One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Is a******n really against God's law?
Page 1 of 7 next> last>>
Apr 23, 2014 00:08:23   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
I found this website and thought its reasoning on a******n and the Judaeo/Christian ethic rather interesting. So, I posted portions of it for your comments.

The legal status of a fetus, compiled from a BBC website on religion

One of the basic tenants of the pro-lifers, especially in the US, centers on the belief that the fetus is a person at conception. This tenant has its genesis (no pun intended) in an interpretation of Jewish and Christian Biblical passages which are said to prove the belief in humanity at conception and the sanctity of life.

A little background for our non-believers who've never been to church nor have ever read the Bible.

Christianity is the faith based on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, who was sent to the world to sacrifice Himself on behalf of mankind, so that mankind, by accepting Jesus as their savior, can receive God's grace and live an eternal life after death, in Heaven, with God.

According to the Bible, although conceived by the virgin, Mary, with the Holy Spirit, Jesus is prophesized to be from the lineage of the Israelite king, David. As a child, Jesus, during a trip to Jerusalem by His parents, was found, "in His Father's house," the Temple, with the priests. Later, as a young adult, He spent a lot of time in the Temple and the local synagogue, teaching the Jewish Torah (the Law) and other religious books.

It's safe to say that Jesus was Jewish, being brought up in the Jewish religion and Jewish customs, and being the Son of the God of Israel. Jesus spends His adult life ministering to the poor and downtrodden of Israel. He healed the sick, raised some from the dead and, spoke against the collection of riches on Earth, and taught His followers to take care of the less fortunate because as He said, "wh**ever you do to the least of these, you do to Me."

To the chagrin of the Saduccees and the Pharisees, the 2 major political/religious parties in Israel, Jesus developed a following. (One must know that at this time, Israel was a theocracy, much like the Islamic theocratic states who practice Sharia Law, today.). To silence Him, the members of the 2 parties had Him arrested and turned over to the Roman ruler, Pontious Pilot, for k*****g. After a mock trial, Jesus was tortured, scourged and crucified; all in accordance with the Jewish religious prophecies in the Torah that Jesus' tormentors failed to note.

After Jesus died, rose from the dead, met with His disciples and 500 other people, t***sfigured and assented into Heaven, His followers began a new religion based on the belief that Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God, sent to fulfill the prophecies. The new religion was called "The Way." Later, it came to be called Christianity, and it's followers, "Christians."

Today, modern Christians tend to forget that Jesus was first, Jewish; that He taught in the Temple; that He taught Jewish religion and traditions. Part of those traditions and religious beliefs dealt with pregnancy and the unborn.

Now, for the parts of the BBCwebsite:

"Traditional Judaism regards a fetus as a being part of the mother's body that is developing towards being a person.

"The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in "Halacha" [Jewish law] is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being - but not quite. In Judaism a fetus is not considered to be a person until it is born. Before that, it is regarded as a part of the mother's body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and some status. During the first forty days after conception, it is considered 'mere fluid'.

"According to the Halacha or Jewish Law a fetus is considered part of the mother's body and not a full human being. The book of Exodus (21:22) says...

"When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life... ." "Other damage" is taken, in this text, to mean "the death of the mother."

"This passage is interpreted as saying that causing the fetus to miscarry is a civil wrong that gives rise to the right to financial restitution - which indicates that the fetus is not a person. But, k*****g the mother is murder, because the mother is a person.

"From an ethical point of view, then: a fetus is not a person but a fetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood. So a fetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons. The high status given to a fetus is demonstrated by the fact that Jewish law permits desecration of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a fetus.

"The distinguished Jewish rabbi Rashi wrote: "For as long as it (the fetus) did not come out into the world, it is not called a living thing and it is permissible to take its life in order to save its mother. Once the head has come forth, it may not be harmed because it is considered born, and one life may not be taken to save another. This passage, too, makes it clear that Judaism regards a fetus as a lesser human being than a human being who has been (at least partially) born.

"But although the fetus has no personhood and therefore none of the rights and privileges of a human being, it must still be protected as a potential human being, and not casually harmed or destroyed."

"The Talmud (commentary on Jewish oral traditions) gives other examples on the status of the fetus.

"The first involves the sale of a cow, which is subsequently found to be pregnant. No payment is made for the sale of the fetus to the buyer and the fetus belongs to the buyer.

"The second example concerns the conversion of a pregnant woman to Judaism. Jewish law regards the conversion valid for her future child as well, requiring no separate conversion for it after birth."

Okay, all you pro-choices and pro-lifers, what say ye?

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 00:27:25   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
alabuck wrote:
I found this website and thought its reasoning on a******n and the Judaeo/Christian ethic rather interesting. So, I posted portions of it for your comments.

