Halachically okay to be liberal?

Home Forums Politics Halachically okay to be liberal?

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 192 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1698795

    jackk
    Participant

    ujm,

    “Sometimes they’ll even insist on pulling the plug against the family’s wishes.”. I am not sure where you get this statistic from. Was a survey done on those who support abortion pulling the plug against the family’s wishes ? They are 2 separate issues. Although for a Torah Jew -they are the same – life is life.
    Healthcare in America is run like a business and Doctors, Nurses,Insurance Executives, and Hospital Executives are all part of the decision to pull the plug. There are many of them that are not pro-abortions.

    I will repeat what I wrote above :
    If you have an abortion , you have violated halacha.
    If you engage in toevah , you have violated halacha.
    If you pull the plug you are a rotzeach.

    #1698904

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “Although for a Torah Jew -they are the same – life is life.”
    This is not true. Abortion and euthanasia do not fall under the same issur. I’m not justifying either, but there are important differences when it comes to the application of pikuach nefesh between a fetus and a partially or fully born baby.

    Curiosity:
    I’m a Trumpist Conservative. I doubt CTL thinks particularly highly of me or my opinions; the only reason it seems like he and I are on the same team on this particular thread is because I’m bothered by the way you guys are going about this. I don’t expect to ever convince you otherwise, but I’ll make my point anyway: the way “liberal” is defined in your conservative bubble is not how it is defined in the liberal bubble or anywhere else. Certain religious-right conservatives basically define their entire political affiliation on the issue of abortion and they assume liberals are just the inverse. Statistically that’s not true, and clearly it’s not true. If it makes life easier to define all American politics on the subject of abortion, that’s fine for you, but we don’t all have to accept that definition, and the assertion that it’s the “colloquial” definition is just baseless. Case and point, would you consider the current Catholic pope a conservative by your definition even though he’s basically an unabashed communist?

    #1698911

    Avi K
    Participant

    CTL.
    1. You’re right. That was Ubiquitin., I apologize.
    2. It most certainly did overrule a decision. Chisholm vs. Georgia.
    3. So what if it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread? The Gemara also does that.

    #1699012

    CTLAWYER
    Participant

    @NevilleChaimBerlin
    I do think highly of you and your opinions. I may not agree with you/them but they are always well thought out, well presented and not full of the current right wing vitriol that infects our country

    #1699011

    CTLAWYER
    Participant

    @curiosity
    We disagree. Liberal is NOT far to the left of center, that’s Leftist or Left Extremist or Liberal Extremist. Liberal is either centrist or slightly left of center but accepting/tolerant of views further left.

    Your supposed definition simple parrots the ideology of the Fox/Trump network.

    #1698989

    Curiosity
    Participant

    The Catholic pope is viewed as a liberal.

    #1699183

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “The Catholic pope is viewed as a liberal.”
    But, he’s anti-abortion. So, I guess you are willing to admit a person can be liberal and still anti-abortion. What’s the shailah, then?

    #1699198

    Joseph
    Participant

    Today’s pope is “liberal” only in the context of Catholicism. Compared to other recent popes he’s a liberal. In context to the wider world outside Catholicism, even today’s pope isn’t considered liberal by a long-shot.

    In fact, even the the two previous popes before the current one, who are considered to be very conservative by all accounts, were economically liberal, opposed the death penalty, supported open borders/free immigration and supported generous welfare. So could you really even consider Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II to be conservative, given those positions?

    In any event, in today’s America those affiliated with the left and who call or consider themselves to be liberal or “progressive”, take social positions that are completely anathema to Torah and Judaism, even in the context of what is permitted/prohibiited for Bnei Noach based on the Sheva Mitzvos. And as such, in the context of the American political scene, it is certainly prohibited to be or be affiliated with the liberals, left, progressives and Democrats given their support for toeiva, abortion, right to suicide, right to pull the plug on the terminally ill, and generally supporting public immorality.

    #1699241

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    Nobody argues that families shouldn’t have the right to pull the plug on someone in a vegetative state in the political realm. That’s a purely religious discussion; I don’t think any significant portion of the goyish world views that issue the same way we do.

