Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Milhouse
To elaborate/ clarify, metaltalin are not acquired by kesef. If you go to a store, and but a loaf of bread on credit, it is yours 100%. Say it gets stolen from your car, it is your bread that was stolen bot the store owners you still owe him money.
If you default and never pay him, that diesnt change the fact that you still own it and owe him money (or the bread back).
Now usually a sale of bread is not structured in a way to allow giving the bread back. But mechiras chometz (like a mortgage on a house) is. The guy bought it it is 100% is completely no its and or buts.
After pesach je either pays what he owes, or gives HIS chometz backmillhous
“but if you structure the sale so that if the buyer doesn’t pay it reverts then retroactively you owned chometz on Pesach”
Incorrct, as has been explaind svral tims over several years in this thread
“That is the way every sale I’ve witnessed has been done”
Have a look at sample contracts, for example printed in kitzur.
“He has to pay up, and we can absolutely sue him for it.”
This seems addressed to me, but i explicitly said that already “Yes, and there is no question he halachicly owes me the money, and while I’m no lawyer I believe legally as well, exactly as you say.” So I’m not sure why you are repeating that.
You comment about Arav kablan, is EXACTLY to alleviate my concern, but its use is controversial and most (chabad being a notable exception do not use on)
Joseph
If anybody was thinking that, they’d be embarrassed to say that here since they’d be putting their ignorance on display“Somewhere in the discussion you missed that ”
nope I missed no such thing. you said that if something is not strictly assur the it was automatically ok . and that to suggest otherwise was saying “that the Torah “missed” some moral guidelines and prohibitions that we (laymen – not Rabbonon) need to add”
“eating human meat (which many Rishonim and poskim say is muttar).”
source please.” is there a daas Torah that says a Goy needs to work on his middos”
Um yes. I dont have the exact mareh makom off hand, but there is a medrash how in sedom they would all steal less than a shava peruta so that none of them technically “stole” The point of this is how bad they were. I guess you understand that as hey that was a pretty clever work around . (I dont recall the source of hand, and I’m not sure how it fits with the fact that even less than a shiur is assur for a goy ) I also recall how they are praised for cutting off feet to fit in bed very smart tactics.
“are you asking if GOY must act lifnei meshuras hadin or if a GOY has the mitzva assay of Kedoshim Tihyou?”
nope didnot ask that.
I DID ask : “A goy being meanes an unmarried woman. Are you ok with that too?”
(for the 4th time know) You have this habit of ignoring questions that disprove your silly theory, I noticed that you didn’t answer I’m not sure why you think ignoring them makes them go away“What you wrote simply does not conform with real Das Torah.”
Ah but I spoke to super daas torah which trumps das Torah.“The Rashba and the Ritvah opine,like the Ramban, that it is permitted to eat human meat.”
Yeah um this is pure am haaratzos, since without question it is assur for a Jew to have haanah from a mes. So no they do not hold it is permitted to eat human meat. Though they do hold it isnt included in a specific issur.
“What do you mean “A goy being meanes an unmarried woman”?’
I mean to force her to have relations with him. As best I can tell it doesn’t violate any of the sheva mitzvos, I guess you say that is ok. correct? (technically it doesnt violate a strict issur for a JEw either though you have more cop outs like Vehavta lereacha, or lo sasuru So I won’t ask you about a Jew being מאנס another one, plus i’m afraid to hear your answer)
“Do you think that the Torah “missed” some moral guidelines and prohibitions that we (laymen – not Rabbonon) need to add?! ”
I’m not sure what you mean. Have you never heard of lifeni meshuras hadin? kedoshim tiyhu?
Just because something is technically not an issur doesnt automatically make it proper.
Are you not fammiliar with chazal that say We would no murder is wrong even without it being assur ?
Would you not know? Did chazal think if murder wasn’t an issur then “the Torah “missed” some moral guidelines and prohibitions “?And anyway I asked Daas Torah, they said “Goyim really shouldn’t be eating other goyim its bad middos” So there now do you think cannibalism is immoral?
“but if one needs a psak I will always opt for asking a Rov, not the CR.”
Yes that goes without saying.
Joseph isn’t looking for a psak. The story isn’t real, it Pesach is still a few days away. It is just an interesting discussion .