The legal status of a fetus, compiled from a BBC website on religion

One of the basic tenants of the pro-lifers, especially in the US, centers on the belief that the fetus is a person at conception. This tenant has its genesis (no pun intended) in an interpretation of Jewish and Christian Biblical passages which are said to prove the belief in humanity at conception and the sanctity of life.

A little background for our non-believers who've never been to church nor have ever read the Bible.

Christianity is the faith based on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, who was sent to the world to sacrifice Himself on behalf of mankind, so that mankind, by accepting Jesus as their savior, can receive God's grace and live an eternal life after death, in Heaven, with God.

According to the Bible, although conceived by the virgin, Mary, with the Holy Spirit, Jesus is prophesized to be from the lineage of the Israelite king, David. As a child, Jesus, during a trip to Jerusalem by His parents, was found, "in His Father's house," the Temple, with the priests. Later, as a young adult, He spent a lot of time in the Temple and the local synagogue, teaching the Jewish Torah (the Law) and other religious books.

It's safe to say that Jesus was Jewish, being brought up in the Jewish religion and Jewish customs, and being the Son of the God of Israel. Jesus spends His adult life ministering to the poor and downtrodden of Israel. He healed the sick, raised some from the dead and, spoke against the collection of riches on Earth, and taught His followers to take care of the less fortunate because as He said, "wh**ever you do to the least of these, you do to Me."

To the chagrin of the Saduccees and the Pharisees, the 2 major political/religious parties in Israel, Jesus developed a following. (One must know that at this time, Israel was a theocracy, much like the Islamic theocratic states who practice Sharia Law, today.). To silence Him, the members of the 2 parties had Him arrested and turned over to the Roman ruler, Pontious Pilot, for k*****g. After a mock trial, Jesus was tortured, scourged and crucified; all in accordance with the Jewish religious prophecies in the Torah that Jesus' tormentors failed to note.

After Jesus died, rose from the dead, met with His disciples and 500 other people, t***sfigured and assented into Heaven, His followers began a new religion based on the belief that Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God, sent to fulfill the prophecies. The new religion was called "The Way." Later, it came to be called Christianity, and it's followers, "Christians."

Today, modern Christians tend to forget that Jesus was first, Jewish; that He taught in the Temple; that He taught Jewish religion and traditions. Part of those traditions and religious beliefs dealt with pregnancy and the unborn.

Now, for the parts of the BBCwebsite:

"Traditional Judaism regards a fetus as a being part of the mother's body that is developing towards being a person.

"The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in "Halacha" [Jewish law] is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being - but not quite. In Judaism a fetus is not considered to be a person until it is born. Before that, it is regarded as a part of the mother's body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and some status. During the first forty days after conception, it is considered 'mere fluid'.

"According to the Halacha or Jewish Law a fetus is considered part of the mother's body and not a full human being. The book of Exodus (21:22) says...

"When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life... ." "Other damage" is taken, in this text, to mean "the death of the mother."

"This passage is interpreted as saying that causing the fetus to miscarry is a civil wrong that gives rise to the right to financial restitution - which indicates that the fetus is not a person. But, k*****g the mother is murder, because the mother is a person.

"From an ethical point of view, then: a fetus is not a person but a fetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood. So a fetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons. The high status given to a fetus is demonstrated by the fact that Jewish law permits desecration of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a fetus.

"The distinguished Jewish rabbi Rashi wrote: "For as long as it (the fetus) did not come out into the world, it is not called a living thing and it is permissible to take its life in order to save its mother. Once the head has come forth, it may not be harmed because it is considered born, and one life may not be taken to save another. This passage, too, makes it clear that Judaism regards a fetus as a lesser human being than a human being who has been (at least partially) born.

"But although the fetus has no personhood and therefore none of the rights and privileges of a human being, it must still be protected as a potential human being, and not casually harmed or destroyed."

"The Talmud (commentary on Jewish oral traditions) gives other examples on the status of the fetus.

"The first involves the sale of a cow, which is subsequently found to be pregnant. No payment is made for the sale of the fetus to the buyer and the fetus belongs to the buyer.

"The second example concerns the conversion of a pregnant woman to Judaism. Jewish law regards the conversion valid for her future child as well, requiring no separate conversion for it after birth."

Okay, all you pro-choices and pro-lifers, what say ye?
I found this website and thought its reasoning on ... (show quote)




Intriguing post. I am pro-choice, but not pro-a******n. It is the woman's decision first, preferably with her doctor. I would hope that, if married, the woman would consult and consider her husband's feelings. Hopefully, wh**ever decision reached is mutual.

I also say you have opened Pandora's box :!:

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 00:36:02   #
Armageddun Loc: The show me state
 
slatten49 wrote:
Intriguing post. I am pro-choice, but not pro-a******n. It is the woman's decision first, preferably with her doctor. I would hope that, if married, the woman would consult and consider her husband's feelings. Hopefully, wh**ever decision reached is mutual.