    Some issues are no longer on the table politically as precedents have already been set. I would imagine that liberal Jews would say that after Rowe V Wade, there is no point in arguing about abortion in the political sense. It’s not an entirely bad point because neither party is actually talking about a wholesale ban on abortion.

    #1699215

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    “So I’m not talking about where they would “require” per se, but rather where they would ALLOW

    ” That specific scenario, which is the linchpin of your pro-choice is consistent with Torah argument, seems incredibly unlikely to me.”

    It might seem that way but I know of several, and colleagues who deal with this say it is “routine” (of course routine is relative a colleague estimates 1 in 2-3 weeks (that he encounters) .”

    Well, not exactly. Because you just said that you were talking about ALLOW, which is a tangent that is probably not a good idea for us to get into, whereas I was talking about REQUIRE. What would these colleagues of yours say about the number of times halacha would require an abortion, but the medical establishment deems it unnecessary?

    #1699327

    Joseph
    Participant

    Liberals are far more prone to pushing for pulling the plug on a medical patient. Remember Terri Schiavo, anyone? President Bush went so far as to issue a presidential order to try to save her while the lowlife liberals wearing robes in courts were did everything they could to kill her. The left today is on the verge of allowing doctors to pull the plug against the family’s wishes if the doctor feels the quality of life isn’t good for the patient or if the medical expenses aren’t worth the effort to save the life.

    #1699328

    ” I don’t think any significant portion of the goyish world views that issue the same way we do.”
    That’s because we have been sleepwalking
    4 + 1/2 years ago there was had a hearing in Trenton regarding end-of-life .
    presumably based on the polls and what not

    they played up the claim of that the public was on the other side
    According to reports
    among those who showed up it was 9 to 1 non-jews ! against pulling the plug
    Have things changed since then? Probably .and whose fault is it ?

    ” that liberal Jews would say that after Rowe V Wade, there is no point in arguing about abortion in the political sense”

    Well if there’s no absolutes and It always just relative well then you might be correct
    some of the plaints against Republicans in the 1950s were They were the original ” me too”
    In other words they held the same just as moderate Democrats, just perhaps little less hasty

    #1699331

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avram
    “which is a tangent that is probably not a good idea for us to get into,”

    I’m sorry but you lost me a little bit. what tangent? thats what I am (and I thought we are) discussing. Who should decide if a Frum woman wants (or needs) an abortion: The government or her/her Rabbi and her Dr.
    .
    If halacha would allow (but not require) an abortion, do you support the government stopping them ?

    “What would these colleagues of yours say about the number of times halacha would require an abortion, but the medical establishment deems it unnecessary?”
    Probably zero, though I didint ask because I’m not sure why we are differentiating “require” vs “allow”

    As you may know halacha isnt always black and white. Even in more straight forward relatively less consequential decisions like kashrus questions there are many factors that come in shaas hadchak hefsed meruba etc there are times where eating food (or discarding it) is allowed but not required.

    With these abortion issues it is far more complex. for example carrying an anencephalic child to term . there is a lot of haalchic literature on this. the Tziiz Eleiver allowed abortion (not in 3rd trimester IIRC) R’ Moshe argued.
    nobody “REQUIRES” it.
    how hard is it for a woman to go through with such a pregnancy. I dont know, and luckily I dont have to decide whether they should be forced to even if it will be difficult .
    But if halacha allows it , let them decide with their Rav

    Let the Rav decide what effect it will have on her mental health

    #1699277

    Jersey Jew
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    What is the point of learning Novi, if one will be an ahm haoretz gamor like you. Giving tzedoka is a PRIVATE thing and NOT a govt thing.

    Liberalism, and all the other isms associated with the left, are vl’chora ASSUR GAMUR.

    #1699342

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    “I’m sorry but you lost me a little bit. what tangent?”

    Whether “allowed” and “should” are aligned or not. Obviously an extremely sensitive and complex topic.

    “Who should decide if a Frum woman wants (or needs) an abortion: The government or her/her Rabbi and her Dr.”

    If the law had a medical exemption, then it would still be the rabbi (for frum Jews) and doctor involved in the decision, no?
    .

