Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Glock 43 is very small and easy to conceal carry. 19 is a bit bigger but still not too big . The 43 though has a (standard) magazine less than half that of the 19. This means after dealing with 7 Amalekim you would have to stop and reload while the 19 would allow for 16 mitzvos. The fire power between the 2 is pretty similar both use 9 mm cartridges and the barrel length is only about 1/2 inch different
Can you elaborate on the connection between Biden and things “they” are teaching and doing to Young children?
Fill in ALL the bubbles on the scantron. That way you will definitely get the right answer.
Guaranteed 100!!#Lifehack
“I strongly believe I will not have that problem. Bez”H.”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂thanks I enjoyed that
“That wasn’t the understanding for centuries”
More than centuries
In 1982 Orrin Hatch commisined a reports which concluded “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and LONG LOST—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms”
(emphasis added) the idea that it applies to individuals was not a widely held view. it was “long lost” they dug it upthere were not “many” supreme court cases involving the second amendment (in fact it was one of the least discussed amendments) . And NONE of them (until Heller and then reaffirmed in Mcdonald) took the opposite opinion
Of the few that disucssed it United States v. Cruikshank (1875) and Presser v. Illinois, (1886) both ruled that it did not apply to States. Miller (1939) we mentioned. Barrett v. United States (1976) Upheld gun control measures . US v Lopez (1995) was largely over the commerce clause though indirectly related to the second. NONE of these ruled an individual has aright to bear arms
“The US never faced a legal effort to implement total gun control”
as mentioned many states, from the founding had gun measures in place .These were not challenged“pretty clearly give individuals”
The opposite is true it clearly applies to militia. Excuse me a well regulated milita not just any old milita.
So why the phrase “A well regulated Militia,” would the amendment mena anything different if it just said ” the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
No other amendment has an opening .
Eg ” Practicing religion being a key part of life Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ” or “An infomred populace being neccesary for an involved state abridging the freedom of speech or of the press shall not…”.”
Why that phrase? what does it add?
“Rav Aiemba’s view has been contested, ”
Not by any eye-witnesses as far as I know. ALL the eyewitnesses said he supported it (Hillel Seidman, R’ Mordechai Glatstein come to mind)
as for the Radziner R’ Shmuel Shlomo Leiner HYD and the Slonimer R’ Shlomo David Yehoshua Weinberg HYD both are mentioned in Esther Farbstein’s book Hidden in Thunder: Perspectives on Faith, Halachah and Leadership during the Holocaust
Mentch
“Personally I would Tighten gun control laws.”So we agree. shalom al Yisroel
Avira
“The warsaw uprising was discouraged by gedolim ”This is of course factually incorrect Of course most famously RAv Menachem Ziemba supported the uprising according to numerous (frum) eye-witnesses, . THe Radziner Rebbe, Slonimer Rebbe encouraged armed resistence as well.
Mencht
“Whether or not it was a “fraud” the Supreme Court disagreed and ratified the individual right”
Oh obviously.
I was replying to Smerel who had said ” changing the second amendment is a very dangerous precedent” to which I replied it doesn’t need to be changed. Leave it alone and just re-interpret it the way it had been pre-Heller.
“so who knows maybe the winds of change will happen to the second amendment also”
You say “will happen” IT already happened with the second. Heller overturned Miller (to an extent). Yes Heller too can be overturned
Smerel
“My only issue was that changing the second amendment is a very dangerous precedent.”
No need to change the second amendment
Just follow it. Either interpret it the way it was interpreted for centuries as applying to a “milita” and not individual. The NRA in the 60’s started pushing the then new idea that it applies to an individual, in what Warren Burger (A conservative) described as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public,”
Even assuming for centuries the 2nd amendment was misunderstood by conservative and liberal alike, and does protect an individual’s right to bear arms, it STILL would not preclude gun control.
In fact the opposite is true. It calls for the milita to be regulated. A little regulated? No Well regulated. And In fact during the ratifying of the Bill of rights, many States had gun control laws including where they could be fired, stored , some states required registration* Many of these laws would be deemed unconstitutional by so-called “originalists” today.I like your 4 proposals. I’m on board
(*See GUN LAW HISTORY IN THE UNITED STATES AND SECOND AMENDMENTRIGHTS by ROBERT J. SPITZER)
AAQ
while that is a great point.
Mensch sad it already, and I acknowledged it is a good point“you really do not understand the mindset of the average gun owner.”