I also say you have opened Pandora's box :!:


I'm sure once again the consensus will be: "It's a matter of interpretation." My v**e is a******n is against God's will. Just saying.

Reply
 
 
Apr 23, 2014 00:47:48   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
alabuck wrote:
I found this website and thought its reasoning on a******n and the Judaeo/Christian ethic rather interesting. So, I posted portions of it for your comments.

The legal status of a fetus, compiled from a BBC website on religion

One of the basic tenants of the pro-lifers, especially in the US, centers on the belief that the fetus is a person at conception. This tenant has its genesis (no pun intended) in an interpretation of Jewish and Christian Biblical passages which are said to prove the belief in humanity at conception and the sanctity of life.

A little background for our non-believers who've never been to church nor have ever read the Bible.

Christianity is the faith based on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, who was sent to the world to sacrifice Himself on behalf of mankind, so that mankind, by accepting Jesus as their savior, can receive God's grace and live an eternal life after death, in Heaven, with God.

According to the Bible, although conceived by the virgin, Mary, with the Holy Spirit, Jesus is prophesized to be from the lineage of the Israelite king, David. As a child, Jesus, during a trip to Jerusalem by His parents, was found, "in His Father's house," the Temple, with the priests. Later, as a young adult, He spent a lot of time in the Temple and the local synagogue, teaching the Jewish Torah (the Law) and other religious books.

It's safe to say that Jesus was Jewish, being brought up in the Jewish religion and Jewish customs, and being the Son of the God of Israel. Jesus spends His adult life ministering to the poor and downtrodden of Israel. He healed the sick, raised some from the dead and, spoke against the collection of riches on Earth, and taught His followers to take care of the less fortunate because as He said, "wh**ever you do to the least of these, you do to Me."

To the chagrin of the Saduccees and the Pharisees, the 2 major political/religious parties in Israel, Jesus developed a following. (One must know that at this time, Israel was a theocracy, much like the Islamic theocratic states who practice Sharia Law, today.). To silence Him, the members of the 2 parties had Him arrested and turned over to the Roman ruler, Pontious Pilot, for k*****g. After a mock trial, Jesus was tortured, scourged and crucified; all in accordance with the Jewish religious prophecies in the Torah that Jesus' tormentors failed to note.

After Jesus died, rose from the dead, met with His disciples and 500 other people, t***sfigured and assented into Heaven, His followers began a new religion based on the belief that Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God, sent to fulfill the prophecies. The new religion was called "The Way." Later, it came to be called Christianity, and it's followers, "Christians."

Today, modern Christians tend to forget that Jesus was first, Jewish; that He taught in the Temple; that He taught Jewish religion and traditions. Part of those traditions and religious beliefs dealt with pregnancy and the unborn.

Now, for the parts of the BBCwebsite:

"Traditional Judaism regards a fetus as a being part of the mother's body that is developing towards being a person.

"The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in "Halacha" [Jewish law] is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being - but not quite. In Judaism a fetus is not considered to be a person until it is born. Before that, it is regarded as a part of the mother's body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and some status. During the first forty days after conception, it is considered 'mere fluid'.

"According to the Halacha or Jewish Law a fetus is considered part of the mother's body and not a full human being. The book of Exodus (21:22) says...

"When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life... ." "Other damage" is taken, in this text, to mean "the death of the mother."

"This passage is interpreted as saying that causing the fetus to miscarry is a civil wrong that gives rise to the right to financial restitution - which indicates that the fetus is not a person. But, k*****g the mother is murder, because the mother is a person.

"From an ethical point of view, then: a fetus is not a person but a fetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood. So a fetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons. The high status given to a fetus is demonstrated by the fact that Jewish law permits desecration of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a fetus.

"The distinguished Jewish rabbi Rashi wrote: "For as long as it (the fetus) did not come out into the world, it is not called a living thing and it is permissible to take its life in order to save its mother. Once the head has come forth, it may not be harmed because it is considered born, and one life may not be taken to save another. This passage, too, makes it clear that Judaism regards a fetus as a lesser human being than a human being who has been (at least partially) born.

"But although the fetus has no personhood and therefore none of the rights and privileges of a human being, it must still be protected as a potential human being, and not casually harmed or destroyed."

"The Talmud (commentary on Jewish oral traditions) gives other examples on the status of the fetus.

"The first involves the sale of a cow, which is subsequently found to be pregnant. No payment is made for the sale of the fetus to the buyer and the fetus belongs to the buyer.

"The second example concerns the conversion of a pregnant woman to Judaism. Jewish law regards the conversion valid for her future child as well, requiring no separate conversion for it after birth."