    “If halacha would allow (but not require) an abortion, do you support the government stopping them ?”

    Leaving the current culture unchanged and given the mental health angle, I still find it hard to see a situation where the medical opinion (and hence the government) would be more stringent than the halachic opinion. And if it were so, then yes I think there should be a pause to figure things out.

    My personal opinion, however, is that most pushes to “overturn” Roe v. Wade are more an attempt to garner votes than they are to truly stop abortions. It’s tilting at a windmill and unlikely to be successful. The problem is cultural at its root.

    #1699362

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    NC

    ” I don’t think any significant portion of the goyish world views that issue the same way we do.”

    100% correct and this gets lost on many in our circles making these conversations strange.
    for example IITFT’s response.

    We and secular culture are coming from two opposite starting positions.
    One the hallmarks of modern society, and medical ethics in particular is autonomy, specifically to allow patients to make decisions about themselves, or people to make decisions about themselves.

    “Pulling the plug” isn’t controversial in secular society, as long as that is what the patient (or their family if the patient’s wishes aren’t known) wants. The only time those situations get controversial is if their are conflicting opinions as what patients would want, as in Terri Sciavo’s case.

    Abortion is a bit dicier because there the Patient (ie the woman’s) decision affects another (ie the fetus). So in that case it depends on when life begins if it begins at birth, the mother is free to due with her limb (in Talmudic parlance “yerech imo” ) as she pleases . If life begins at conception then her autonomy is challenged by the fetus’s and abortion would not be ok ( proponets of this position are often “stuck” with what to do in extraordinary cases where most of society would support abortion, why in those cases taking a life is ok, very few are consistent and say ALL abortions are forbidden )

    Halacha lehavdil takes a very different starting point.
    People are NOT autonomous. We do not have baylus over our bodies. A person cannot just “pull the plug” because he has had enough. A person can’t tatoo their body, A person can’t wound themselves, they cant cut of their limb nor abort their fetus. This is why our exceptions are broader than societies . cutting yourself (ie surgery) is allowed in certain cases, is Plastic surgery allowed, thats between you an your Rav. abortion too is allowed in certain (obviously fewer) cases, what are those cases? that is between a woman and her Rav.
    Relying on Secular ethists or medical practitioners wont work, becasue the whole starting point is different and incompatible.

    (note: for bnei noach the last paragraph isn’t completly right, (ie for them a fetus might be a life ) but our number one concern should be klal yisorel)

    #1699378

    Joseph
    Participant

    If halacha allows but doesn’t require abortion (which I agree with Avram is a very rare case), then if the secular law prohibits abortion in that case (which is also very unlikely as any new abortion restrictions will likely be far less restrictive than halacha) she shouldn’t get an abortion. There’s no conflict in such a case between halacha and secular law as not getting an abortion violates neither.

    #1699430

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Jersey
    “Giving tzedoka is a PRIVATE thing and NOT a govt thing.”

    I’m not sure if you are new to Judaism, or if our galus has been so long that you have adopted foreing ideas.
    In Judiam there is no such distiction. When moshiach comes and Jeish leadership iis reestablished the government will force you to pay maaser, with force if neccesary (kofin al mitzvas asei) they will force you to leave your field fallow every 7th year .

    See if you learn Navi you would know this, (for example Yosheyahu sent soldiers to ensure that avoda Zara was eradicated)

    #1699434

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Ubiquitin, I don’t get it. When it comes to abortion, which for goyim is murder (and also for Jews in most cases), you want the government to stay out and let the rabbonim decide, but when it comes to tzedaka, you want the government dictating how much and to whom it should go.