That said, this discussion isn’t particularly interesting (to me) as it seems to be a befeirish mechaber and MB
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14165&st=&pgnum=56484:2 MB 4-5
Metaltelin are not aquired by kesef so the fact that it was paid for is irrelevant (even assuming credit card counts as “kesef”)
“Therefore there is nothing wrong for a goy to eat another goy,”
Got it. thanks. So Jeffery Dahmer was no worse than any other serial murderer.
On to the next since I’m curious how warped your morall compass is:
A goy being meanes an unmarried woman.
“why in Heaven’s name would you think there is anything wrong with a goy eating human flesh?!”
Becasue some things are obviously wrong. As you acknwoedge (even in your trolling, you cant go full troll) You stuck in a caveat ” (In circumstances that meat and other food is scarce). ” Why did you stick that in?
Like murder which chazal tell us we (not you) would know was wrong even without a mitzvah..
Though lets kee pgoing with this,
A goy being meanes an unmarried woman. Are you ok with that too?“this is a question for a Rov not the CR.”
why can’t this be discussed in the coffeeroom?
rebetzin
“The only reason we don’t eat human flesh is because it is ossur.”
Just so that I understand you correctly, you believe there is “nothing wrong” with a goy eating (an already dead) person?
“the same “shayla ” if you buy a box of Rice Crispies cereal ”
no it isnt the same shylah as Ive pointed out to you.
for the third time: CAN a person eat all 61 lbs (you correctly pointed out that by davar yavesh he cannot) in your case if you so choose can you eat it all at once?
why can’t a feminine noun in Hebrew be a boy’s name?
I read the question quickly I thought he wasn’t observant.
If he was Jewish but not shomer Shabbos, can he drink non- mevushal wine?
(R’ Bleich had a article on this in tradition a few years back)
In every job that must be done
There is an element of fun
You find the fun and snap!
The job’s a gameAnd every task you undertake
Becomes a piece of cake
A lark! A spree! It’s very clear to see thatA Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down-wown
The medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful wayA robin feathering his nest
Has very little time to rest
While gathering his bits of twine and twig
Though quite intent in his pursuit
He has a merry tune to toot
He knows a song will move the job along – forA spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down-wown
The medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful wayThe honey bee that fetch the nectar
From the flowers to the comb
Never tire of ever buzzing to and fro
Because they take a little nip
From every flower that they sip
And hence (And hence),
They find (They find)
Their task is not a grind.Ah-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h ah!
A Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down-wown
The medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful way“Is it now OK to shop for a Psak if you want to be “more frum” ?”
you mean less frum
Easy
wear the jacket on your legs and the pants on your arms.
This way nobody will comment on the color
Rebitzen
“a) this isn’t really a case of davar yovesh;”
Correct, It isnt at all, as I said.
“; (b) we are not dealing with one person eating all the 61 lbs of meat (at one sitting) ”
you arent, i’m asking you CAN a person eat all 61 lbs (you correctly pointed out that by davar yavesh he cannot) in your case if you so choose can you eat it all at once?
” (but some CR posters like Meno and ubiquiten think I don’t need to return – which is incorrect but I love them!).”
I said it as a tzad, though I am leanig that way.
You obviously don’t have to return kosher meat, that makes no sense whatsoever I don’t even hear the sevara that you would have to. You might have to return treif meat, but if it was lost by your friend, and it doesn’t exist anymore I’m not sure why you have to pay him back for her clumsinessWere you allowed to give them wine? why wasn’t it lifnei iver?
When he touches/pours it it becomes yayin nesech and is assur for him to drinkis Rebbitzen Mrs. Joseph?
Rebbetzin
” Think about it – if I have a mountain of quarters and you drop your quarter into them, do you lose it ”
Are quarters batul?
Can one person eat all 60 pounds (or ml to make it more plausible) in one bite? Arent they eating a pound (or ml) of treif? by davar yavesh we hold lehalacha one person cant eat all three items is that the din here.
If not, why not?Meno
+1Thats what I was trying to say
Of all your silly trolliy posts this was the worst
I’ll be honest, I enjoyed the others while your comments were obviosuly silly, they still made me stop and think .
but this self righteous defense of being mean to stop the bashing of others is just annoying trolling
There is a third tzad: that you owe her nothing .
she dropped the meat into your pot the meat she dropped is gone, batul it doesnt exist anymore .
why would you have to pay her back with other meat? If she dropped it on the floor would you have to pay her back?