I thought I did. I assumed they were peaceful people who obey laws., and if as a society we would be better off going a different way, they might vote against it but they would respect the law.
I am surprised to learn that this isn’t the case, and that they are secretly pretty close to unleashing their weapons’ on their fellow citizens. Which seems to me (if true) to be MORE of a reason to actually confiscate guns
you keep repeating that people won’t comply. Thats fine. I dont see that as a reason not to enact laws. Thats our point of disagreement. Thank you for taking the tiem to explain
One last question:
Can you think of any other law that would benefit society (like you, taking out the discussion about whether it benefits society) but shouldn’t be or hasn’t been enacted becasue people won’t listen?I’s a curious argument and other than Chazal , I can’t think of anything like that *
“The obvious answer is one is against halacha and the moral fabric of society and the other isn’t”
Yes! that’s why guns need more restrictions than abortion (I joke)* I have heard that argument made with abortion (making it illegal would not decrese abortions so why bother) but 1) I don’t find it convincing at all, 2) I have never ever heard it from someone “pro-life” 3) The argument there is that it will not reduce abortions and increase unsafe abortions
“No I don’t think that they are unhinged.”
I didn’t think so either; but the idea that they will start shooting if ; in an effort to curb violence, we enact some measure of gun control does imply that they are unhinged .
“How many of our people complied with government edicts concerning Covid?”
If you told me that a store owner opened fire on a someone who came to fine him for having to many people in his store; yes that is unhinged.
I donlt understand why You seem to have a different standard to abortion.
You seem to be saying
Guns – people won’t listen so dont make rules since the government won;t be able to enforce it
Abortion – “We can outlaw it. We can hold providers responsible. ” – but no jailIn both cases IF there is a need for regulation; enact the legislation restrict abortions/guns for the betterment of society and if some people don;t follow we will deal with that.
I understand (though disagree) with not enacting legislation that can’t be fully enforced (“Our chachumim never made a halacha if they saw the masses refused to comply”) obviously abortion restrictions are unlikely to be fully enforced, and would also require draconian overreach (following suspected abortion clinics? Searching and seizing medical records) . why do you seem open to those restrictions (as long as no jail time) but not guns
Mentch
“I personally believe that jail should be for those who are a danger to society.”
agreed But that’s where this gets a bit circular .
IF (note the caps) eliminating 8 cartrigge magazines would make us safer then if someone refuses to follow the law he is contributing to endangering society
“Existing gun owners are not hardened criminals that we should be seeking to send thousands of them to jail.”
Agreed. So have them trade in their 8 bullet magazines for 7 i’d be open to a buyback program for this. Make it easy to follow the law
Now again; as to whether that particular legislation makes us safer is a fair discussion. But that is the discussion .
I don’t buy the argument ” sure it makes us safer but some people won’t listen don’t make them felons” (paraphrasing that isn’t a verbatim quote)
But I hear what you are saying thanks for the Chazal tzu shtell,
Tuna
I’m not sure your analysis is correct. some had Weapons in Warsaw it didnt “prevent the holocaust” there were other armed rebellions as well. Fro that matter, as you may know entire armed countries fell to the Germans .
“the discussion here was to interrupt set times that yeahivos learn to honor soldiers.”
didnt realize
I was the one who first mentioned “a moment of silence ” (as an idea that I would understand, I don’t understand the OP)
Joseph Kidarko bakodesh said “It isn’t worth giving up even 60 seconds of Limud HaTorah for this purpose, even for a “moment of silence”.” Unclear why he assumed the “moment” had to come from Talmud Torah.
a moment can come from Lunch, recess, typing in the coffee room .
Your “General rule” is cute but Indicate a lack of familiarity with Yeshivos. Time is taken from talmud Torah all the time, for tehilim , a Rosh Chodesh mesiba, Lag Baomer mesiba, various zichronos for the Kedoshim ( I remember well the Kaliver Rebbe Z”l speaking in my elementry school, we all went out to greet him and he taught us his song Shema Yisroel, that I can still hear)
Now, to be clear I am not suggesting that the topic at hand is remotly as important as any of those interruptions to learning. but then again, nor did I suggest or condone interrupting learning in the first place.
Menncth
I don’t understand soem of your points
“Is it really ethical to turn legal gun owners into felons for the sake of “doing something “?”