    #1699438

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ujm
    “If halacha allows but doesn’t require abortion (which I agree with Avram is a very rare case), ”

    SO that isnt what Avram said was a very rare case . (though he may agree, he said ” extremely unlikely scenario where expert medical opinion would hold that an abortion is unnecessary whereas halacha holds that it is necessary”)

    He is right about that, as I acknowledged, but sadly you are wrong.
    Unless you define “very rare” differently
    how often would you say is “very rare”

    Avram
    “If the law had a medical exemption, then it would still be the rabbi (for frum Jews) and doctor involved in the decision, no?”

    so it depends on how that exemtion was written. If it was black and white ie Mothers life is at risk then halacha is Faaaaaar more “lenient” than halacha. I face this often when patients ask if they should fast yom kippur, I tell them if you want a heter you are better off talking to a Rav. Especially pregnant patients (though I’m not an OB ) 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. Yet halacha views that differently. It would be bad if there was a law passed all pregnant woman have to fast unless her life is at risk. Although h technically that is the halachic stance. , halacha and medicine define that differently. And since constitutionally the law cant reflect the Rabbi’s interpretation it would be a big probelm if it was striclty defined based on “medical risk”
    This is even more true for abortion, where halacha considers psychological factors that arguably aren’t medical

    #1699447

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY
    I’m not completely sure what tzedaka you are reffering to, i’ll assume you mean things like govt subsidized healthcare or welfare. Different measures are judged by different benchmarks

    Otherwise I could say I don’t get it you claim you want limited government people should be free to own guns, but all of a sudden you wont the government to control what goes on in people’s bodies, and then you have the nerve to call yourself “pro-life” ?!. (This is directed to strawman conservative not you per se, and i’m not actually asking that question I can come up with differences)

    I’ll explain my approach I believe in the government intervening to make all our lives better. This means individuals have to give up certain rights at times for the benefit of society* Otherwise If there is no impediment placed on others, people should be free to do as they please**

    as a caveat to the above, my main concern is my community

    Thus tzedaka, (ie healthcare welfare etc ) I believe society as a whole is better off if we provide a safety net to those in need. I believe we will all be better off if we spend less and get better healthcare than we currently do (whether single payer healthcare would actually provide that isnt really my point right now). This is especially true in my community where many rely on this tzedaka

    As for abortion, goyim are my secondary concern, they may be doing something immoral that is for the Ribono she olam to figure out. see ** below
    that said if there was a legal way to have Rabbonim evaluate each case that would be my ideal. however, this isnt doable. and a “medical exemption” wouldnt cut it. Thus keep government out of it let woman decide, on their own (ie with their rav) are some going to make the wrong decision ? without doubt but the benefits of letting thr individual decide outweigh those wrong choices

    *(this isnt as controversial as it sounds, I assume most of us agree that we should all stop at a red light even if you pinky swear that you are an excellent driver and can time your way through an intersection safely

    ** This doesn’t necessarily make the person’s action correct. there are acts that I think are immoral but if all parties involved agree, the government has no business intervening

    #1699455

    Joseph
    Participant

    “In Judiam there is no such distiction. When moshiach comes and Jeish leadership iis reestablished the government will force you to pay maaser, with force if neccesary (kofin al mitzvas asei) they will force you to leave your field fallow every 7th year .”

    Ubiq: I’m sure you’re not a hypocrite and you similarly believe that since under a Torah government we would execute toeiva practitioners you, too, want that activity prohibited in America.

    #1699477

    Avi K
    Participant

    What I find interesting is that liberals want to raise the drinking and weapon buying age to 21 because until then people are not sufficiently responsible (BTW, this is shown by brain studies). Yet they want to lower the voting age to 16.

    #1699579

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “If halacha allows but doesn’t require abortion (which I agree with Avram is a very rare case)”
    It still doesn’t seem like you understand Avram’s “rare case.” He was talking about where the halachah would require it, but the medical professionals would NOT allow it if there were laws limiting abortion. I think this would be not only rare, but non-existent. If the doctor says it’s not necessary, the halachah isn’t going to require it.

    The case of the halachah “allowing” abortion is something you’ve invented. This is pikuach nefesh, the proper lashon is “require.” We aren’t talking about a birth control heter.

    As much as I’ve been playing devil’s advocate and defending the liberal posters here on this thread, I have to dissociate a bit now. I was defending the belief that political ideology shouldn’t be based solely on this issue. Those who are b’shittah in favor of abortion do not represent the Torah’s view and have likely been adversely influenced by secular, socially liberal colleagues.

