Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“For your own sake you really should do some introspection about your views of abortion and what the Torah says about it.”
Oh of course, all the time. I do outrospection too, hence my time here
“maybe it would behoove you to actually ask a Frum Rov about abortion”
Sure have and sadly I know of several woman who have asked as well, halacha lemaisah
“I really don’t like the “unlimited abortion on demand should be kept because otherwise poor people will do it unsafely” argument.”
I don’t love it either (as I indicated in reply #1834444 “Even if illegal sInce most people feel pressured to do it, they have a pressing reason (not prom dress) they will get it done anyway (I’m not sure how convincing I find this argument), but it has some merit)”
I do like, and agree with your excellent comment, thanks for weighing in.
KY
thanks for comment too“Isn’t one of the debates in Hofstra?”
not for this coming election (though it was in 2016 )
So my question again Once the campaigns are in full swing how many times do you think the candidates will campaign in NY*.?
*modified slightly: of course they might come for a private fundraiser, or some other event, 9/11 for example, They usually come for Al Smith dinner. I mean a campaign event,
Reb eliezer
“What about davening a hoiche shmonei esrei (saying a loud shmonei esrei) ? We say kedusha together and start shmonei esrei then 10 people will daven together.”
The OP’s question is when we don’t have 10 people davening together “I came to a shul where there are 5 people who want to daven,”
The Shevet Halevi says davening WITH the Shatz is Tefila Betzibr. Applying it here (which he doesnt do he is discussign a guy who came late but it seems comparable) would mean They DON’t Daven silently rather the shatz starts “chazaras Hashatz” and the Tzibbur joins him.1) This wouldnt work for Maariv
2) By shacharis, we don’t generally do “a hoiche shmonei esrei”
3) By mincha standard practice by “Hoiche shemoneh esrei” is the Shatz is quiet after Atah Kadosh, in which case it seems they wouldnt have tefila betzibur. (I suppose he COULD say the whole thing aloud)So in practice the Shevet Halevi has little bearing in this question
As to the original OP
“If people who are struggling to get a minyan call me to come,….”
why is joining them a “chessed” If there is someone bed bound or a chiyuv or something I hear . But if its just a bunch of people too lazy to go to the shul that has a minyan davening, why is helping them daven beyechidus (according to most poskim) a chessed? If you want to do chessed offer them a ride to the big shulCA
“It wasn’t just N.Y. ”
I’m from NY so thats what I replied to.“(even though I understand Myers might think N.Y. Is comparable to the other 49 states)”
ITs not comparable, it is better and more important than the other states
Look bottom line:
Once the campaigns are in full swing how many times do you think the candidates will come to NY.
Youd think a lot, right ? Its a populous state in one trip they can meet many people and sway them to their side (interfere in the election if you will 🙂 ) Yet they won’t come . Why not?“I bet people said that when Reagan won 49 states”
They wouldn’t have been following politics if they said that then. NY was not as blue. Reagen won NY in 1980 as well. Nixon won NY in 72′
The candidates take the result for granted too In 2016 there were 399 Presidential campaign events. not one of them was in in NY . Even though NY is the third most populous statet
“If all Americans were like you no one would vote”
And then their votes would count….
Seriously though. I’m sure you know how the Electoral college works. I dont mean that no one vote can change the election. I mean that you already know who won the Electors for my home state, NY in 2020.
voting in an election where the outcome is known is pointless.who will win say, Florida is more unclear so voting there makes sense.
Avi
Can you provide a reference that JFK propsed it ?
BJ famously criticized the silly theory “”Republicans […] simply don’t know how to manage the economy. They’re so busy operating the trickle-down theory, giving the richest corporations the biggest break, that the whole thing goes to h— in a handbasket.””Anyway it Is rarely accepted by anyone today after it has been proven over and over to not be true aka “voodoo economics” Even Republicans no longer claim that
“ubi, do people read posts or they are there for fun? See post reply # 1834764″
eliezer, your post went up at 9:13 PM mine at 9:14 PM.