Okay, all you pro-choices and pro-lifers, what say ye?
I found this website and thought its reasoning on ... (show quote)


As a Jew, I will speak only of our belief system. While there is debate among the Rabbis whether a******n is a Biblical or Rabbinical prohibition, all agree on the fundamental concept that fundamentally, a******n is only permitted to protect the life of the mother or in other extraordinary situations. Jewish law does not sanction a******n on demand without a pressing reason. This includes a******n because the child may be deformed or unwanted. Basically, if a woman's life is threatened by the unborn child, the child is considered to a rodef, a pursuer after the mother with the intent to k**l her. It is important to point out that the reason that the life of the fetus is subordinate to the mother is because the fetus is the cause of the mother's life-threatening condition, whether directly (e.g. due to toxemia, placenta previa) or indirectly (e.g. exacerbation of underlying diabetes, kidney disease, or hypertension). A fetus may not be aborted to save the life of any other person whose life is not directly threatened by the fetus, such as use of fetal organs for t***splant.

So although the vast majority of what you quoted is a non-Jewish interpretation of our beliefs, it is lacking in an understanding of the laws. If you have an interest in learning more; May I suggest the following material that deals specifically with a******n for Jewish women:
Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat II: 69B.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, 423:1
Ashken**i, Rabbi Yehuda, Be'er Hetiv, Choshen Mishpat 425:2
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 1:9; Talmud Sanhedrin 72B
Oholos 7:6
See Steinberg, Dr. Abraham; Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics, "A******n and Miscarriage," for an extensive discussion of the maternal indications for a******n.
See Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics. P. 10, for references.
See Spero, Moshe, Judaism and Psychology, pp. 168-180.
Zilberstein, Rabbi Yitzchak, Emek Halacha, Assia, Vol. 1, 1986, pp. 205-209.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach and Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth cited in English Nishmat Avraham, Choshen Mishpat, 425:11, p. 288.
Tzitz Eliezer, Volume 13:102.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach and Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth cited in English Nishmat Avraham, Choshen Mishpat, 425:23, p. 294.
See excellent chapter in English Nishmat Avraham, Choshen Mishpat, 425 by Dr. Abraham Abraham, particularly p. 293.

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 01:06:37   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
Intriguing post. I am pro-choice, but not pro-a******n. It is the woman's decision first, preferably with her doctor. I would hope that, if married, the woman would consult and consider her husband's feelings. Hopefully, wh**ever decision reached is mutual.

I also say you have opened Pandora's box

Perhaps I have opened the box - so to speak. But, it's a box that affects tens, if not hundreds of millions of Americans. I, too, am pro-choice, but not pro-a******n. I feel I don't have the civil or clerical authority to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body when it comes to sex and reproduction. That's between her, her conscience and God. I also don't equate birth control and contraceptives with a******n as birth control and contraceptives are, by design, used to prevent pregnancy, not terminate it.

I also don't understand how some people are so opposed to a******n, yet are also opposed to helping out poor people and their kids with social programs and educational programs. If you don't want the poor having kids, allow for governmental birth control programs or even pay for getting women's tubes tied - if the women want the procedure done to them. If you don't want to help feed and clothe and allow for medical care after the kids are born, then why balk at the first idea? None of this is the kids' fault. Why punish them?

Lastly, if the conserves are so against providing birth control measures through the ACA, then "boner pills" (CIALIS and Viagra) for men should be included on the list of unapproved drugs. Seems to me that the men should assume some responsibility in the act of procreation and its aftermath.

But, hey, those are just my opinions. I'm sure they're lots more.

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 01:09:08   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
Thanks for a very interesting reply. I was hoping for a response from someone of the Jewish faith. Shalom!

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 01:10:16   #
dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)
 
alabuck wrote:
Intriguing post. I am pro-choice, but not pro-a******n. It is the woman's decision first, preferably with her doctor. I would hope that, if married, the woman would consult and consider her husband's feelings. Hopefully, wh**ever decision reached is mutual.

I also say you have opened Pandora's box

Perhaps I have opened the box - so to speak. But, it's a box that affects tens, if not hundreds of millions of Americans. I, too, am pro-choice, but not pro-a******n. I feel I don't have the civil or clerical authority to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body when it comes to sex and reproduction. That's between her, her conscience and God. I also don't equate birth control and contraceptives with a******n as birth control and contraceptives are, by design, used to prevent pregnancy, not terminate it.

I also don't understand how some people are so opposed to a******n, yet are also opposed to helping out poor people and their kids with social programs and educational programs. If you don't want the poor having kids, allow for governmental birth control programs or even pay for getting women's tubes tied - if the women want the procedure done to them. If you don't want to help feed and clothe and allow for medical care after the kids are born, then why balk at the first idea? None of this is the kids' fault. Why punish them?

Lastly, if the conserves are so against providing birth control measures through the ACA, then "boner pills" (CIALIS and Viagra) for men should be included on the list of unapproved drugs. Seems to me that the men should assume some responsibility in the act of procreation and its aftermath.

But, hey, those are just my opinions. I'm sure they're lots more.
Intriguing post. I am pro-choice, but not pro-a**... (show quote)


P.S. "Tenants," and ,"tenets," are not the same word.

