ubiquitin,
“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””
Yes, but so what? I can give you the reasons, and you or your doctor cohorts can laugh at my doctor and assert your superior medical prowess or whatever you want to do. But I am not a medical professional. Who do I trust? The doctors we saw in exam rooms and our own rav, or the out-of-sight colleagues of a person on the Internet I’m having a conversation with? I don’t need to be an arbiter of what is medical Truth. You claimed that medical opinion is more stringent than rabbis. My own real life experience has told me otherwise. I stated thus, and I have no more to add.
“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.”
Ergo enforcing or allowing for religion, as you perceive it.
“your last paragraph is confusing. IF there was a law banning eruvim I would oppose it, I’m not sure wh yyou think otherwise.”
Now you’re putting words into my mouth. A law banning eruvim would be unconstitutional due to the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws. 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. Or they can build a superhighway right in the middle of an existing eruv, rendering it invalid. Would you support Jews being allowed to construct lechis and fences wherever they want, and having veto ability on any construction projects?
“that’s a lot of ifs.”
That’s why lawyers make big bucks and work long hours.
“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.”
It’s easy to get behind a theoretical ideal that you know has no chance of passing in our current legal system.
“your one good point was regarding recalcitrant husbands.
That’s a good one it deserves its own response.”
Well, I consider it an example of my primary point, so by all means let’s pursue that. It might be more fruitful than a talking-past-each-other fest. I don’t want to challenge the legendary ubiquitin/Health debates.