I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are new here, but when comments go up they arent immediatly visible. So I’m not sure if you thought I should have read your comment in the minute before I typed mine. but the reality is it wasnt even visible when I entered mine.At any rate, ” People rather than disrupt the minyan should daven with the shliach tzibur and say whole kedushah together ” I havent seen that done, so assuming the OP would have done what is more commonly done (have the 6 daven silently followed by Chazaros hashatz) that isnt Tefilah betzibur even according to the shevet Halevi . (and as an aside it wouldn’t apply to Maariv)
mik5 thank you for your mareh mekomos
CA
“So basically you’re going to waste your vote (or not vote at all)”
I live in NYS so my vote is already wasted
“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 sayBUT 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)”
correctAnd 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,
.“It said, they would resuscitate the child, and then allow the parents time to decide whether to kill it or not.”
No it didn’t.
He said what currently happens in every hospital. The situation he described is routine and not controversial.“I never backed off, I never changed my mind,”
Apologies for giving you credit where it wasn’t due.
“That is never good for us. And it’s unnecessary.
I completely disagree with you”That’s fine. You’re not the first, and I don’t hope to change your mind
Hopefully though now you see where my comment fit in. I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear at first.“According to several poskim,….”
I always thought htis was a pashtus. Does anyone argue ?
(There are varying opinions as to where they have to be do all 10 have to start together, if some started already and others join in is that a tzibur, before atah kadosh after etc)But does anyone say six mispallim (and 4 others present ) counts as tefillah betzibur?
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
LF
+ 1plus its fun
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
“so you were not following the conversation because you didnt even know what it was about”
I made an isolated comment to Joseph, beleive it or not, I didnt think it would explode into this confused back and forth. (sure I expected some back and forth, but my position is quite clear (even if it wasnt at first) and you sTILL dont seem to get it. as evidenced by:“Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support ALL abortion being legal.”” WHEN TAKEN IN CONTEXT”
how are you still this confused. That isnt some mystery you uncovered. Yes thats what RE said,
and I stand by that. I support all abortions being legal . (note legal does not equal moral)My reason for this is : Because the Torah allows abortions (in extenuating circumstances) incuding cases that the lehavdi Catholic church l, and most Republicans wouldn’t
Thus I support all abortions being legal.Ive been quite clear on this several times.
I even outlined it step by step
you seem to think you “got me” by exposing some hidden context that I missed. Yes RE supports all Abortions being legal. THAT was what I commented on.“THAT YOU HAVE NO clue what the discussion is about”
How so?“we argue on what r eliezer meant”
That isnt relevent to my point (as Ive said ) and I’m not arguing on that at all (unless he meant he supports their getting the abortions not their abortions being legal, but I dont think thats what he meant)“you exaggerated and didn’t mean what you said? im to lazy to scroll back through my comments
care to pinpoint what you mean?”Yes. In the other thread. you said Democrats support “infanticide” when I called you out on this. you ddint say you exaggerated you doubled down, Then after several back and forths said it wasnt actually true .
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.”“You were not adding to the totality of the conversation.”
The conversation was about democrats vs republican.
I am not commenting on that.I am commenting on one aspect. Namely how can a frum person support legal abortios. A topic that came up.
I explained why a frum person would support legal abortion.
I am not sure what “greater context” my reply overlooked.KY
“And it certainly wasn’t Josefs understanding of r Eliezer when he made his remark”I think got where you got lost!
Ive had this conversation with Josef lots of times before .
He believes abortion should be illegal unless the mother’s life absolutely depends on it He has a very strict definition of “life at risk” that is in line with the conservative approach, but not lehavdil halachas’s He doesnt believe in “psychological harm” that poskim often take into account. He also doesn’t believe that there are actually frum people with these questions (Joseph please correct me If I’m wrong about your position).
Thus he supports the “pro-life” camp. And was surprised that anybody could “support abortion being legal.”
To which I replied that the Torah supports abortion being legal (in limited circumstances, but not as limited as Joseph believes)You asked for sources.
I provided them.
note: the sources I provided are NOT cases where the “pro-life” conservative movement would approve of abortion. (Eg Tzitz Eleizer on Tay sachs, Yaavetz for a mamzer)
So the question becomes should a woman who wants an abortion (with her Rav’s allowance) be able to get one.
