Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ubiq I’m the one who used the term infanticide
I meant it as the extreme result of the dens sick love of a woman’s ”’right to choose ”’
It was never the totality of this conversation it is not even a necessary part of it
Want me to rephrase. No problem
Trump is a pleasure loving flawed human being who publicly espouses and actually serves policies that are in somewhat in line with an upstanding proper and moral lifestyle, though he himself may not live that way
Versus the democrat party which actively pushes animmoral and depraved lifestyle of murder (abortion) and depravity (lbgtqrpnvx) aka gay ”lifestyle ”
I think as a Jew the choice is quite clear
Trump.Better now?
Gun control – anti, more school shootings please
RIGHT. CAUSE IN THE CHURCH IN TEXAS LESS PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED HAD THE OFFICER NOT HAD A GUN DUE TO GUN CONTROL.War- love it the more the better RIGHT THAT’S WHY TRUMP JUST GOT ROASTED BY DEMOCRATS FOR PULLING TROOPS OUT OF SOME COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
(Health)OBAMAcare -no thanks, more sick people please
Death penalty – well it doesnt deter crime, and hey at least we get a dead guy whats zicher is zicher WHAT ABOUT JAIL AND FINES. DO THEY DETER CRIME?
Welfare -no thank you let em starve VS LET’S TAKE AWAY THE MONEY FROM THOSE WHO WORK FOR IT TO GIVE IT TO THOSE WHO DON’T. INCENTIVISING PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES
Abortion – well if we ban it maybe more mother wil die in back alley abortion, OR MAYBE THEY WILL TAKE MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACEand hey it may have led to crime redcusion n o thank you. More crime please lets cynically pretend we care about the life of the fetusSO YOUR SAYING ABORTIONS LOWER CRIME?Death penalty – well it doesnt deter crime,
One of my all time favorite arguments.
Does prison time deter crime?
Do fines deter crime?Rm
A huge thanks. That’s exactly what I was referring to. Thank you for saving me the trouble to look it up.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?
****how about work it the other way. Why takeh do we kill her while pregnant and not wait for her to have the baby first. I think the Gemmara decks with this issue. I don’t remember clearly it’s been a while. Possibly we say since the child was inside her, the child sinned too, possibly there is another answer given. Point is it’s dealt with and its a serious issue. But it’s not that it’s no big deal because it’s not a life anyway.
If I’m not mistaken a non Jew is חייב מיתה for preforming an abortion, because it’s murder. ******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?
Possibly. It is just a question so you can call it what you want.
It was sarcastic anyway.Then we have this gem
”I did no mean to imply that ALL abortions are allowed. I took it for granted that everybody here knew that, and I’m sorry if that was unclear.”So you are on record that an abortion done just so I can fit into my prom dress would not be OK.
Very good. So let’s ask you the question that Josef asked Reb Eliezer that you somehow missed.
The democrat party clearly supports even those abortions which you have now gone on record as Agreeing are not allowed. By Torah law.
So how can you support voting for democrats??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 rulesRashi Sanhedrin 72 b says דכל זמן שלא יצא לאויר העולם לאו נפש הוא וניתן להורגו ולהציל את אמו אבל יצא ראשו אין נוגעים בו להורגו דהוה ליה כילוד
Before a baby is born (most of it or most of its head) its not a nefesh, after birth it is.So can I just make an abortion for no reason? Consensual?
Or perhaps just maybe it means, it’s not a separate soul as it requires its mother to keep it alive so if it is endangering the mother you can kill it, for it is really killing itself anyway?
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.
who would you have define “necessity”
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’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.)I’m stretching my mind trying to make this connection, youve lost me you are going t have to walk me through this leap slowly. When the Gemara says we execute a pregnant woman who is chayiv misah. Does that mean we also kill her children if she is chayiv misah?
No.
The Gemmara is not pro abortion, so it wouldn’t follow.
That was a contention that only works if you are pro abortion.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.Not sure why I can’t kill the guy … it’s just an abortion.”
Its not. (and you say I’m confused? why can’t you defend your position without saying things that arent true? )So explain the difference between killing
A fully healthy fetus a week before its due date
A newborn
A fifty year old personMaybe then I’ll be able to understand some of your posts.
Nope. I was replying to Joseph’s question not yours
Right, Josefs question to a participant of a conversation of which I was part of.
True I had not responded to that interjection. But that’s not the start of a new conversation. Nor was it meant to change the conversation topic. Which is usually based on the op which you just agreed is more in line with what I’m claiming not your rendition.