I can’t think of any other time this argument would be made. don’t criminalize abortion it would turn legal abortion providers into criminals don’t raise taxes it would cause those paying less into felons. Don;t lower the speed limit it would casue more people to break the law.
If you don’t think gun control would help. Fine majke that point. but to argue that it would create more felons; so what?
“”Do you really think that American mentality is going to allow confiscation without a Civil War? Without draconian government methods? Without armed resistance and deaths?”
This is even more puzzling. So all these gun owners are violent unhinged people ready to kill people to protect their “way of life” That is MORE of a reason to take their guns quickly; not less. e can’t wait. Who knows what would set them off today it is gun registartion tomorrow it is someone taking heir parking space
(as an aside no one in this thread called for confiscating all guns, I may have missed a comment here and there but definitely not many)
Sam
I’ll quote what my Rebbe R’ Tzvi Berkowiz said:“It may not make sense, it may be crazy; but when you are in love you do crazy things”
Avira
” we’re talking about taking time off of a seder.”
who is?
Who doesn’t know this?
Its used becasue it is excellent and easily searchable
Why does closing a Yeshiva give honor to soldiers?
If you said should they sing the national anthem or raise a flag say some tehilim, even a moment of silence (to reflect on their sacrifice) I’d understand.
But why close the Yeshiva? I don’t get it
“ubi, you seemed to imply that all these states are not doing reasonable background checks as relevant to the recent event.”
Unclear how you made that inference.
I was replying to a specific comment
I quoted it to avoid confusion
This is the line
““There’s no reason people should object to background checks, but I believe that is already in place.””Gun control laws should not be limited to what would have prevented the last big news story.
Say when (not if ) the next shooter steasls the healdines occurs and he is 22. does that mean any call to raise age to buy guns to 21 is moot, since it wouldn’t have stopped THAT shooter?
Obviously not, if an idea would help/makes sense it should be implemented . perioduniversal background checks are a good idea (in my opinion and most Americans including most gun owners) the fact that it wouldn’t have stopped THIS shooter is immaterial.
Halevai’s suggestion in the OP “Maybe gun manufacturers should be required to make the barrels even more pronounced, in that a bullet should be able to be traced to its licenced owner without having to get hold of the gun first.” Would not have prevented this shooting either.
AAQ
“So, these states DO have background checks except the gun shows?”
I believe license firearm dealers are federally mandated to perform background checks, this applies in all states“Did the latest murderer buy his gun at the gun show? ”
No“Are gun shows a significant source of guns used in crime?”
Yes. Though exact data is hard to vcme by as no records are kept (whcih is exactly the problem)
Bu several reports indicate that this is a source of guns used in crime see aTF report from 2000 Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws against Firearms Traffickers. found that 30% of guns used in crimes were bought through gun shows. his was the second most common source of guns used by criminals (first place were those bought through a strawman which accounted for ~ 40%)not sure what that rat is that you smelled.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
“There’s no reason people should object to background checks, but I believe that is already in place.”
They are not.
and while this is something that nearly 90% of the country agrees is a good idea including the vast majority of gun owners, the NRA opposes it.The last time this was discussed I commented
” but right now today 8/15/2019 the following states : AL, AK, AZ, AR FL, GA,, ID, IN, IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MO MT ME NH NC ND OH OK PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WV WI WY Do NOT require background checks for all gun sales (aka the “gun show loophole”)”I don’t think much has changed in the past 2 and half years since I wrote that
“This whole business of looking good by the Goyim is completely secondary, if even that much.”
one of the dafim this week is explciit that looking good in fornt of Goyim is a “kiddush Hashem”
Yevamos 79 a relates
In regard to the hanging of Shaul’s descendants which violated a pasuk in the TorahThe Gemara says
טאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: מוּטָב שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְיִתְקַדֵּשׁ שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְרִים וְשָׁבִים אוֹמְרִים: מָה טִיבָן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ? הַלָּלוּ בְּנֵי מְלָכִים הֵם. וּמָה עָשׂוּ? פָּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בְּגֵרִים גְּרוּרִים. אָמְרוּ: אֵין לְךָ אוּמָּה שֶׁרְאוּיָה לְהִדָּבֵק בָּהּ כָּזוֹ.
It is clear these “ovrim veshavim” were not Jewish
Lol UJM
you don’t need to parse a letter to not e an “extra” phrase written over an over and over and over (literally)
If you don’t know why he wrote it, just say so.