I say yes – The Torah allows it (I consider the Tzitz eleiezer Torah, and a woman who follows her Rav’s pesak is acting properly. Eve though obviously others will get unsanctioned (halachicly) abortions. I say thats not our problem.
he says those cases never happen, it isnt clear that we hold like those poskim (R’ Moshe argues), and even if do are sufficiently rare that the number of unjustly aborted fetuses far outweigh that concern. (Again Joseph apologies if I’m misrepresenting your view) .“By the way you know what the Torah does approve of? Death penalty.”
does it though? do you cal the government that kills more than once in 70 years a חובלנית ?Fantastic news!
I’m hear to get yo uback on track“You lost me in your prelude which conveniently left out the op’s post which set the topic which is not what you claim.”
I wasnt commenting on the op.
I was commenting on this comment “Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support abortion being legal.”“You lose me when you don’t respond to direct questions.”
My sincerest apologies.
which question?“You lose me when you mischaracterize posts and ignore repeated clarifications”
you have that backwards.I am not talking about the op. In fact I’m not even sure I read the op till recently . I commented on this comment “”Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support abortion being legal.””
“You jump into a conversation, interjecting something not really on target,”
Its a free country. I commented on one aspect you jumped in and misunderstood it. You are free to jump in as am I.“You double down on your Comments ignoring all attempts to get you back on target”
I’m happy to explain it until you get it. I’m not sure what you mean ” by back on target” My target is simple. The best thing for us is abortions to be legal .
The Torah allows abortionThat was what I said from the get go
You contradict yourself without bothering to explain”
sincerest apologies. I’m happy to explain any thing .And your convinced that you are correct in the face of evidence to the contrary”
Evidence that what? I’m not even sure where you disagree I laid out nice numbered points and you wont tell me where we argue .and you say I dont answer question lol! For that matter, I’m not even sure IF you disagree with me it sounds like you do but I honestly don’t know about whatDo i have it all correct”
No“or did I leave something out?”
Yes! you left out the answer to my question . I neatly laid out my position defending my inital comment on this thread.
I’m not sure where you disagree (or even if you do in our latest conversation after an extensiv back and forth you said you exaggerated and didn’t mean what you said, why didn’t you clarify that at first? who knows. And you say I contradict without bothering to explain!?)“o be repeatedly telling people they are missing their own points and contexts”
Its a “bug” of the coffee room
Anybody can join any conversation. So If I comment on a specific comment . Other posters assume that that applies to anything said on the trhed. Which of curse it doesn’t
“I find myself torn between admiring your self confidence and pitying your self assurance. ”
Its neither . I was commenting on a specific point . not whatever any other poster may have said (or thought) was included in that point.The bottom line is The torah allows abortion (in limited cases)
therefore we are better off with legal abortions so people who need a Torah alllowed one can get it.That was my point . If I wasnt clear on this at first, I clarified in follow up posts.
I’m not sure why its on me if another poster still insitst we are discussing another case, then says we werent then says we were.“when there is such a recurring theme, that it isn’t “everyone else who’re driving the wrong way around you.”
but if they are then they are. If there is any post that confused you I’d be happy to explain“I’m talking about me being boring …”
Relax your being to harsh on yourself. Yes your posts are boring and you don’t follow the flow of conversation so we get sidetracked on irrelevant side issues (that you end u dsyi g were never our point of argument.) But I enjoy them.
I don’t find them boring. But I’m sure other people do, which is whi you were address ingSimple question do you think my relies are boring?
“So first of all I posted an article, which somehow made it in before your comment, showing that actually they are real things and seem to take place quite often”
They don’t take place quite often. Sure there’s a guy who remember s it once happening. Look up people’s reason the vast vast majority are financial pressures.
We seemed to be going forward but we took a step back.
Quick recap.
Let me know where I lose youPrelude: People don’t get abortion for frivolous reasons or as re “abortion for its own sake” (sure some people might but this isn’t a common occurrence)
1) The vast majority of abortion (practically speaking rounded to the nearest whole number it’s 100% are done by people in extenuating circumstances.
2) The Torah allows abortion in certain extenuating circumstances.