    #1699619

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph
    “I’m sure you’re not a hypocrite and you similarly believe ”

    You misunderstood.
    There are 2 conversarions going on.
    The government should not legislate “morality”
    If According to the flying spaghetti monster having citizens without health insurance is immoral, thst isn’t an arguement for the governmemt to force health insurance. (In my view)
    At no point did i argue the us govt should be in charge of tzedaka because in a torah state they would be.

    #1699623

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Nc
    “It still doesn’t seem like you understand Avram’s “rare case.” He was talking about ”

    I do. I already said those are rare.

    “The case of the halachah “allowing” abortion is something you’ve invented. This is pikuach nefesh, the proper lashon is “require.” ”

    So this is where you are 100% absolutly completly no room to agree to disagree wrong. Obviously t6his isnt publicly duscussed. Ask your local ob.

    “Torah’s view and have likely been adversely influenced by secular, socially liberal colleagues.”

    Nope, i shared with one the halacha that a condemned woman is put to death even if pregnant, even in the 9th month.
    They we’re horrified, but i havent changed my view (not that i understand it). I dont have to understand it thats what halacha says then so be it.
    I would never allow abortion onve the fetus is viable, but if a rav allows it so be it

    #1699665

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “So this is where you are 100% absolutly completly no room to agree to disagree wrong. Obviously t6his isnt publicly duscussed. Ask your local ob.”

    Lololololololol. Freilichin Purim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111
    I don’t even want to start this debate again. That comment just made me so happy.

    #1699675

    charliehall
    Participant

    “nobody “REQUIRES” it”

    To the contrary, there are situations where women can die from not having an abortion and they are not as rare as you think. The most common situation is an ectopic pregnancy, which happens in one to two percent of pregnancies. Fertility treatments — very common in the frum community — can substantially increase that risk. There are two countries in Central America — El Salvador and Nicaragua — where ALL abortions are illegal and indeed some women are dying. Interestingly, both those countries have far left Presidents from Marxist political parties. This destroys the entire premise of most of the discussion here.

    There are more rare situations that typically occur late in pregnancy that also are life threatening to the mother and I posted a comment about them earlier. My wife is a primary care physician who takes care of pregnant patients. Once in her career she had to refer a patient for an abortion. The fetus’s brain was developing outside the skull. This is a condition not compatible with life.

    #1699676

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Nc
    We aren’t debating.
    You are clearly not aware of the metzius.

    Though I’m not sure why my comment made you “so happy” I am talking about frum women who are struggling with such a difficult situation /decision. How on earth can that make you happy, let alone “so happy”?

    #1699677

    charliehall
    Participant

    In addition to El Salvador and Nicaragua, which ban all abortions for any reason yet have Marxist political parties in power, Malta has a total ban on all abortions, along with a socialist government (which is rare in Europe today). Vatican City also has a total ban on abortion but it really isn’t much of an issue there. 😉

    #1699691

    CTLAWYER
    Participant

    @AviK
    You paint with a broad brush but the wrong color
    Liberals don’t want to raise the drinking age to 21. It happened way back in 1984 under that great Liberal President George W Bush in a Congress with a Republican Majority Senate and Democratic Majority House.

    Liberals have no united view on gun sales and age restrictions. I’d like them banned, period.

    I know many LIberals and not a single one has publicly called for lowering the voting age to 16.

    #1699707

    Avi K
    Participant

    CTL, in all of those countries the Catholic Church is very strong. This does not contradict socialist and even Marxist governments. While in the US and Europe the Church has been conservative in Latin America it has a strong leftist strain. After all, Yushki kicked the money-changers out of the Temple and condemned the rich.

    Ubiquitin, you also have foreign ideas. “Tzedaka” is not equivalent to “charity”. A person who starts a business and boosts employment is giving tzedaka but not charity. Rabbi Prof. (Emeritus) Israel Kirzner discusses the role of the entrepreneur in expanding the pie. You can find his ideas summarized on Google.

    I did not find who says that government should not legislate morality but in fact almost all laws involve legislating morality. Laws that punish theft, fraud, etc. all legislate morality.

