.
Yes because we are note allowed to dammage a body just for nothing. If a person is inconvenieced by his leg, he cant remove it.
Well, I’ll let you debate that with Sam2, because he does not hold that way. If I wanted to chop off one of my arms because I preferred having one instead of two, according to him I’m stupid but doing nothing immoral (i.e., against halacha).
Based on his argument thus far, I don’t think there can be any abortion whatsoever that can be challenged on halachic grounds, even up to full term (except perhaps for dina malchusa dina in states where late term abortion is prohibited).
there are many such shitas! For example say the mother’s life is endangered because of cancer nothing to do with the fetus. Delaying treatment would endager her life, but innitiating treatment would abort the fetus. Can the fetus be aborted, when it isnt being “rodef” the mother?
There are shitas (not all) that say yes.
Do the allowing opinions state explicity that the fetus is not a rodef in this case? It would seem to me that it could be, and perhaps that’s the reason for permitting the abortion.
bottom line is many shitas hold life begins at birth. Consider the fact that killing a fetus only results in finacial compensation to father, A pregnant woman is killed if chayiv misah even if her fetus is due today.
This argument does not convince me. If someone kills a neonate who is less than a day old (born at full term), or a premature baby younger than 30 days, the killer is not executed either (Rambam, Rotzeach u’Shimiras Nefesh 2:6). The reason is the viability of the newborn, not his/her personhood.
THis doe snot mean abortion on demand is halachicly sanctioned much as amputation on demand isnt halachicly sanctioned.
Our reasoning is quite different, but the conclusions perhaps not so much. Can we agree that the secular pro-choice “Abortion on Demand!” position is immoral?
Sam2,
Pshat in the Rambam is the exact opposite. The whole point is that a baby can never be a Rodef during labor because that’s Tivo Shel Olam and Ain Dochin Nefesh Bifnei Nefesh. Thus, before Hotzi Rosho, the fetus isn’t a Nefesh.
That is not necessarily so. The Rambam does not state that a partially born baby is no longer a rodef. How could it not be, the mother is still in danger! It makes even more sense to me that when the baby is partially born, the mother herself can attain the status of rodef with respect to the baby – and in this case where they are pursuing each other, we cannot choose one over the other.
Also, I am enjoying the discussion of these points, but I don’t feel that they are fundamentally relevant to my point, unless you can tell me that there is a valid halachic opinion today that holds we can abort a fetus when the fetus is not at all a rodef (and yes, I understand that there are opinions that set the bar for rodef with respect to a fetus lower than others). Because that’s what the pro-choice camp holds.
ubiquitin,
why only after head comes out do we say “ain dochin nefesh” why wasnt the fetus a nefesh before head coming out?
What changed?
The halacha does not state that the reason we can kill a fetus when the mother is endangered is because it is not a nefesh. Rather, it is a rodef. Once partial birth has commenced, perhaps we say ain dochin nefesh because the mother and infant are now both considered to be pursuing the other, and thus we cannot put more value on one than the other.
gavra_at_work,
Interesting theory and not implausible. I would expect there to be a source in Rishonim or Achronim as such (Rodef = person), and invite the Olam to help out with finding such a source.
I think in this case context is a better guide than a concordance. These halachos don’t happen in a vacuum, and all of the surrounding halachos are talking about human rodfim. If the fetus did not have at least some aspect of personhood, why would we need it to have the status of rodef at all?
gavra_at_work and Sam2,
As gavra_at_work mentioned earlier, here is the Rambam in Hilchos Rotzeach u’Shmiras Nefesh (1:9):
?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????. ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????
1. The fact that the fetus can have the status of a rodef at all implies that it does have an aspect of personhood, if not perchance full status (e.g., in cases such as the halachos gavra_at_work quoted from Chovel u’Mazik, although perhaps it’s possible that the reason is that we’re not sure whether the baby will have been born viable at all?).
2. It would also seem to follow that if the fetus did not have the status of a rodef, it would be forbidden to kill it. I don’t think this point is disputed by any opinion.
3. As noted above in halacha 7, if it is possible to not kill the rodef to save the pursued, one should employ those means. Current medical technology makes this much more feasible than in previous centuries.
Sam2,
But I would never call it immoral to believe one can self-inflict pain. Stupid, but not immoral.
What would you call someone who stands aside while another hurts him/herself and does nothing?
Sam2,
Because we have other concerns like Chavalah.
What is Chavalah?
gavra_at_work,
I thought the argument against person-hood of a fetus was from the Din of Rodef, that we don’t say “Mai Chaziz” about the fetus and it’s mother at any stage, even though we would say it once “Hotze Rosho”.
That was my understanding as well.
The point I’m trying to make is that the secular threshold for abortion (if there is a threshold at all) is not a din of rodef. Therefore, I don’t think we should be using the halachic argument regarding fetal status with respect to the mother as a cover for the secular/pro-choice position. There may be overlap in some instances of real-world application, I grant that, but they are originating from two entirely different moral frameworks, so from that perspective I believe the overlap is coincidental.
It’s only bitul Torah if you’re the one in the accelerating spaceship, because when you return the ones learning on Earth would have had much more time to learn than you did since you left…
Sam2,
Avram in MD: As far as I know, very few states allow late-term abortion. It’s second trimester or earlier.
And the pro-choice lobby hates that to pieces.
Up until now you have been trying to get me to accept the validity of the pro-choice position via a halachic shitta that defines “personhood” at birth. So what is the purpose of the above statement in your argument?
And there are Poskim who are pretty Meikil about terminating a pregnancy. Not carte blanche, no. But there are Poskim who will allow it for relatively minor reasons.
I have a strong feeling that there are some important details omitted from that statement.
And the Halachic Tzdadim are important. Again, they might not prove the doctor’s intentions, but they should have strong bearing on the relative morality of the case.
Using the traffic light example from above again, if a person who believes they can run a red light whenever happens to run a red light on his way to the ER, the fact that his action is consistent with the shitta of Rav B is coincidental. It doesn’t magically turn his overall position on traffic lights into a defensible one.