3) obviously our circumstances are not going to allign with theirs
4) each case needs to be decided by a Rav
5) the government is not going to legislate that a rav should decide
6) the next best thing is the government should let a woman decide and a frum woman will go to her Rav.(As an aside even if things were flipped and most abortion s were done for prom dress reasons my argument STILL holds, but that wasn’t the topic of conversation )
“Abortion to fit into a prom dress is not cooled abortion for the sake of it it is abortion for a reason ”
Lol as if thats a reason. nice try.
“there are no limits as to what is allowable grounds for abortion”
Well yes. Because that isnt the governments rol. Lets imagine a woman wants an abortion to fit in her prom dress,
why should the government stop her? Kep im mind , a fetus is not a life. now remember hat doesnt mean that it can be terminated for nothing . But as far as secular law goes, we do have ownership over our bodies. The Government has no business mixing in .
KY
“Maybe then you should read what you comment on before commenting”Got it!
youve misunderstood
RE said (with your explanantion) “That outlawing abortions won’t stop people from getting them since most people are not just doing an abortion for the sake of it. So therefore since most people getting abortions have a reason to want it, they will figure out how to do it even if it’s outlawed.”You stuck in reason as “being in the mood of one” or “prom dress” Which is why you are thoroughly confused. Those arent real things and were neveractually the topic I (or he, though obviously I cant speak for him ) was discussing . what he meant is life altering reasons not being able to afford it being a single mother etc .
so the consideration is twofold :
1) In those cases who would you have decide ? I know of a woman w/ 7 children at home she became pregnant 5 months after having had twins . who should decide? Is it crazy to say she should go to a rav and follow whatever the Rav tells her ? – this is my main argument
2) Even if illegal sInce most people feel pressured to do it, they have a pressing reason (not prom dress) they will get it done anyway (I’m not sure how convincing I find this argument), but it has some merit)“The phrase ”requires long boring monologues” was me talking about what I had to do!!”
Don’t worry its both of us. I’m not sure why you think you get a monopoly on boring monologuesunless you are saying mine arent boring….
“That was years ago
That was my original point it’s not that way anymore”It wasnt he said many similar things on his show. (thats the crudest example)
and he has said similar on a radio show that doesn’t deserve mention . Its part of his personaJoseph
” I take it you support repealing all laws against manslaughter and, murder since sometimes killing someone is halachicly justified”
I am not aware of that being an issue. If it ever comes up then we can think about how to draw that line. Though we would still need to wigh how it would affect frum Jews. Such a repeal would likely result in a free for all on Jews more so than resulting in Jews defending themselves.KY
“Sure I can agree to those last two lines.
It has nothing to do with the conversation”That is the SOLE topic of conversation. You tried to switch it to Abortion for the sake of it (though now you claim you never said that which is fine , since its absurd . In your 4th commet in this topic on February 20, 2020 9:01 pm at 9:01 pm reply #1833811 you said “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” Those arent real things )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.Correct. The Torah allows abortions in certain extenuating circumstances.
what these are need to be decided by a competent halachic authority, on a case by case basis. (as you agree)Our extenuating circumstances will obviously not neccesarily line up with a secular one. Thus the democratic position is more in line with what benefits us
If this is too complicated to follow im out.”
all the best
I didn’t mean for it to be complicated, I’m sorry if I worded any of it poorlyKY
“immoral usually referrs to arayos related”
I’m not sure what limited definition you are using (though even in that regard he is guilty he bragged about trying to be with a married woman for crying out loud)Oxfor defines Immorality as “not conforming to accepted standards of morality.”
and to avoid using a word in its definition
they define morality as “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.”It is in no way limited to arayos. That is the least of his problems (I agree with akuperma on this , though he is lacking there too more than the typical politician, and its not like it was once years ago, he has a decades long pattern of making depraved comments including about his own daughter)
KY
“Why takeh do we kill her while pregnant and not wait for her to have the baby first.”Thats a side issue. (I’m not dismisisng it, I’m more “conservative” than the Torah and would not allow that woman’s fetus to be kiled, but what can I do I’m mevatel my daas to the Torah) The bottom line is a fetus and baby are not the same. and killing one does not equal kiling the other. Thats why I brought it up
“So you are on record that an abortion done just so I can fit into my prom dress would not be OK.”