    #1699712

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    Ubi: I enjoyed it because you were continuing to talk about such a serious thing when you were clearly quite yotzei the mitzvah of the day based on how it was written.

    Charlie: thanks for adding those points, and welcome back.

    #1699716

    It is A OK Halachically to be liberal for this one & laudable also

    “Sanders: U.S. Must Ban Assault Weapons Like New Zealand
    March 22, 2019

    #1699758

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “I could say I don’t get it you claim you want limited government people should be free to own guns, but all of a sudden you wont the government to control what goes on in people’s bodies”
    I would concede that that is a good point if you were talking to someone who defined conservatism as “one who wants to shrink government across the board.” That is not traditional conservatism. It’s a recent distortion that many people have made in a petty attempt to include libertarians in the conservative world, where they do not belong.

    #1699813

    er
    Participant

    To get out of the weeds for a moment, I’d like to candidly share an over-arching view of why I am compelled to support a certain amount of “liberalism” (as I understand the term), while I am concerned of the slippery slope problems that may ensue. I think the following sentiment may very well speak for others too:

    We understandably have concern of governmental and societal persecution, being that’s been the norm for thousands of years. A ‘live and let live’ society seems logically the best way to prevent future persecution. Using avodah zorah as an example (abortion is obviously a complex issue and most of us aren’t about to poskin as to whom and when it is OK, etc.), would you support an amendment to the constitution outlawing mamash avodah zorah? Assume for the moment it could be done and would be upheld. Of course as a frum Jew I don’t want avodah zorah spreading throughout. But history tells us that there could just as easily be a law forbidding Yiddishkeit, chas v’shalom. Should the risk matter? A big part of my understanding of what America is, is that we recognize that since we could be the next target, it’s better to have a sort of truce whereupon we allow people to live as they want – within reason. Of course where to draw the line will always be a headache. Of course if the halacha states unequivocally that we’d have to support laws against avodah zorah, then that’s our answer. Short of that, just as we don’t want emboldened Muslims lobbying for mandatory sharia law, why would we feel the need to impose halachic standards on goyim? We’re a complex nation with lots of religions and ethnicities. Every country that favors one over the other results in strife. civil wars, or pogroms. Boruch Hashem so many of you have had it so good in this country that you feel so strong about your political views and feel you can take part of our political system so freely. Let’s not take our newfound liberties for granted. What’s wrong with being thankful for the safety and security we’ve experienced in America til now and be good guests until Moshiach comes? And while I do believe that laws may sway values over time, given how polarizing politics have become I increasingly think we’ll need to look for non-political means to influence morality which is probably more effective anyway if done right. Think about it: crusading against toeva marriages only results in an equal opposite reaction. If for example we encouraged the value of modesty, for example, there would less of a need to legislate/adjudicate toiva marriages and abortions.
    I see the hallmark of “liberalism” as people who vote and advocate for others interests and well-being, not just their own, exactly of the theory that we all benefit in the longer run.
    Given the above, can you personally say the halacha unequivocally requires us to try and outlaw avodah zorah?

    #1699868

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    NC

    It is a serious thing, but more importantly it is real. It isn’t abstract. I’m familiar with several such cases and am aware of much more.

    Kids are taught things simply black and white. If it is pikuach nefesh you eat on yom Kippur otherwise you fast.
    The reality is much grayer. A doctor cant predict if X fasts on Yom Kippur he will die. It just doesn’t work that way.

    Rabbonim’s job (with medical guidance if needed) is to figure out where people fall can they fast? must they fast ? if they should break their fast is it with shiurim or just eat ? If they can eat should they at leat attempt to fast and see how it goes? a few hours or attempt the whole day ?
    not everybody falls into a must fast vs must eat category

    furthermore, at times Rabbonim are more “lenient ” Particularly when it comes to pregnant woman as I explained above.

    As for the topic at hand. Take Anencephaly there, is generally no MEDICAL (as opposed to psychological) reason to abort. while of course tragic and the fetus won’t survive there is no medical reason to terminate. Of course psychological stressors is obviously much greyer. If she were to develop a nervous breakdown and be at risk for suicide, r”l again that is a reltivly easy psak. but as you may realize that is not really how psychiatry generally works. what if her mental/emotional/physical health is at risk but not quite her life?