In fact if you had 59 pounds in your pot, she might have to pay you for ruining your meat !true you gain a bit from her clumsiness but so what?
Rebetzin
“The concept of keli rishon, sheini, shlishi is a law in cooking: bishul, to acheive COOKING … To transfer flavours of meat/milk or issur you don’t need to cook the ingredients together”Not quite
see http://hb.borisute.com/tursa.aspx?a=yd_x4307
Although we are machmir lekatchila, it is wrong to say that kli sheini vs kli rishon isnt relevant to transfer of taam
Regarding the Chasam sofer, you are right I do recall it explained that it is only when the bird subsequently dies, but a. I’m not sure why that would be and b. From the last line isnt mashma that way ” דגם בחיותו אוסר כנ”ל ”
I had jotted down mareh mekomos which I will hunt down over shabbos bl”n
chasam Sofer YD 94
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1839&pgnum=70
The case of the butter is the end of the teshuva and there the bird died so it doesnt have much bearing on this discussion but in the first paragraph brings from Pri megadim that live things arent maflit/ubolea.
(Technically he only says bolea)
“would the water used to boil live lobster be kosher ”
Yes if it remained alive
I think this is mentioned in a teshuva of the Chasam Sofer regarding the case of the bird that flew into the butter that R’ Nosson Adler said should be discarded .
I forget the exact details off hand I’d be happy to provide elaborate when I look it up this eveningYou should call your sefer יֵין קַפְרִיסִין
Health
“This is what happens when you spell words the way they sound.”
you pronounce rampant as rampid?
why not just say you made a mistake it was a typo or something., why dig your hole deeper by using your mispronunciation as a defense for misspelling ?
Just the opposite it makes you a big big tzadik
you are keeping two chumros !
1) treating eggs as meat
and 2) treating milk as meat. You see There is an ancient chumra to treat milk as meat since chalav has the same letters as cheilev. Of course it is meat that cant be eaten with other meat due to a special limud of lo sevashel but this lo sevashel doesn’t apply to egg-meat2 is true
1 is absurd. Even assuming “The modern Orthodox … divorce fairly often ” Nobody gets married to someone they dont find attractive, telling themselves “Well if I don;t find her attractive there is always divorce”“But once she has created a baby ”
The discussion partly, hinges on Who decides at what point it becomes a “baby.” and perhaps more importnantly who gets to decide that. (note this isn’t a medical question)
Even you, clearly don’t fully define a fetus as a baby since you allow for its “murder” if ” the mother’s life must be saved.” something you wouldn’t (I assume) allow with born babies.
So clearly you too make some distinction between a born baby and an “unborn baby’
“This is why even man eating savages would offer a last wish to the person they were about to kill & eat.”
Just so I have this right, that man eating savage is more moral than environmentalists, femanists and proponents of human rights?
Could you help me understand the connection? Is marijuana or toeiva marriage bad for the environment?
(Sorry about the typos)
You are doing the same strange thing you do when confronted with the uncomfortable fact that the Torah abhors pure free market capitalism,. you come up with all sorts of strange pretzels of “logic” to fit things.
why can’t you just say you support capital punishment, although unfortunately sometimes (rarely?) it leads to a miscarriage of justice, and that those example are long ago and there have been improvements etc
Leo Frank was found guilty his sentence was capital punishment. True the sentence was commuted, but practically speaking it was carried out. Those responsible for the lynching were not prosecuted although there are pictures of them witnesses etc
In other words, they had tacit government approval.
Regarding Ethel Rosenberg, your comment is even is more astounding. does not “naming names” warrant the death penalty? does turning her brother into a communist? What on earth are you talking about
Leo Frank was found guilty his sentence was capital punishment. true the sentence was commuted, but practically speaking it was carried out. Those responsible for the lynching were not prosecuted although there are pictures of them
In other words, they had tacit government approval .
Regarding Ethel Rosenberg is more astounding. does not “naming names” warrant the death penalty? does turning her brother into a communist? What on earth are you talking aboutAvi
you are doing the same strange thing you do when confronted with the uncomfortable fact that the Torah abhors pure free market capitalism,. you come up with all sorts of strange pretzels of “logic” to fit hings.
why can’y upu just say you support capital punishemtn, although unfortunatly sometimes (rarely?) it leads to a miscarriage of justice.
