I went back to look
It’s there
It’s an innocuous looking check box above the signature line.

Not even people who feel entitled to call others idiots without explanation and then hide behind their comfort level.”

Umm, that was 2 separate people.
Really?
”Oh. My. Gosh. This has got to be *the* most ignorant, incorrectand uninformed comment yet. ”
Written by you to me.
point #2 – I don’t want to have a back and forth with you.”
Sorry. I just don’t like your style and I am pretty sure I am entitled to engage per my comfort level
Written by you to me

You may want to spend some time discussing your split personality disorder with your group therapy rather than discussing some nameless posters opinion from the ywn coffee room.

“ maybe you just should refrain from commenting, at least on authors whom you don’t want to engage with”

Cute. I’m not sure what life is like for you in the 3D world but you don’t get that level of control over other people In here.

That’s absolutely correct (see! on point response, targeted to your statement)
However you are the one who wrote
I just don’t like your style and I am pretty sure I am entitled to engage per my comfort level.
I was just commenting if you only want to engage on your comfort level it would probably make sense to not engage someone who is beyond your comfort level.
See that? Another response that is on target and responding directly to your comment after trying to understand it.

I will grant you that my tone is snooty.
It’s very simple.
If I have a discussion of ideas, I try to keep my tone neutral. But as soon as it’s not a discussion but rather someone just calling me an idiot, well then it’s a different type of conversation.
I have no issue engaging in whatever style conversation the other person wants.
So if you want to have a conversation where the only thing is can you out snot the other side, I’m game for that too. It’s nothing personal.
Have a great shabbos

The only support I will bring for this is the fact that I quoted ONE sentence, and you start listing ALL the points you made in the previous posts and problems I MAY have been alluding to. Why not just hear what I said and think about it?
maybe because contrary to what you said
“are not concerned with whether or not you heard their point,”
i was actually trying to lock down your point of disagreement
since you have difficulty expressing it i was trying to help you out. sorry

I don’t have to bring it to anyone, we all were together when we read it.
who is we and what did “we” say?

so i went back
you believe that one day of emotional abuse is enough to be damaging for life and requires immediate intervention?
really?
so if you saw a parent shouting at their kid in a supermarket, you’d call child protective services?
i mean if 1 day is enough, why stop there, maybe 1 incident?

I do believe that some statements really are so wrong that it doesn’t need to be explained.

as a poster (me) so succinctly posted on a different thread,
they may not have to, but they have to be able to be.
if you cant explain it when challenged, then you probably shot from the hip and really have no basis for what you said

Jackk,
Question for you.
Which ”political rival ” did trump demand an investigation of?

You חברה are barking up the wrong tree here.
I personally know a specific case where a prominent rav told a pregnant teenager to abort. Granted it was around the empty day mark. But In dealing with that one specific instance I learned that unfortunately this is way more common than we would like it to be.
And I don’t usually deal with these issues.
So your not going to make any points by questioning the generality of abortion taking place in our communities with heterim.
It’s the idea that abortion wherever, whenever, for whatever reason, is more in line with Torah View, than , strict only in life threatened cases ,allowed, that doesn’t sit well with me.
Neither match. One allows murder. The other outlaws what should be permitted.
I believe דינים allows them to be more מחמיר than the Torah. Not more lenient.
Ubiq seems to disagree

Ubiq
I’m betting zero

True the president has some effect on the morals of our country
But Hollywood has much more effect.
Whew you have a democrat party that will demonize the president before he says or does anything, shame has been lost, honesty has been lost
When you have a film industry that glorifies murder mayhem and debauchery, society has been lost. The president is but a tiny part in the moral fabric of society when compare to those titans.
On the other hand the president sets actual policy for the country. Over there the president has out sized influence.
So when I need to chose a president if my choices are
Bad morals but good policy Vs good morals but bad policy,
Good policy wins hands down.
All the more so that my choice really is bad morals with good policy vs bad morals bad policy.
I mean who am I going to choose?
Someone who is openly what the Torah calls an abomination?
Someone who doesn’t believe in personal property rights?
Someone who wants to legislate every move anyone makes? An old bumbling, perhaps, has been?
A shrill lying attention seeker who doesn’t believe in personal property rights either
Or klobuchar who I know zero about?