Reply
 
 
Apr 23, 2014 01:11:53   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
dennisimoto wrote:
P.S. "Tenants," and ,"tenets," are not the same word.


Dad-blasted spell-check !!! Thanks for catching that !

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 01:18:23   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
alabuck wrote:
Thanks for a very interesting reply. I was hoping for a response from someone of the Jewish faith. Shalom!


Alabuck, please hit "quote reply" when responding to a post. It allows readers to identify to whom you are responding. Hit "reply" if your post is a general one, and not in response to any individual. :wink:

Thank you! :thumbup:

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 01:53:30   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
slatten49 wrote:
Alabuck, please hit "quote reply" when responding to a post. It allows readers to identify to whom you are responding. Hit "reply" if your post is a general one, and not in response to any individual. :wink:

Thank you! :thumbup:


Okay. Thanks.

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 02:13:12   #
Ricktloml
 
alabuck wrote:
I found this website and thought its reasoning on a******n and the Judaeo/Christian ethic rather interesting. So, I posted portions of it for your comments.

The legal status of a fetus, compiled from a BBC website on religion

One of the basic tenants of the pro-lifers, especially in the US, centers on the belief that the fetus is a person at conception. This tenant has its genesis (no pun intended) in an interpretation of Jewish and Christian Biblical passages which are said to prove the belief in humanity at conception and the sanctity of life.

A little background for our non-believers who've never been to church nor have ever read the Bible.

Christianity is the faith based on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, who was sent to the world to sacrifice Himself on behalf of mankind, so that mankind, by accepting Jesus as their savior, can receive God's grace and live an eternal life after death, in Heaven, with God.

According to the Bible, although conceived by the virgin, Mary, with the Holy Spirit, Jesus is prophesized to be from the lineage of the Israelite king, David. As a child, Jesus, during a trip to Jerusalem by His parents, was found, "in His Father's house," the Temple, with the priests. Later, as a young adult, He spent a lot of time in the Temple and the local synagogue, teaching the Jewish Torah (the Law) and other religious books.

It's safe to say that Jesus was Jewish, being brought up in the Jewish religion and Jewish customs, and being the Son of the God of Israel. Jesus spends His adult life ministering to the poor and downtrodden of Israel. He healed the sick, raised some from the dead and, spoke against the collection of riches on Earth, and taught His followers to take care of the less fortunate because as He said, "wh**ever you do to the least of these, you do to Me."

To the chagrin of the Saduccees and the Pharisees, the 2 major political/religious parties in Israel, Jesus developed a following. (One must know that at this time, Israel was a theocracy, much like the Islamic theocratic states who practice Sharia Law, today.). To silence Him, the members of the 2 parties had Him arrested and turned over to the Roman ruler, Pontious Pilot, for k*****g. After a mock trial, Jesus was tortured, scourged and crucified; all in accordance with the Jewish religious prophecies in the Torah that Jesus' tormentors failed to note.

After Jesus died, rose from the dead, met with His disciples and 500 other people, t***sfigured and assented into Heaven, His followers began a new religion based on the belief that Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God, sent to fulfill the prophecies. The new religion was called "The Way." Later, it came to be called Christianity, and it's followers, "Christians."

Today, modern Christians tend to forget that Jesus was first, Jewish; that He taught in the Temple; that He taught Jewish religion and traditions. Part of those traditions and religious beliefs dealt with pregnancy and the unborn.

Now, for the parts of the BBCwebsite:

"Traditional Judaism regards a fetus as a being part of the mother's body that is developing towards being a person.

"The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in "Halacha" [Jewish law] is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being - but not quite. In Judaism a fetus is not considered to be a person until it is born. Before that, it is regarded as a part of the mother's body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and some status. During the first forty days after conception, it is considered 'mere fluid'.

"According to the Halacha or Jewish Law a fetus is considered part of the mother's body and not a full human being. The book of Exodus (21:22) says...

"When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life... ." "Other damage" is taken, in this text, to mean "the death of the mother."

"This passage is interpreted as saying that causing the fetus to miscarry is a civil wrong that gives rise to the right to financial restitution - which indicates that the fetus is not a person. But, k*****g the mother is murder, because the mother is a person.

"From an ethical point of view, then: a fetus is not a person but a fetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood. So a fetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons. The high status given to a fetus is demonstrated by the fact that Jewish law permits desecration of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a fetus.

"The distinguished Jewish rabbi Rashi wrote: "For as long as it (the fetus) did not come out into the world, it is not called a living thing and it is permissible to take its life in order to save its mother. Once the head has come forth, it may not be harmed because it is considered born, and one life may not be taken to save another. This passage, too, makes it clear that Judaism regards a fetus as a lesser human being than a human being who has been (at least partially) born.

"But although the fetus has no personhood and therefore none of the rights and privileges of a human being, it must still be protected as a potential human being, and not casually harmed or destroyed."