Ive been on the record about that from the get go. I’m sorry if it was unclear“women having abortions so they can fit in prom gowns, women having abortions so they can say they had an abortion woman carrying a healthy pregnancy to term only to decide to have the child killed during delivery . Does anyone here have any documentation to support these claims?”
No they are generally desperate claims made by people trying to sound frum? tough? conservative? I dont fully get it. Its the same crowd that says “infaticide” is a mainstream position.
(I dont want ot get caught up in too many debates at once So i’ll let you have most of them, but “YOUR SAYING ABORTIONS LOWER CRIME?” Yes there is compelling data made popular by the freakanomics authors to support this. Though Im not saying that is a reason to allow abortion, rather it is why republicans oppose it 🙂 )
“Better now?”
Yes!
“I would expect the one who used the word in a conversation to make sure it’s clear from the context what he is calling necessity at the moment he uses the word”
I dont know what you mean.
You grant (I think?) that there are rare times where abortion is allowed. (correct me if I’m wrong). ie you allow for abortion out of “necessity”
So I ask: who would you have define “necessity” ?KY
“That outlawing abortions won’t stop people from getting them since most people are not just doing an abortion for the sake of it”
Where did he say that.
I’m not sure what that means .“So therefore according to r Eliezer there is no point to outlawing abortions because since most abortions take place for a reason, they will happen even if it’s illegal.”
Exactly! so your line about “crossing off a bucket list” is nonsense. (and another example of you throwing in irrelevent points to muddle the conversation) and RE is only talking about abortions for a reason. Right?
Exactly as I said.So the question is Does the torah allow abortion for a reason?
answer: Yes!
again, of course this isnt a blatant green light it depends on the reason.to use our excellent analogy:
does the Torah allow amputations for a reason?
answer Yes!
Again of course this sint a blatant green light t depends on the reason.“Still not sure how you read that he is supporting only halachik sanctioned ones.”
I didnt, and I never said that.
I dont get how you read that he is supporting abortions to cross it off a bucket list.
(Of course NOW you seem to grant that that wasnt what he was saying )“So can I just make an abortion for no reason? Consensual?”
no absolutely not as I explicity said in THAT same post “Again, just because it is not a nefesh, doesnt mean it can be aborted to fit in a prom dress….”“Or perhaps just maybe it means,…”
I dont know what it means. I know what it says. you asked why killing a fetus is ever allowed but not a child . you (pretended?) you couldnt figure out the distinction. so Rashi tells you once out of the womb its its own person. Until then it isnt.
“One does not need to comment on every line of a conversation to be considered part of the entire conversation”
Oh absolutely not! and more than happy to have you on board. but as you now concede RE was NOT talking about abortions done on a whim (if there is even such a thing) so AT NO POINT was that the topic of conversation . AS you now concede “So therefore according to r Eliezer … most abortions take place for a reason,”
to which Joseph asked how can you support abortion (again, when done for a reason)
to which I replied, that is the Torah view it allows abortion done for a reason (not any reason obviously)
to which you asked sources?
to which I provided sources .
( then we got distracted when you claimed that we were talking baout abortion done for no reason, which was never the topic., but now we are back on track)to sum up:
Halacha allows for abortion in certain extenuating circumstances.
what these are need to be decided by a competent halachic authority, on a case by case basis.Can you get behind those last two lines ?
RM
?
This is done routinely and isn’t even controversial neither legally nor lehavdil, halachicly .Unlike abortion where there is some machlokes. This is more black and white. As far as I’m aware NO halachic authority requires ressucitation in the case of “severe deformities…, a fetus that’s nonviable” Eg anencephaly rch”l . Some poskim DO allow abortion (even though medically there is no “risk to mother”) but NO posek, (that I’m aware of ) that requires resuscitation in such a case
“So you would say the same about Biden’s or Bloomberg’s too?”
Absolutely!
I’m not sure what you are referring too about Bloomberg.
But take Sanders, he has been known for his socialist views for decades . It s not a beleif he had “20-30 years ago” Its part of who he is. Even if he ran saying oh I dont believe that stuff anymore, it would be absurd to believe him.Its one thing changing your mind about a specific item, say Trump used to be pro – gun control and now changed his mind. Fine nothing wrong with that . but to change your whole persona at age 70? yeah I don’t buy it
” 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.