Ubiq I’ll grant you this.
If your rendition is correct, I agree with your contention that this is no big deal

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

and someone helpfully supplied the source.”
no nobody did. The source supplied id not at all refer to infaticide
Yes actually it did. You misread it at the time, based on you comment after but I dido bother to correct you.
It said, they would resuscitate the child, and then allow the parents time to decide whether to kill it or not.
In other words, give the parents the option to kill a live baby who was born a short while ago.
As per the article, time frame not established.
That’s murder. Pure and simple. Of an infant.
Or in a single word, infanticide.
It’s what I was referring to, it’s documented, and it’s on the wish list of the more radical fringe of the democrat party, which if history is any guide, means In a few years it will be mainstream democrat party platform.
Democrats the party of murder and infanticide. It’s what I said, it’s what I meant ,and I still stand by it. All I said no the other thread is that if your getting sidetracked from my main point there, then remove infanticide from the discussion, as it’s unnecessary for my point.
I never backed off, I never changed my mind,

No. Not really
But either way, I didn’t back off my contention that they support infanticide, and someone helpfully supplied the source.
All I clarified, is that it was necessary for my point.

Your point, while at least now I know perhaps what you are trying to say, is a difficult one to understand.

We have the Torah which allows abortion in limited cases. (irrelevant what they are)
The democrat party which allows abortion on demand, certainly including cases where the Torah does not allow, and see the Rambam I brought before, a גוי חייב מיתה for preforming an abortion not allowed by the Torah
The republican party which according to you (I won’t quibble on that, I’ll grant it blindly) only allows abortion in cases of danger to the mothers life. Something which obviously the Torah allows, but outlawing many cases that the Torah allows.
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.
However they clearly are not allowed to create laws that violate the Torah meaning the 7 מצוות one of which is murder. Which according to the Rambam I brought, unlawful abortion is.
So no. A Torah abiding Jew cannot support the democrat position on abortion

משנה תורה, הלכות מלכים ומלחמות ט׳:ד׳
(ד) בן נח שהרג נפש אפילו עובר במעי אמו נהרג עליו וכן אם הרג טריפה או שכפתו ונתנו לפי ארי או שהניחו ברעב עד שמת הואיל והמית מכל מקום נהרג וכן אם הרג רודף שיכול להצילו באחד מאיבריו נהרג עליו מה שאין כן בישראל.

you exaggerated and didn’t mean what you said?
im to lazy to scroll back through my comments
care to pinpoint what you mean?

Evidence that what?
THAT YOU HAVE NO clue what the discussion is about

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

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?

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.

So let me get this clear because you like when I get things right.
You were not adding to the totality of the conversation.
Rather you were commenting on a specific line or Phrase used during the conversation without regard to what it meant in the context of the greater conversation.
Correct?
Fair enough.

Question, all those times you told me that you were not the one unable to follow the context of the conversation, I was.
Being as your comment was totally out of context, according to your current position, what was the point of stating I could not follow?
In what way could one have seen that your powerful intellect is capable of following a conversation?

As an aside, the Chafetz Chaim discusses the danger of taking things out of context. He says one can come to say that the Torah enjoins up to worship idols. For does it not say ועבדתם אלהים אחרים ?

Syag
Thanks for the help, even more thanks that now I see others are reading the posts.
Much appreciated

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

First of all, I don’t think I have a monopoly on it, but again context!!!! Had you understood what I meant you could never have responded 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.”
Because that makes no sense!

I’m talking about me being boring and you respond that you explain your positions clearly???
Who is talking about you and how you respond??
I’m apologizing for being boring and you interject no! Someone else is not boring??

Secondly make up your mind

”It requires nothing of the sort . ”
”Don’t worry its both of us. ”

Which of these answers is correct?
They are opposites of each other. You gave both to the same statement.
Do you even read what you write?

So ubiq and Anil
I provided you with a source for my contentions. True I didn’t know it when I stated it and was even willing to grant that it doesn’t happen. But it seems like it does.
Sorry if I used prom gown. Seems I should have said wedding gown. Hope that doesn’t change the argument too much

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

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!

Ubiq
It’s what I’ve been saying all along

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.