"The Talmud (commentary on Jewish oral traditions) gives other examples on the status of the fetus.

"The first involves the sale of a cow, which is subsequently found to be pregnant. No payment is made for the sale of the fetus to the buyer and the fetus belongs to the buyer.

"The second example concerns the conversion of a pregnant woman to Judaism. Jewish law regards the conversion valid for her future child as well, requiring no separate conversion for it after birth."

Okay, all you pro-choices and pro-lifers, what say ye?
I found this website and thought its reasoning on ... (show quote)


I say you left out the part of the Bible where God says I knew you before you were in the womb, it's hard to know a non person. Forward to now and medical science is learning just how much a person that unborn baby is, has it's own DNA, a heart beat way before it's"viable" and on and on. And since there is no irrefutable, undeniable proof that life does not begin at conception, the savage practice of dismembering a baby, with no thought or care for the pain and suffering of that child, is immoral and barbaric

Reply
 
 
Apr 23, 2014 02:13:16   #
Brian Devon
 
alabuck wrote:
I found this website and thought its reasoning on a******n and the Judaeo/Christian ethic rather interesting. So, I posted portions of it for your comments.

The legal status of a fetus, compiled from a BBC website on religion

One of the basic tenants of the pro-lifers, especially in the US, centers on the belief that the fetus is a person at conception. This tenant has its genesis (no pun intended) in an interpretation of Jewish and Christian Biblical passages which are said to prove the belief in humanity at conception and the sanctity of life.

A little background for our non-believers who've never been to church nor have ever read the Bible.

Christianity is the faith based on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, who was sent to the world to sacrifice Himself on behalf of mankind, so that mankind, by accepting Jesus as their savior, can receive God's grace and live an eternal life after death, in Heaven, with God.

According to the Bible, although conceived by the virgin, Mary, with the Holy Spirit, Jesus is prophesized to be from the lineage of the Israelite king, David. As a child, Jesus, during a trip to Jerusalem by His parents, was found, "in His Father's house," the Temple, with the priests. Later, as a young adult, He spent a lot of time in the Temple and the local synagogue, teaching the Jewish Torah (the Law) and other religious books.

It's safe to say that Jesus was Jewish, being brought up in the Jewish religion and Jewish customs, and being the Son of the God of Israel. Jesus spends His adult life ministering to the poor and downtrodden of Israel. He healed the sick, raised some from the dead and, spoke against the collection of riches on Earth, and taught His followers to take care of the less fortunate because as He said, "wh**ever you do to the least of these, you do to Me."

To the chagrin of the Saduccees and the Pharisees, the 2 major political/religious parties in Israel, Jesus developed a following. (One must know that at this time, Israel was a theocracy, much like the Islamic theocratic states who practice Sharia Law, today.). To silence Him, the members of the 2 parties had Him arrested and turned over to the Roman ruler, Pontious Pilot, for k*****g. After a mock trial, Jesus was tortured, scourged and crucified; all in accordance with the Jewish religious prophecies in the Torah that Jesus' tormentors failed to note.

After Jesus died, rose from the dead, met with His disciples and 500 other people, t***sfigured and assented into Heaven, His followers began a new religion based on the belief that Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God, sent to fulfill the prophecies. The new religion was called "The Way." Later, it came to be called Christianity, and it's followers, "Christians."

Today, modern Christians tend to forget that Jesus was first, Jewish; that He taught in the Temple; that He taught Jewish religion and traditions. Part of those traditions and religious beliefs dealt with pregnancy and the unborn.

Now, for the parts of the BBCwebsite:

"Traditional Judaism regards a fetus as a being part of the mother's body that is developing towards being a person.

"The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in "Halacha" [Jewish law] is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being - but not quite. In Judaism a fetus is not considered to be a person until it is born. Before that, it is regarded as a part of the mother's body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and some status. During the first forty days after conception, it is considered 'mere fluid'.

"According to the Halacha or Jewish Law a fetus is considered part of the mother's body and not a full human being. The book of Exodus (21:22) says...

"When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life... ." "Other damage" is taken, in this text, to mean "the death of the mother."

"This passage is interpreted as saying that causing the fetus to miscarry is a civil wrong that gives rise to the right to financial restitution - which indicates that the fetus is not a person. But, k*****g the mother is murder, because the mother is a person.

"From an ethical point of view, then: a fetus is not a person but a fetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood. So a fetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons. The high status given to a fetus is demonstrated by the fact that Jewish law permits desecration of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a fetus.

"The distinguished Jewish rabbi Rashi wrote: "For as long as it (the fetus) did not come out into the world, it is not called a living thing and it is permissible to take its life in order to save its mother. Once the head has come forth, it may not be harmed because it is considered born, and one life may not be taken to save another. This passage, too, makes it clear that Judaism regards a fetus as a lesser human being than a human being who has been (at least partially) born.