So yes I was part of this conversation before you.Wow.
Tons to plod through
Basically you are willfully Mischaracterizing the conversation.
It’s about (based on the op) the evils of the democrat party line.
Their position is all abortion is a woman’s right.
Not halaachicly sanctioned abortion
When r Eliezer expresses support for their position, that’s what he is supporting.
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. That’s what r Eliezer said nobody does. (Thoth in not sure how he knows that, and that is legal and protected too, so it’s really part of the conversation anyway)
Abortion for necessity in the context of this thread means that there is a rational for it
Even as I mentioned that I should fit into my prom dress
Remember this thread is not about halachik abortion it’s about democrats position on abortion rights.
(according to you, r Eliezer dropped in an oblique reference to halachik abortion in middle of a conversation about the democrats position on abortion and he did it in code so only you would understand the reference)This is a perfect illustration of why we don’t rely on our own mind to decide which sin is worse.
Here we have a usually bright cogent rational person, on two separate threads, misunderstanding the same blatant and obvious point of the conversation.
Is it them a wonder that when we want a moral judgement, we check our own ideas at the door and look at what the Torah tells us?Ubiq
Your a real outliner aren’t you,
On the other thread here (what happens if you vote democrat) you are only willing to discuss abortion in cases of severe circumstances
Now your claiming only to discuss post birth abortion.
No. You are wrong on both counts.
The discussion centers on the democrats position that abortion is a woman’s right to choose, for any reason she wants.
Meaning she has a right to terminate a regular, healthy, full term even (not that that really is different than six months let’s say) , pregnancy, on a. Whim. Just because she is not in the mood to have the baby. We are pointing out the moral depravity of a party that champions the right to such depravity.Post birth abortion, while not legal yet, (it means that a mother has the right to kill her baby for a short while after the birth as well, an as yet undetermined amount of time, for what is really the difference between killing the baby when it’s inside her or killing it twenty minutes later when it’s outside her, a position who’s lomdus happens to be totally correct. Just reversed.)
It was brought in to show how depraved the democrat leadership is, for these are those who have publicly con out in support of it.
But it is not the main thrust of the argument, nor is it even a necessary component. It’s just a side point.
The quotes are brought to show what the top candidates in the current presidential election hold in regards to the overall idea of abortion.
Ubiq
You seem a bit confused here so let me give you the relevant posts in chronological order as listed here. (you can always go back and check to make sure I’m not leaving out anything important or misrepresenting.Op.
You are voting for a party that is actively advocating for abortion and tuvya marriages. There is no sugar coating the fact that you are the Hellenist b’zman ha’zeh…
(note, no mention of abortion in extenuating circumstances. Not opening a discussion on the possibility of abortion in Jewish law. Rather a condemnation on voting democrat, specifically due to two of the parties platforms. One of which is abortion rights)
I am the twelfth commenter on this thread. You are the twenty first. I’m not sure which number system has twenty one before twelve, but I never learned that one, so I would consider that you came into this conversation after me.
Then came this
As a response to a comment from r Eliezer
50,000,000 slaughtered babies is far less moral
The stupid policies of CLinton caused the mortgage crisis 10 years ago.
The Republicans prefer school choice.To which r Eliezer responded
February 19, 2020 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm#1833327REPLY
Reb EliezerParticipant
You are fooling yourself when it comes to abortion. No one does abortion for the sake of it. The rich will travel wherever it is allowed and the poor will endanger themselves.To which Josef responded
Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support abortion being legal.
Which engendered your comment that r Eliezers they is in line with the Torah, whereupon I asked where exactly do you have a basis for such an outlandish claim.
Follow it through
Op says democrats are awful because they glorify the right for abortions (which is clearly referring to all abortions not just fetal reduction ET Al)
R E says republicans are worse because they don’t care about anybodyTo which mdg says 50,000 abortions (that’s fetal reductions?? 50,000?)are worse than whatever r e is claiming about
republicansUpon which Josef expressed surprise that r e would support legalizing abortions (clearly, follow along now, the abortions we’ve been discussing, meaning ALL abortions including the majority of them which are just convenience)
To which you said it’s the Torah view
And that’s where I challenged you to provide a source.The abortion part of this thread clearly was discussing immoral abortion on demand, when you came barreling in claiming that’s the Torah position.
If anyone changed the conversation it was you.The democrat party feels these are a woman’s right. And to stop her is anti woman.”