Leo Frank was found guilty his sentence was capital punishment. true the sentence was commuted, but practically speaking it was carried out. Those responsible for the lynching were not prosecuted although there are pictures of them
In other words, they had tacit government approval .
Regarding Ethel Rosenberg is more astounding. does not “naming names” warrant the death penalty? does turning her brother into a communist? What on earth are you talking aboutביי אונז האט מען געזאגט אז גאנבענען איז נאר א אונגערישר מנהג
“Here I’m going to sound a lot like ubiquitin: ”
thats a good thing!
And I’m glad we got to the crux of our disagreement
“By abortion, the risk of an optional but halachically allowed abortion being stayed (which I think would be quite rare, but ubiquitin disagrees) does not outweigh the benefit of protecting the unborn babies.”
Well said, though
I think there is room for disagreement in that sentence as far as which way to err (though not regarding the metzius) .Thanks for sticking around this far into the discussion I found it enlightening
“Why can’t I use watermelon as karpas?”
You can
Avram
“so there can be way more nuance than the allow everything or allow nothing but death ”
Ok so that’s where we disagree, that and .“And the potential for outright murder in cases where the abortion fails and life is taken outside of the womb.”
On that we agree completely. but I’m not a big slippery slope person.
“And, per Rav Moshe ZT”L, it isn’t clear that the abortions we are discussing are allowed.”
According to R’ Moshe its clear these would not be allowed , as IV’e said. the first of all was just to get it out of the way, pretend its last or even in parenthesis)Avram
“I can give you the reasons,”
Yes so can I. Its because the doctor gains nothing by saying its ok to fast. and opens himself to theoretical liability by saying fast and then 5 years later the kid is slower than his friends and they sue him because he said fasting is ok.
More to the point though. sure some doctors will say it is dangerous to fast (or not to have an abortion) how would we make sure Frum women only see those doctors and not the “the out-of-sight colleagues of a person on the Internet” ?“Ergo enforcing or allowing for religion, as you perceive it.”
nope as explained many times the government should not regulate abortions. period. (in our non-ideal society)
Frum woman will ask their rav, those deemed permissible will get it
non-frum women, not my (primary) concern“But neighborhoods and towns can set zoning laws intended to preserve a certain look and feel that happen to infringe on where and how an eruv can be constructed.”
Yes and I oppose that 100% if it would prevent an eruv. (don’t you?) I’m not sure why on earth you’d think I felt otherwise.
“It’s easy to get behind a theoretical ideal that you know has no chance of passing in our current legal system”
Exactly! and that’s even with the lawyer’s “big bucks and long hours”Avram
I love your point regarding recalcitrant husbands.
I’m not sure my response is as good as your question.Though before we get to it. I’d like to be clear on your position since our discussion has shifted a lot.
In a nutshell my position is thus:
There are instances where halacha would allow an abortion that is not strictly speaking, medically necessary (in the sense that not having it would result in the mother’s death). These woman should be allowed to have an abortion. Since there is no way to legislate that a Rabbi would approve every abortion, in order to accommodate those cases we should allow (almost?) all abortions. (I say almost because I have never encountered any such case late in pregnancy)
Is your argument that:
a. No such cases exist
b. That is not enough to allow all abortions. So we should ban abortions (except where life threatening) and even those women who get a heter should be forced to carry to term
c. something elseAs for recalcitrant husbands.
first of all, it isn’t clear that hitting is allowed. Even if it is, we need to weigh the benefits vs risks.
what is the benefit to allowing hitting ? – it probably works faster than other forms of pressure that are still available
What is the risk of not “having laws forbidding assault and battery” – complete chaoswhat is the benefit to allowing abortions? Not forcing woman in terrible situations undue psychological (and physical) burden – though not death since on that we agree and are NOT discussing here. (also It will keep them safe (illegal abortions don’t usually lead to less abortions but to unsafe abortions), the cases I’m referring to would probably have had abortions even if illegal) )
what is the risk of allowing abortions? geheniom for people who practice without Rabbinic approval.so in weighing the risks and benefits of both: on abortion the Government should stay out, and on battery make it illegal
Again obviously if there was an option for the Government to outlaw battery unless received Rabbinic approval I’d be for that.
I grant this isn’t the best distinction, and If you choose option B above I think reasonable people can disagree on that, as I told NC.