Halacha allows abortions.
I provided sources for that.
someone said that was ONLY if the mothers life was at danger.
I pointed out, no some sources where regarding Tay sachs or mamzeirus, or fetal reduction. And that the defintion of “life at risk” needs to be determined by Rabbinic authority not a secular legal system
Then you started rambling and ignored my point.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.
Every case needs to be indivdually paskened by a Rav.
I took that as given ,perhaps that was my mistake. I did not mean ALL abortions were allowed, and that is not what Reb eliezer (the comment I replied to ) said.But hey while we are mischarecterizing:
“yes of course also to back my position that the democrat party is a party of murder.”
The opposite is true.
As a rule of thumb if you want to know what the republican position is on any topic ask yourself which results in more dead bodies. THAT is the republican position:
Gun control – anti, more school shootings please
War- love it the more the better
Healthcare -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
Welfare -no thank you let em starve
Abortion – well if we ban it maybe more mother wil die in back alley abortion, and 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 fetusah nechtigen tug
KY
“The Gemmara is not pro abortion, so it wouldn’t follow.
That was a contention that only works if you are pro abortion.”I dont understand. You said “by killing her innocent unborn baby, also supports the rights of all criminals to end the life of all innocents”
My question is: When a guilty women is executed. We kill “her innocent unborn baby”
why does this not suupport “the right” to kill all guilty women’s children?I’m not even sure what you mean by “by killing her innocent unborn baby, also supports the rights of all criminals to end the life of all innocents” Is this a slippery slope argument?
“Basically you are willfully misCharacterizing the conversation.”
Nope unles I misunderstood it
“It’s about (based on the op) the evils of the democrat party line.
Their position is all abortion is a woman’s right.”
that was not what I was replying to.“When r Eliezer expresses support for their position, that’s what he is supporting.”
You’d have to ask him thats not what I understood (as evidenced by the sources I cited)“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. I know Rush Limbaugh says it but that doesnt happen . Thus I doubt thats what he meant. If he did then I was wrong, and I do not support that.
(Though I should note that is still probably the preferable stance for frum jews since we define “neccesity” differently than a government would“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”who would you have define “necessity”
“(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)”
No code he explicitly said “not abortion for the sake of abortion”
Again, abortion because someone is bored is not a thing.“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.“So explain the difference between killing
A fully healthy fetus a week before its due date
A newborn
A fifty year old person”sure though I’m not sure why this ids diffcult for you, my position is easier to understand and backed up by classical sources
Rashi 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.
Before shabbos you can light a fire, after shabbos yo ucant ? Whats the difference between cookign this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon? Does 24 hours really matter? This is the same “question” that you are askingYour position is harder to understand . Are you saying the definition of when life begins varies? if its , if its threatening the mother its not a nefesh until it emerges, but if it is not then its no different than a 50 year old person?
Again, just because it is not a nefesh, doesnt mean it can be aborted to fit in a prom dress. You cant amputate a leg to fit in a prom dress either nor to “cross it off a bucket list. ”To elaborate a bit more
words have to have meaning in order for society to function.
for example when a poster says Democrats support “infanticide” When called out on that falsehood, its one thing to say “dont be such a stickler” I was exagerating/using hyperbole to make a point, of course it isnt true. Fine I m ok with that reasonable people can disagree on what falls in to acceptable hyperbole.but when he doubles down and insists on the lie being true, THAT is the problem . not everybody is able to discern the difference .
Trumps’ entire persona is built on telling people what they want to hear. As his writer quotes him in The art of the deal “Truthful hyperbole”
The only reason Trump is president is because of his fame or “persona”
For years he cultivated himself as a brash, say what you want to get it, bullying businessman who gets it done regardless of what it takes. In the Art of the deal he (or his ghost writer) brags about how he enjoys lying hype up the value of what he is selling . He doesnt believe in Truth the way most of us do. Sure Politicians lie, but Trump’s persona is built on repeating a lie often enoughand brazenly enough that people arent so sure anymore.