Ok so?So, so the democrat party is a party that supports and glorifies murder. That’s all. Not a big deal. Not sure why I can’t kill the guy who smashed an old yid with a huge brick, in crown heights, a few months back. I mean it’s just an abortion.
Oh maybe because the same party that supports a woman’s right to not deal with the fallout of her promiscuity,by killing her innocent unborn baby, also supports the rights of all criminals to end the life of all innocents.
Keep voting for these guys. Cause they give food stamps Reb Eliezer. Real Tzadiks.You can also Google it just type a name and abortion position.
It’s not hard to findBloomberg criticized abortion-rights supporters who support abortion-rights opponents in elections, saying that supporters must “exercise vigilance” so that lawmakers do not “try to nuance themselves away from that commitment in the interest of political expediency.” Some analysts say Bloomberg’s comments signal a condemnation of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other abortion-rights supporters who are supporting candidates who oppose abortion rights. Schumer heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which recruited Bob Casey (D) as the only way to beat Sen. Rick Santorum (R) because Pennsylvania voters are split on the issue of abortion. Casey opposes abortion rights with exceptions for cases involving rape or incest or to save the life of the woman and supports family planning programs. Bloomberg said, “Reproductive choice is a fundamental human right, and we can never take it for granted,” adding, “On this issue, you’re either with us or against us.”
Source: Website MedicalNewsToday.com , May 2, 2006“I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.
Believes abortion is between a woman and her doctor.
Klobuchar views abortion as a decision between a woman and her doctor.
In 2006, Klobuchar said that “we need to start talking about common ground, and about reducing the number of abortions–making them safe and making them rare.”
Klobuchar co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act. The legislation prohibits states from setting restrictions on abortion.It is, however, significant that a centrist Democrat like Biden has now come out against Hyde. That shows that calling for a repeal of the amendment has become a mainstream position in the Democratic Party, something that was hard to imagine even five years ago. ”vox” (whatever that website is)
The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, bans federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the pregnant patient. The exceptions for rape and incest were added in 1993, when Bill Clinton was president.
Ubiq
”Oh definitely not. Its very much not ok”
THANK YOU!!
This is what we are talking about
This is what the democrat party demands you glorify.
This is why I and others here call them murderers.
Thank you.
I’m not interested in exceptional cases .
The point is they don’t just allow exceptional cases.
They want total approval for abortion on demand with no limitsUbiq are you ‘collecting exceptions ”again?
THE QUESTION HERE IS ABOUT ABORTION ON DEMAND. not fetal reduction
Not danger to mothers life.
We’re talking
”abortion because being pregnant will not allow me to fit into my prom dress ”
Abortion because I want to go to Cancun in a month and don’t want to deal with morning sickness
Abortion because I don’t like my boyfriend anymore so I don’t want his baby
Abortion because I’m not in the mood of being tied down to a baby and changing diapers.
Does rsza allow these???
ציץ אליעזר? נשמת אברהם? Other פוסקים ?
Yes? Name them
No?
Guess what
The democrat party feels these are a woman’s right. And to stop her is anti woman.
And that’s what we are against here.
I don’t know how many more times I need to write this.
Stop coming back with
Fetal reduction
Mothers life at risk
Unviable fetus
Severely deformed fetus
We know there are those who allow them. Wonderful. You can do all sorts of otherwise איסורים,
במצב של שעת הדחק
THAT’S NOT THE QUESTION HERE!!!!!!Dy
Trump is very far from a bastion of morality. And to answer Joseph before he starts making lomdishe chillukim, Trump proudly admitted to arayos which are included in the sheva mitzvos b’nei Noach.
Really? Which did he admit to?
Touching by a goy ,is not arayos.Wow ubiq hope you didn’t hurt yourself stretching there.
The Torah allows coffee too.
Only thing is that’s not the conversation we are having here.
The conversation is not if abortion is EVER OK. It’s about if abortion is ALWAYS OK.
So far you keep talking about some random times that it’s allowed.
No the Torah does not allow abortions
It allows saving a life.
It allows eating pork to save a life
It allows certain abortions to save a life
It allows fire on shabbos to save a life
So what.
The opposition to the democrat party in this thread is due to the blanket allowance of abortion without cause.
Please respond to thatInfanticide
Killing of infant
Democrat party supports post birth abortion.
Post birth a fetus is called an infant
Besides you know good and well that I meant aborting a full term baby which is legal is basically infanticide.