Avram
“nope, not my response at all.” It certainly was here.”
ah but in “anticipating” my response you ignored my actual response:
My response is did they say there was a medical risk? Or legal?
and if medical risk, risk of what ?BTW to answer your question
“so how can we really see the impacts of 26 hours sans food and water when the weaker pregnant women are fasting in measures?”The answer is in Israel.
Other than an uptick in births on and after Y”K there is no uptick in bad outcomes.
although many would get a heter if asked a Rav, many don’t ask and fastavram
“I’m not a doctor.”This was YOUR quote : “have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water”
you said that in response to my comment “for a healthy woman with a normal pregnancy there is (generally) no medical reason not to fast , worst case she goes into pre-term labor. no big deal”
”
“nope, not my response at all.” It certainly was here.”“No, I’m not confusing anything.”
you are. My position is quite simple. The government should not enforce religion, at the same time they should allow woman who have a heter to have an abortion.I really don’t get how that is an “an artificial distinction ” or a “double standard”
I gave my response in the very next sentence. See above .your last paragraph is confusing. IF there was a law banning eruvim I would oppose it, I’m not sure wh yyou think otherwise.
“Laws impact our religious observance all the time, and inasmuch as they foster public welfare, don’t create undue burdens, and aren’t unfairly targeting religious groups”
that’s a lot of ifs.“Yet suddenly you get all bothered by this when it comes to abortion”
I’m not bothered at all. I said from the get go, if a law could be passed that a woman who felt she needed an abortion had to have rabbinic approval I could get behind that. This was in my very first (or early) posts on the subject.
your one good point was regarding recalcitrant husbands.
That’s a good one it deserves its own response.Avi
1. Agreed its a real problem of mine, in my zeal to share my wisdom coupled by my poor typing skills many (all?) of my posts are full of awful typos. Thanks for being able to look past them and focus on substance. I will try to be more careful.
2. a. Lol 1896?! and b. just because they do, doesn’t mean they SHOULD. and c. Ganulin proves the opposite: “the Christmas holiday has become largely secularized” In other words they argued that it was NOT religious. (Blue laws have been upheld for the same reason see eg McGowan v Maryland 1961)
3. I’ll throw it right back at you. Whose religion should be legislated? Aztec? Fundamentalist Islam ? Lehavdil Judaism? and if Judaism which “form” Satmar’s interpretation? Avi Weiss’s? Or whatever your interpretation happens to be?
Who should decide which religion is correct and have its tennets become law, and which of those tennets?NC
“If you believe that, in an ideal world, the “Rabbinate” would decide policy, then why would you not support individual policies that are supported by the halachah?”From one of my first posts on this topic:
“In theory I would support making abortion purely in the hands of the rabbinate. In practice in the US (aside for that being impractical) would set a bad precedent and thus I support the next best thing
namely allowing the woman to choose”“As for your side argument, it seems like you had it with Avram”
Nope I had it with you, and it is my main argument. Remember you said ““The case of the halachah “allowing” abortion is something you’ve invented. This is pikuach nefesh, the proper lashon is “require.” ”
To which I responded with: “So this is where you are 100% absolutely completely no room to agree to disagree wrong. Obviously this isnt publicly discussed. Ask your local ob.” Later on I provided several mareh mekomos of allowed (not required) abortions (Tzitz Eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, Mishpetei Uziel)
(Do you really not remember our discussion?)THAT is our ONLY point of disagreement, as far as I can tell. Whether these cases exist both in halacha, and in reality.
NC
“but if that’s how you view all religion, including your own”
Lol nice try, I’m not sure why you have resorted to putting words in my mouth in your past few posts.
Early in this thread (and repeatedly therafter) I said in a perfect world the legal system would be (and will be) in the hands of the Rabbinate. Abortions will be allowed (though obviously rarely) Tzedaka would be enforced etc etc Do you really not remember my saying so early in this thread?
We don’t live in a perfect world. And the legal system will not be built around “my own” religion. I was responding to a specfici comment “then what should have a bearing on law? … it has to be some other religion or quasi-religion.” This argument falls apart after a quick perusal of world religions both past and present“Yikes, this just stopped being a political discussion in my eyes”
It stopped being a political discussion a while ago. I think our main point of disagreement at this time is simply one of metzius, namely if there are halachicly sanctioned abortions that are not strictly speaking life threatening from a strict medical perspective.