My question is pashut pshat what does “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief” add that he was careful to include it EVERY time.I know why, Jackk knows, Aseh knows.
B’seder you don’t know no shame in saying soUJM
Actually not.
And of course if it where true, there would be no need to stick in that phrase multiple times.But ok, i’ll bite. What was R’ Zweibel (and the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah of America on whose behalf he was writing) looking to add wit h the phrase “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief” If it didn’t add anything to “necessary to preserve the life of the mother”?
If it was once, fine I agree don’t be medayek in every word but it is every single time.
Why not just say “necessary to preserve the life of the mother” And thats it, if yo uthink that is Halacha’s approach
Aseh
Great point, I didn’t think of that distinction. Though worth noting that R’ Moshe does not make this distinction IIRC.
to clarify what I meant by “In practice it is this way as well” I meant in practice Poskim use a “looser” (or stricter depending on your frame of reference) definition of “life at risk” than doctors would
Jackk
Your understanding is exactly right .
In practice it is this way as well
Every time abortion comes up, many posters mistakenly comment something along the lines of
“…abortion is only allowed if the mother’s physical life is in danger,…”It is worth noting that in 1989 Rabbi Zwiebel at the behest of the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah submitted an amicus brief in the case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
“For the reasons stated above, amicus curiae Agudath Israel of America respectfully submits that Roe v. Wade’s holding that all abortions are expressions of a constitutional right that is “fundamental” should be overruled; that abortion should be deemed a “fundamental” right only where necessary to preserve the life of the mother OR WHERE MANDATED BY THE MOTHER’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; and that Missouri’s legislative “finding” that human life begins at conception should be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause.
(emphasis added)This line appears over and over again in the brief “Thus, even if the right to most abortions is not fundamental, the right to some abortions — those necessary to preserve maternal life and those mandated by a woman’s religious beliefs — is.”
In fact It seems EVERY TIME the phrase “to protect maternal life” appears it is immediately followed by “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief’s”
The idea that the ONLY abortions allowed is to protect the life of the mother, is not the Torah True (TM) approach
In Buffalo there was an armed security officer
In Texas (according to some reports) the shooter was confornted by armed officers before he entered the school.More guns is unfortunately not the answer
“No reasonable person thinks that abortion is not murder.”
This is offensive the Achiezer, Seridei Eish, Maharit , R’ Yaakov Emdedn Tzitz eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman, chavas Yair, Minhas chinuch were all reasonable people.
Sure you can argue with them. But to say they weren’t reasonable isn’t nice to say the least“Stop being motzi Shem Ra on one of the gedolei hador and gonask mechila. Alternatively,learn how to read before quoting someone.”
If you can’t identify the “Someone quoted R Shlomo Zalman as being mattir abortions.” I expect you to ask mechila and/or learn to read before quoting someone
“Someone quoted R Shlomo Zalman as being mattir abortions.
Surprise surprise, lo hada”m.”who said that?
AAQ
” but generally exalting R Moshe to press people to disregard a different serious posek is simply halachic bullying”I don;lt think its bullying, I think heis new t oall this . So he thinks Saying “R’ Moshe ” over and over and telling us how great he was (As if the rest of us don;t know) is a winning argument,
As he learns more he’ll fins several pesakim
This on the other hand ” They’d recoil in horror at the shattering of skulls, dismemberment and brutal torture that abortion often entails.” is a bt more bullying.
Though it too is irrelevent. My Bubbeh would recoil in horro at a description of how Sereifa is done. That doesnt mean we skip the end of Sanhedrin come to think of it there are a few blat in Yevamos she’d recoil from too, I guess we skip those ?
Avirah
” And they would scream “murderer!” Without getting into any shailos if it’s *really* murder or not.”Speak for yourself, may be your zeideh was an am haaretz. not sure that is muttar to say, but definitely don;t say that about all of us
And you have a funny idea about how pesak works. This isn’t about who was “bigger” A point you’ve made a few times that is completely irrelevant . (See YD 3:88 where he gives chizuk to someone afraid to argue with the Chazon Ish) Sure R’ Moshe is greater, pesak doesnt always follow who was “greater” .
you personally hold like R’ Moshe, Beseder. He is vey happy I’m sure he is pumped to get your stamp of approval.AAQ
“”you may be right and your opponents holding by minority opinion””
H isnt right. R’ Moshe Is the minority opinion. As demonstrated repeatedly .