He ushered in the era of “alternative facts” and “fake news” as Trump explained ““You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.” It isnt about truth if a story is negative he doesn’t want you to believe it it is “fake”That is who he is, that isnt something that happened 20-30 years ago that is his very being.
To a lesser extent there is his objectifying women (including his own daughter on a radio show that isn’t worthy of mention) , demonizing those who fall from favor . Again these arent specific events from years ago that is who he is. People don’t change at age 70 .
But the main reason (in my view) is the first.
“you are only willing to discuss abortion in cases of severe circumstances
Now your claiming only to discuss post birth abortion.”I’m not sure what you mean. That thread was about abortions of necessity. This was about “infanticide” (not abortion). In each thread I’m discussing the topic of discussion.
“Post birth abortion, while not legal yet, (it means that a mother has the right to kill her baby”
That’s called murder not abortion. Keep terms straight so conversation scare meangingful.
there is no democratic candidate who calls for infanticide. Or “post birth abortion”. As I said. If you want to obsfucate and saysay oh but xyz. You can.
But first let’s stick to the original “infanticide”
Can you name s democratic candidate who supports that?“, 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.)”
That’s a position that is completely incorrect. And the polar opposite of lomdus . Halacha is full of drawing lines. A minute before shabbos starts you can light a fire a minute after you getcskikah. C’mon its just wanted be minute what’s the difference? Are you for real?
Once rov gufo emerges ” abortion” (it’s not abortion at that point) is not allowed even if the mother is at risk. C’mon 20 minutes it was . Is that what you are saying?“The quotes are brought to show what the top candidates in the current presidential election hold in regards to the overall idea of abortion.”
Shkoyach!
But that’s not the subject of this thread .
I am discuss ing “infanticide” if you can’t provide a demo crat calling for that just say so. Don’t say irrelevant nonsense“So, so the democrat party is a party that supports and glorifies murder”
Again, not murder.
“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? )“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?“,by killing her innocent unborn baby, also supports the rights of all criminals to end the life of all innocents.”
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?
“Keep voting for these guys. Cause they give food stamps Reb Eliezer. Real Tzadiks.”
Yep the Democrats are in fact th pro-life partyOf course I did.
but the only thing I can ind is Trump claiming the Democrats support that.
Except of course like everything he says, it isnt trueYou 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.”
I did and you are misunderstanding I dont think 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)”yep in the OP no mention, thats why I didnt comment . The mention comes later
….
” so I would consider that you came into this conversation after me.”Nope. I was replying to Joseph’s question not yours
“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.”Yes nailed it! Reb elizer said “No one does abortion for the sake of it”
Again “No one does abortion for the sake of it”and again becasue you somehow missed this in your thorough analysis,:
“No one does abortion for the sake of it”
With me , so we are NOT talking about abortion of convinance rather of neccesity.
Stay with me this is crucial.
Becasue THIS is what the conversatin was about when I joined. (note at this point your sole comment was about weighing Trump’s benefits vs chisronos NOt about the topic I comented on)“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,”
Yes! absolutely becasue The Torah allows abortion out of necessity. now of course Our definition of “necessity” will differ from someone elese’s In a perfect world The law willl be Every abortion needs rabbinic approval. Obviously there is no way to legislate that. So the next best thingis to ahve the government step out. Frum people will (and do) discuss i with a Rabbi. Not frum people are not my primary concern
“whereupon I asked where exactly do you have a basis for such an outlandish claim.”
Yep this is where you joined, welcome to the conversation! glad to have you we are talking about abortions of necessity NOT “abortions for the sake of it”Follow it through
I did“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 anybody”
A great point, not one that I commented on though.“Upon 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)”
Nope this part is not quite right“To which you said it’s the Torah view”
Because it (allowing abortions based on necessity ) is“And that’s where I challenged you to provide a source.”
And I provided more than one“It’s about if abortion is ALWAYS OK.”
Then you are having a different conversation.
Note you joned the conversation after me, so if you switched the conversation adn didnt tell me, thats on you.You said “It allows saving a life.”
Several of the sources are not about what we would call “saving a life”
not The tzitz eliezer nor the Yaavetz. Nor fetal reduction (which is not “Exceptional at al)“THE QUESTION HERE IS ABOUT ABORTION ON DEMAND. not fetal reduction”
what question?“Does rsza allow these???”