But if you want to be a stickler, have it your way.
Change it to supports murder.
Killing a fetus in late stage because it’s not in my plans to have it, is murder.
And the democrat party champions the right of every woman to do so unmolested.
You won’t find any mainstream posek who says that killing a fetus in the ninth month because the mother is not interested in having a baby, is OK.
You will find all kinds of talk in various outliner cases
That’s not the discussion and you know it. The discussion is quite simple
If a woman eight months pregnant reader she doesn’t want the fetus just because she is not in the mood to deal with having a baby. can she kill it?
The democrat party says it’s her God given right
I say that’s murder
I’m wrong?
Show me the source
Don’t jump on my phraseology
Don’t show me scenariosUbiq
Mishna Ohalos 7:7
There are only 6 mishnayos in that perek.
But OK
The sixth one says
והָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מַקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, מְחַתְּכִין {יח} אֶת הַוָּלָד בְּמֵעֶיהָ וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ אֵבָּרִים אֵבָרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחַיֶּיהָ קוֹדְמִין לְחַיָּיו. יָצָא רֻבּוֹ, אֵין נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ, שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין נֶפֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי נָפֶשׁ:
In other words
When the fetus is still inside and the mothers life is threatened you can kill the fetus
Once the fetus is mostly out aka partial birth abortion and certainly post birth abortion, you must let the mother die for we don’t push aside one life for another.So not sure how this is germane. Any honest poster here knows we are discussing abortions of convinience .
It’s telling that you have to resort to underhanded sleigh of word to back your position here. You usually are much more honest in your postingsUbiq
Though who supports “infanticide” ?
Anyone who supports abortion except in cases of danger to someone’s life.
Duh!
Have you been smoking legal damnocrat weed lately?
You feel better if we call it fetalcide?
Once it’s a viable fetus forty days after conception, by all accounts, it’s murder to ”terminate ”
And you know that.
Not sure what your game is, but I fell straight into your trap, so you can spring the clincher on me. I’m ready.Ubiq
Where is it permitted in Torah sources please?Ubiq I think you side stepped his point.
Trump for all his many failings does not ADVOCATE living his lifestyle.
Sure he enjoys it and flaunts it. But he doesn’t claim ”it’s the proper way to live ”he just says I’m trump so I can do whatever I want. And get away with it.
You know what ”get away with it”means?
It means ”sure I know it’s wrong, but I enjoy it and nobody can stop me so I’m going to do it anyway ”
As opposed to
”if you don’t support gay marriage you are a closed minded evil discriminatory person.
If you don’t support infanticide, you are anti women and a misogynist. ”Both are statements that this is the correct way to live.
I can support a candidate who joys he is a pleasure glutton even though it’s wrong for him.
I can’t support someone who makes the worst activities into a ”positive lifestyle ”Sam Hashem decides it all anyway except יראת שמים.
So who cares where you send your kidMdg,
Perfect.
Most posters here seem to have a hard time with that conceptThe fountain dispenser doesn’t have a filter?
CT for a lawyer obsessed with technical accuracy this last post was misleading at best and probably faulty as well.
Noahide laws?
Outlaw abortion (it’s called murder)
Outlaw gay activity (arayos)
So yes as a practising Jew you should do all you can to make sure the secular government doesn’t transgress these two.Your statement that the Supreme Court that legalized abortion was ”under a republican president ” is total obfuscation.
That’s like saying the car accident took place under johns window.
Presidents can’t remove (or change) justices. And you know that good and well. They can only fill vacancies. So the question is who appointed the justices that ultimately legalized murder and debauchery.
Not in which presidential calendar cycle did it take place.
Some of us are not so easily fooled by barrages of well made sentences. (aka we are republicans not damnocrats)Little froggie
Yes
Is that the guy who banned all sorts of creature comforts because they are bad for the environment but then left his limos running all day so they would be cool when he steps into it?
Yes
Mr know it allAs I’ve been saying all along the man can pardon who he wants when he wants without any limits so stop getting bent out of shape when he helps his friends to get off
Totally true
And therefore??Reb you.win.
Lots of words. Looks smart and sharp. I have no idea what your point isבשביל שזה געל נפש
But why should ”the pan American Highway should extend through the Darién Gap”?
Ctl true it’s got to be in the contract. But you also need to grasp every possible meaning of what’s written in said contract or you will quickly find yourself embroiled in a court fight as you battle out which meaning was meant