Though certainly I’d be chosesh for such a significant minority opieion for such a potetially chamur issurujm
“or undergoes an abortion will be executed”undergoing is probably not assur, there is probably no lifnei iver for a beni noach.
but sure I agree“Why is there even any hava mina that there might be a right to kill a mamzer, any more than to kill a non-mamzer?”
There is no such hava aminah. but according to most poskim abortion isnt murder. In the case of a mamzer R’ Yaakov Emden holds it is muttar to abort (not murder obviously) a mamzer.“but i believe that Rav Shlomo Zalman considered abortion to be Retzichah for Jews also”
I’m not sure if he wrote anything himself on the matter. Both Nishmas Avraham and Shulchan Shlomo (hilchas refuah) write that he held it is gezel
I’m skeptical of your example, Haman’s name and father is read twice a year in a sing song tune that everyone I know recognizes and can easily finish “Haman ben…” .
Now if you said they don’t know Yerachmiel’s father I’d believe you, though I don’t think that is indicative of people not learning very strongly; even though that too is mefurash in the passuk
I don’ t think learning and preparing for a chidon haTananch are the same (though to be clear I do think there is value in knowing who Yerachmiel (which one’s?) father was) .(My list is heavy on Achronim becasue Rishonim’s views are often in dispute. For example R’ Moshe held the Rambam views abortion as murder; the Achiezer and Minchas chinuch argue, but according to some yo ucan add the Rambam to the bove list. Similarly the Achiezer brings from a Ran in chullin that it isnt murder, though again others dispute this.
also, as mentioned in previous threads; not murder does not equal muttar. This should be obvious but this point often gets lost so it is worth repeating. One poster mistakenly suggested if it isnt murder it should be celebrated. A contention that is utterly baffling )
Phil
your comment is shocking
to just dismiss the vast vast majority of poskim who do not hold abotyion is murder (at least for yidden), should make any frum yid shudder. It is one thing to (wrongly) claim that klal yisroel has accepted the opinion of those who wholsd it is murder. But to completly dismiss the Achiezer, Seridei Eish, Maharit , R’ Yaakov Emdedn Tzitz eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman, chavas Yair, Minhas chinuch, Rashi, Tosfos (some Baalei Tosfos there is a machlokes) among others as not even existing!?!How low we have you fallen. Our parents and grandparents would be shocked at this discussion, to just mach avek all those shitos.
Again you dont hold of them fine. You want to be machmir (or meikel) on yourself and not allow those abortions b’seder. but to say they don’t exist?“. However, to oivdei Hashem who value life abortion is repulsive and unthinkable even when technically allowed by halacha ”
Nu nu so you are frummer than the Borei Olam,, to most people that isnt how halacha works, if muttar its muttar if asur than assur.
” After 40 days abortion is only allowed if the mother’s physical life is in danger, not if there’s a perceived threat of mental health issues.”
In your opinion. and you are free to have an opinion. I’ll bet noone ever came to you with suc ha sheilah. The poskim who get these shailahs’ do sometimes allow after 40 days .
“Abortion is murder. Abortion is murder. Abortion is murder. Period.”
Is that how halacha works? You repeat things over an over and they become true
AAQ
Thanks
We should add Gideon (shoftim 8:30)
Yerachmiel (divrei Hayamim alef 2:26)But clearly very rare
your cases mostly involve yibum , and king (sometimes both)UJM
“The Darchei Moshe and Rema demonstrate Rabbeinu Gershom provided exceptions to the Cherem, such as if the wife couldn’t have children. This effectively establishes that prior to R”G’s Cherem no such exceptions were necessary for polygyny.”got it, though
I’m not questioning if it was allowed.
Of course it was.
I am looking for a source as to how it was done in practice.
The Remah does imply that there were such places “ועיין בי”ד סי’ רכ”ח אם הלך ממקום שנהגו להחמיר למקום שנהגו להקל”Thanks
“As far as Tanach or Chazal, they didn’t always tell us everyone’s full marital statuses, ”
got it, So you cant think of any others eitherUntil Rabbeinu Gershom, the people married to more than one wife were regular Yidden, [citation needed]
not saying you are wrong.
would love a source .alos not you didnt answer my question (As usual)
Here it is again
Any others? (ie people in Tanacha/Mishna/Gemara with more than one wife?