Nope
ציץ אליעזר? נשמת אברהם? Other פוסקים ?
NopeNo?
correct.“The democrat party feels these are a woman’s right. And to stop her is anti woman.”
Ok so?“I don’t know how many more times I need to write this.”
None, I got it and that was never in dispute.Stop coming back with
Fetal reduction
Mothers life at risk
Unviable fetus
Severely deformed fetus”I won’t unless its warranted. So If you say abortion is murder Iwill say it sint if you say abortion is not allowed I will say it is in certain cases. I’m not sure what your issue is .
And why wouldnt I ocme back with those. Those probably account for 00 of cases where Frum women seek abortions. I’m not sure how 100% of cases can be deemed irrelevantCY
“I don’t think it’s מותר for the doctor, it’s only for the mother”
depends on the situation.“We apply the concept סומק טפי (sorry if I misspelled something)”
To what case ?KY and RM
I don’t know what these quotes are showingAgain what we are looking for is that ““Democrat party supports post birth abortion.” (KY’s claim) aka “infanticide (RM’s claim)
I’m not even sure what a post birth abortion is .
none of these quotes seem to refer to a “post birth abortion”KY I have another post pending (I hope) in reply
but another probably more common case is fetal reduction.
Again, not al poskim allow it but Nishmas Avraham brings from R’ Shlomo Zalman Aurbach that it is allowed . I don’t know what is done in practice, the cases I’m familiar with are related to a criises pregnancy center“Democrat party supports post birth abortion.”
source please? (that “the party” supports this)
“I meant aborting a full term baby which is legal is basically infanticide.”
Is it?
So Halacha calls for infanticide if a mother is chayiv misah (Erachin 1:4) ?“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.”
Oh definitely not. Its very much not ok“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?”
no
“I say that’s murder I’m wrong?”
Yes, ( though, thats not the discussion here, the question was regarding “infanticide” which it isnt. it isnt regicide nor suicide either )“Show me the source”
Sure. provided more on the other thread. Heres one:
Mishna in ohalos allows abortion when life of mother is at stake. Do we murder one person to save another? No, as the mishna concludes “ein dochin nefesh mipnei nefesh” Eleh mai pre birth isnt murder.
(again some disagree, and of course lots of things that arent murder arent allowed.I’m not saying its allowed just that it isnt “infanticide” (nor murder, though some argue so if you say it Is murder that is your prerogative)
KY
“When the fetus is still inside and the mothers life is threatened you can kill the fetus”Yep
Thus in repsonse to the question
““Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support abortion being legal.”I replied ” Your’e shocked that a yid takes the Torah’s view ?”
The Torah allows abortion. period. full stop. (As explained this is not akin to the Torah allows chazir (if life is in danger)” it is more akin to “The Torah allows amputations*” This does NOT mean the torah allows abortion in all cases rch”l, much like the Torah doesn’t allow amputations in all cases
As to the specific instances where the Torah allows it, of course need to be decided by a qualified posek, not by the Supreme court nor by congress(* I used heart surgeries earlier, I think amputation is a better anaalogy. Plus it fits with the Gemaras’ expression “uber yerech imo” )
“If you want to eat chazer”
I don’t
but
a. If there was talk of legislating a ban on chazir I would oppose it too.
b. The comparison is childish . chazir is something that you eat on a whim. abortion is not.
A better comparison would be heart surgery. does the Torah oppose Heart surgery? most people would say “of course not” that doesnt mean it is mutar to show up and say I’d like surgery today. It is muttar in specific situations, that goes without saying. Of course abortion has far more restrictions, but a woman does not generally wake up and say instead of bacon for breakfast I think I’ll have an abortion . That is generally not the case, and certainly never the case with frum women .RM
“All those examples you are giving is when the life of the mother is threatened ”
Not quite (though depends how you define “life of the mother is threatened )
The yaavetz is in the case of a mamzer (though I dont think this is widely accepted but is used as a snif )
The Tzitz Eliezer 13:102 is about Tay sachs , this is accepted, but not as late as he allows .