"But although the fetus has no personhood and therefore none of the rights and privileges of a human being, it must still be protected as a potential human being, and not casually harmed or destroyed."

"The Talmud (commentary on Jewish oral traditions) gives other examples on the status of the fetus.

"The first involves the sale of a cow, which is subsequently found to be pregnant. No payment is made for the sale of the fetus to the buyer and the fetus belongs to the buyer.

"The second example concerns the conversion of a pregnant woman to Judaism. Jewish law regards the conversion valid for her future child as well, requiring no separate conversion for it after birth."

Okay, all you pro-choices and pro-lifers, what say ye?
I found this website and thought its reasoning on ... (show quote)












******
I am Jewish. I am liberal on most things, with a******n being a major exception. I am a little familiar with Jewish law but am hardly an expert on Halachah. I do know this. Prior to Roe V. Wade, most Jews I knew (mostly reform, or secular) were none too comfortable discussing a******n. When it was mentioned, it was usually in hushed tones, with a deep sense of shame attached to the subject.

My knowledge of Halacha is that a******n is not OK after "quickening", somewhere around day 40 of gestation.

The reality is that up until recently humans did not readily have access to the means of a******n so this subject was hardly part and parcel of every day life.

I am vehemently opposed to a******n for convenience. I reluctantly accept it for rape, profound brain deformities, and incest. I also accept it to save the life of the mother.

My revulsion of a******n is based on graphic photos I have seen of dismembered bloody fetuses. My negativity is not based on U.S. court rulings nor Jewish law.

Photographs are not propaganda. They bear witness to the t***h. A******n photos should be taken with the seriousness that photos of the holocaust should be taken. These images are not manufactured to manipulate people's emotions. They are the violent and bitter t***h.

There are many Supreme Court decisions that I would like to see repealed. One is "Citizens United" which ruled that corporate campaign contributions equal free speech.

I would also like to see the repeal of the 19th century court ruling that ruled that corporations have personhood and the same rights as an individual.

Lastly, I would like to see the overturning of Roe V. Wade, and the banning of a******n for the sake of convenience.

I am a former social worker who did adoption placement in a Catholic Agency. It is a destructive lie that women only have the option of a clean and safe a******n or a dirty back alley a******n, likely to cause infection and possibly death.

Adoption is certainly a viable and desirable option. Adoption is a win-win-win situation. The child gets to live, the mother is not left with guilt and shame, nor forced to raise a child she can't raise and as a major bonus it provides infertile couples the opportunity to enjoy the joys and fulfillment of being parents.

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 02:28:15   #
Ricktloml
 
alabuck wrote:
Intriguing post. I am pro-choice, but not pro-a******n. It is the woman's decision first, preferably with her doctor. I would hope that, if married, the woman would consult and consider her husband's feelings. Hopefully, wh**ever decision reached is mutual.

I also say you have opened Pandora's box

Perhaps I have opened the box - so to speak. But, it's a box that affects tens, if not hundreds of millions of Americans. I, too, am pro-choice, but not pro-a******n. I feel I don't have the civil or clerical authority to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body when it comes to sex and reproduction. That's between her, her conscience and God. I also don't equate birth control and contraceptives with a******n as birth control and contraceptives are, by design, used to prevent pregnancy, not terminate it.

I also don't understand how some people are so opposed to a******n, yet are also opposed to helping out poor people and their kids with social programs and educational programs. If you don't want the poor having kids, allow for governmental birth control programs or even pay for getting women's tubes tied - if the women want the procedure done to them. If you don't want to help feed and clothe and allow for medical care after the kids are born, then why balk at the first idea? None of this is the kids' fault. Why punish them?

Lastly, if the conserves are so against providing birth control measures through the ACA, then "boner pills" (CIALIS and Viagra) for men should be included on the list of unapproved drugs. Seems to me that the men should assume some responsibility in the act of procreation and its aftermath.

But, hey, those are just my opinions. I'm sure they're lots more.
Intriguing post. I am pro-choice, but not pro-a**... (show quote)


Please, you are pro choice but not pro a******n?! what exactly do you think the choice is, if you are pro choice you ARE pro a******n, that particular euphemism is just an attempt to hide what that particular choice entails

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 02:44:57   #
rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.
 
alabuck: Our Spiritual God of Old Testament stated this regarding a Pregnant woman, and this is how he felt about it:
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, "then thou shalt give life for life," Exodus 21.

During the Hebrew/Jews heigth of their Sinning and Pagan Idolatry worship in Old Testament, this is what God said they did, and how he felt about it:
5 "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, **neither came it into my mind:"** Jeremiah 19.

It hadn't even come into God's Mind that such things would be done.
If a man caused a woman to lose her pregnancy in Old Testament, it was life for life.
I doubt that it came to God's Mind that women, today, would be the ones to k**l their own pregnancy.

God opens the womb for pregnancy, and calls it a blessing, so to multiply. It is a blessing.