Here is the list so far: Avraham, Yaakov Elkanah, Dovid, Shlomo, Eisav and Lamech“While there are exceptions like Yaakov Avinu even when it was allowed the norm was one wife.”
Not just Yaakov aveinu
ALL the cases I can think of involved special circumstances either a melech, or one wife couldn’t have children
Avraham, Yaakov (who was tricked), Elkanah, Dovid, Shlomo
of course we find Eisav and Lamech though not exactly role models
Any others?
“*Halachicly* is abortion considered murder”
Depends on circumstances in some cases no, in other cases its a machlokes” and would you be chaiv hereg?”
No” would it make a diffrence what trymester? ”
Machlokes“Also is it part of sheva mitzvos bnei noach?”
YesThat was a rather long solution to a crises I didn’t know existed , namely the “same color same size sock crises”
This solution wouldn’t even work for the “different color sock crises” not to mention much else else“Of course, more than 10% ends up merging in, significantly delaying the rest.”
This is incorrect.
The way you describe is very inefficent and causes traffic.
bot h lanes should be utilized until the end then merge in an alternating fashionThis has been studied over and over
See for example “EVALUATION OF THE LATE MERGE WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL STRATEGY ”or “Dynamic Late Merge Control Concept for Work Zones on Rural Freeways”
so to answer your question
“which one would you choose or any better suggestions?”
There is a clear better suggestion. stay in your lane and merge at the last minute better for you, AND better for society. The rare win win.ujm
Yes
Rambam Sanhedrin 12:4
מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ אֵין מַשְׁהִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא יֵהָרֵג בְּיוֹמוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה עֻבָּרָה אֵין מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. וּמַכִּין אוֹתָהּ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַהֵרָיוֹן עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הַוָּלָד תְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל אִם יָשְׁבָה עַל הַמַּשְׁבֵּר מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד(To clarify my “I have” refers to the opening clause: “if you saw….” )
Avira
“question. If you saw a detailed video of a 2nd trimester fetus, with its organs, its heart beating, its brain firing neurons, its limbs developing…would you crush its skull, sever its spinal chord and dismember him?”
I have. and no I wouldn’t
(even if medically necessary I don’t think I could. Definitely if she was being led to be executed al pi beis din, and they ruled to perform the abortion first I can’t imagine being able to do that. I don’t know what that changes)why do you ask?
“For goyim it’s called a nefesh anyway, so your statement is just plainly against the pasuk. Just flat out ignorance.”
My focus is/was on yidden“if a lady is alloyed to do abortion to her own body because it is hers and dont tell me what to do then how could you force people to take vaccines”
Great question.
IT is becasue vaccines tend ** to affect people around them, abortion does not*. Furthermore vaccines protect people themselves which is in the State’s interest too similar to Seatbelts, abortion does not (in fact banning abortion would put peopl’es healh at risk since it would lead to unsafe abortions, Note: this is not an argument I find compelling since if it is wrong, its is wrong and should be banned we don;t not ban things becasue people break the law; we don;t avoid barbed wire outside sensitive buildings because it would lead to thieves cutting themselves, but it is still worth noting)
*Aye you will say abortion dos affect the life of another, namely the baby. This isn t true. Since in their view (and according to most in halachas’ view as well) a fetus is not a “life” as it is totally dependent on another. Lest yo usay, a baby is also dependent on another. There is a clear distinction, a baby’s life depends on ANYONE else. Not one person, a mother who can’t take care of a child does not have to, she can drop off the baby and “society” will take care of it. Such an option does not exist during pregnancy forcing a woman to serve as an incubator for an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is not at all similar to forcing a vaccine to help protect herself/society
Hope this helps
** Don;t get caught up on a particular vaccine that may not help others. I may concede that that one can’t be forced, (though again EVEN there it may ok to force if it helps her, I ma on the fence)
moishek
“Anyone here disagree?”
almost everybody does from both a halachic and logical standpoint.
“Yes, a woman has a right to her own body.”
I can’t understand how a frum Jew can write this. absolutely not. Disagree completely. A frum Jew cannot get a tattoo, can’t just chop of a limb that they don’t like, can
‘t eat what they want can’t wear what they want etc etcCutting of an arm? Absolutly forbidden. Even plastic surgery is a machlokes and not so clear.
suicide? Gezunterheit?
What are you talking aboutyeshivaguy
want*