A side argument that we haven’t gotten to, though which I thought we would , and about which reasonable people can disagree (note: not the above as mentioned earlier there is no room for disagreement on our main point of contention, as you are simply unaware of the facts) Is whether those rare cases are reason enough to allow (support?) all abortions. I think so, but as I said reasonable people can disagree in this second point .
“I think adultery should be illegal: not everything is for the criminal courts.”
Agreed, I assume though you will agree with me that it is immoral. My point is just because something is immoral isn’t necessarily a reason to legislate it.“and have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water”
Define “ok”
” I’ll just save time and anticipate your response: ”
nope, not my response at all. My response is did they say there was a medical risk? Or legal?
and if medical risk, risk of what ?“Yet you are declaring religion (not wanting to impinge on the supposed rabbi-patient relationship) as your reasoning for supporting unlimited abortion on demand? Seems like cognitive dissonance.”
Hardly
you are confusing two aspects.
to illustrate: I would oppose The government regulating wear and when eruv can be built, which shita can be followed , should we require actual mechitzos etc etc. The Government should not be legislating religion.At the same time, I would oppose an ordinance banning conectign any say PVC pipe to a phone pole for any reason . Why? It would prevent many from making an eruv.
We can come up with dozens of such examples. I would oppose the government forcing everybody to take a relgious day of rest off from work (actually on second thought…)
At the same time I would oppose the government forcing everybody to work on Shabbos
I have no idea why you think these are contradictary.
The government should not enforce religion, nor should it prevent people from practicing Ayin firts amendment (to be clear I’m not sayign abortion is practicing religion per se (though it can be at rare times))
“Ubiquitin, then what should have a bearing on law? Whatever the spirit of the time says?”
I don’t have the full answer to that one. but definitely not religion!
The Aztec religion called for human sacrifice, did that make it moral?
Now I know I know that was an exception and ancient history. Surely the larger modern Religions like Christianity and Islam would never ever kill without it being morally justifiable
“You mean you don’t think chokim (stuff like kashrus) should have any bearing on law.”
Not quite, I mean Religion should have no bearing on law. we can quibble on your definition of “chok” kashrus is not necessarily a chok. Furthermore even things that are not a chok, I’m not sure I (and you?) would support all of it being legislating. Kibud Av (and related mitzvos) isnt a chok, would you support the death penalty for hitting a father?
The bottom line is, if youre argument as to why something should be allowed/forbidden falls back onto “well that is what the Torah/ -levadil elef alfei hevdalim- /bible/Koran / gospel of the FSM says” then that is not a reason laws should be made” Obviously you don’t really think theft and murder should be legal (even though it seems like you basically said so a couple of posts later”
I’m not sure what post you are referring to I explicitly said so: “Those should be laws because as a society we are better off if we all don’t steal and kill. .that is why stealing should be illegal and punished not because Judaism or lehavdil any religion says so.”
” Almost all frum yidden do NOT consider the issur on abortion to be a chok. ”
No its certainly not. I’m not sure what youre point is . And as as an aside, I mentioned I personally am completely opposed to abortion once the fetus is viable. I am STRICTER than halacha I know of a case where I would have forbidden an abortion that a Rav allowed , but the bottom line is if halacha allows it I think she should have access.“As to why you do have that perception, I reiterate what I said earlier, you’ve been adversely influenced by socially liberal friends.”
what perception?
while you said that earlier you are wrong then and now . My friends are all socially conservative (you may even be one of them!) Regarding this issue I am influenced by frum women whose cases I know of.
You dont seem to realize that this cases really exist you have this mistaken notion that things fall neatly into required or forbidden. Life threatening and non-life threatening. Until I became familiar with actual cases, (and the medical field) I too thought the same.
your opinion on this subject is strictly driven by ignorance as to both the medical and halachic realities (To give you the benefit of the doubt)your last paragraph was very interesting. Though not related to the issue at hand
do you think adultery should be ilegal?The large kedem bottles 1.5 L are typically non-mevushal (though should be noted that they follow the Tzeilemer Rav’s pesak that mevushal is at 190 degrees, I’m not sure if these are non-mevushal according To R’ Moshe who hold wine becomes mevushal at lower temp)
some of their low alcohol wines include matuk and matuk kal