For many many centuries extending from the Days and Life of Jesus, the Arabs- and eventually Islam, would k**l their first born child if it was a girl, and keep doing so until they had a boy child. Then the boy child was considered the "first born."

alabuck wrote:

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 03:10:18   #
rumitoid
 
alabuck wrote:
I found this website and thought its reasoning on a******n and the Judaeo/Christian ethic rather interesting. So, I posted portions of it for your comments.

The legal status of a fetus, compiled from a BBC website on religion

One of the basic tenants of the pro-lifers, especially in the US, centers on the belief that the fetus is a person at conception. This tenant has its genesis (no pun intended) in an interpretation of Jewish and Christian Biblical passages which are said to prove the belief in humanity at conception and the sanctity of life.

A little background for our non-believers who've never been to church nor have ever read the Bible.

Christianity is the faith based on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, who was sent to the world to sacrifice Himself on behalf of mankind, so that mankind, by accepting Jesus as their savior, can receive God's grace and live an eternal life after death, in Heaven, with God.

According to the Bible, although conceived by the virgin, Mary, with the Holy Spirit, Jesus is prophesized to be from the lineage of the Israelite king, David. As a child, Jesus, during a trip to Jerusalem by His parents, was found, "in His Father's house," the Temple, with the priests. Later, as a young adult, He spent a lot of time in the Temple and the local synagogue, teaching the Jewish Torah (the Law) and other religious books.

It's safe to say that Jesus was Jewish, being brought up in the Jewish religion and Jewish customs, and being the Son of the God of Israel. Jesus spends His adult life ministering to the poor and downtrodden of Israel. He healed the sick, raised some from the dead and, spoke against the collection of riches on Earth, and taught His followers to take care of the less fortunate because as He said, "wh**ever you do to the least of these, you do to Me."

To the chagrin of the Saduccees and the Pharisees, the 2 major political/religious parties in Israel, Jesus developed a following. (One must know that at this time, Israel was a theocracy, much like the Islamic theocratic states who practice Sharia Law, today.). To silence Him, the members of the 2 parties had Him arrested and turned over to the Roman ruler, Pontious Pilot, for k*****g. After a mock trial, Jesus was tortured, scourged and crucified; all in accordance with the Jewish religious prophecies in the Torah that Jesus' tormentors failed to note.

After Jesus died, rose from the dead, met with His disciples and 500 other people, t***sfigured and assented into Heaven, His followers began a new religion based on the belief that Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God, sent to fulfill the prophecies. The new religion was called "The Way." Later, it came to be called Christianity, and it's followers, "Christians."

Today, modern Christians tend to forget that Jesus was first, Jewish; that He taught in the Temple; that He taught Jewish religion and traditions. Part of those traditions and religious beliefs dealt with pregnancy and the unborn.

Now, for the parts of the BBCwebsite:

"Traditional Judaism regards a fetus as a being part of the mother's body that is developing towards being a person.

"The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in "Halacha" [Jewish law] is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being - but not quite. In Judaism a fetus is not considered to be a person until it is born. Before that, it is regarded as a part of the mother's body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and some status. During the first forty days after conception, it is considered 'mere fluid'.

"According to the Halacha or Jewish Law a fetus is considered part of the mother's body and not a full human being. The book of Exodus (21:22) says...

"When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life... ." "Other damage" is taken, in this text, to mean "the death of the mother."

"This passage is interpreted as saying that causing the fetus to miscarry is a civil wrong that gives rise to the right to financial restitution - which indicates that the fetus is not a person. But, k*****g the mother is murder, because the mother is a person.

"From an ethical point of view, then: a fetus is not a person but a fetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood. So a fetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons. The high status given to a fetus is demonstrated by the fact that Jewish law permits desecration of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a fetus.

"The distinguished Jewish rabbi Rashi wrote: "For as long as it (the fetus) did not come out into the world, it is not called a living thing and it is permissible to take its life in order to save its mother. Once the head has come forth, it may not be harmed because it is considered born, and one life may not be taken to save another. This passage, too, makes it clear that Judaism regards a fetus as a lesser human being than a human being who has been (at least partially) born.

"But although the fetus has no personhood and therefore none of the rights and privileges of a human being, it must still be protected as a potential human being, and not casually harmed or destroyed."

"The Talmud (commentary on Jewish oral traditions) gives other examples on the status of the fetus.

"The first involves the sale of a cow, which is subsequently found to be pregnant. No payment is made for the sale of the fetus to the buyer and the fetus belongs to the buyer.

"The second example concerns the conversion of a pregnant woman to Judaism. Jewish law regards the conversion valid for her future child as well, requiring no separate conversion for it after birth."

Okay, all you pro-choices and pro-lifers, what say ye?
I found this website and thought its reasoning on ... (show quote)


Simple answer to your title, yes.

Reply
Page 1 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.