    R’ Moshe did not allow abortions in such cases. the Tzitz Eliezer was very meikel. R”shlomo Zalman allowed it as well (though stricter than Tzitz Eleizer) Modern Poskim (especially chasidish ones) tend to allow it though not late into pregnancy .

    This is but one specific example

    R’ Ben Zion Uziel allowed abortion even late into pregnancy to prevent deafness (not death ) of a mother.
    In all these cases it obviously wasn’t REQUIRED.

    #1699886

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avi

    “Ubiquitin, you also have foreign ideas. “Tzedaka” is not equivalent to “charity”. ”
    I’m sorry I’m not sure what you are referring to
    charity is not strictly defined as giving money and even if it is I’m not sure if you are arguing with something I said OR just sharing a interesting factoid.

    could you please elaborate?

    “I did not find who says that government should not legislate morality ”
    I said it a few times, thats my view. I should clarify though, what I mean by “morality” is really religious based morality.

    “but in fact almost all laws involve legislating morality. Laws that punish theft, fraud, etc. all legislate morality”
    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.

    I believe adultery is immoral, I dont think many here (besides Joseph) believes the US government should legislate adultery (even though that certainly is one of the Sheva mitzvos, while abortion is debatable) while a terrible act and which Ibeleive they will be punished forI dont think the government should be in charge of that

    #1699922

    CTLAWYER
    Participant

    @AviK

    Your reply addressed to me was not in response to anything I posted.
    I think you should have addressed Charlie Hall.

    Meanwhile, you ignored my refutation if drinking age raised by the George W Bush regime some 35 years ago

    #1699926

    “as a society we are better off if we all don’t steal and kill.”
    Propaganda
    Who said so
    Who defines what the terms should mean anyway
    Guaranteed You steal possibly even kill According some esoteric definition

    ‘Tis Literally What the powerbrokers under the guise of democracy Find convenient And can easily brainwash at a given moment

    #1699951

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    IITFT
    “Who said so”
    The Federal government , by which I mean the lawmakers if they didint feel we would be better off making murder illegal then it wouldn’t be illegal (though of course it would still be immoral)

    If you view the idea of ““as a society we are better off if we all don’t steal and kill.” as Propaganda. Then go ahead start your society, see how well it functions. Your comment doesnt really make much sense, There seems to be some confusion, I’m not saying my opinion on the government not legislating morality is universally held.

    #1699958

    divri hayamim
    Participant

    The reason is they want to raise the age for personal responsibility, while also lowering the age of communal responsibility.

    #1699962

    divri hayamim
    Participant

    CTLAWYER
    There are multiple moves to lower the age to 16 or 17, from the left.

    For example in NY state there is a bill to lower the age to 17 (sponsored by Borough Park/Kensington Assemblyman Carroll)
    A02800/S02272

    other Assemblymembers supporting it
    Niou, D’Urso, Ortiz, Colton, Pheffer Amato, Bichotte, Seawright, Gottfried, Hyndman, Richardson, Mosley, De La Rosa, Rivera, Dinowitz, Walker, Jaffee, Miller MG, Simon, Peoples-Stokes, Barron, Hevesi, Pichardo, Thiele, Blake, Rodriguez, Epstein

    #1699987

    divri hayamim
    Participant

    I can and do say
    Those should be laws because as a society we are better off if we all don’t practice homosexuality and adultery. .that is why homosexuality should be illegal and punished not because Judaism or lehavdil any religion says so.

    homosexuality and adultery are not chukim and have been forbidden by many societies for years, not just on religious grounds!

    #1699980

    divri hayamim
    Participant

    er
    the biggest threat to Jewish religious liberty is the left.

    The only group that wants to ban basic jewish practices in America is the left.
    The intactivists (ban bris milah, not banning mbp, but milah iteself) is an offshoot of the lgbt movement.

    “Advocates have had their hands full with numerous, pressing issues in the last five years,” including marriage equality and employment discrimination, says Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law scholar at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. “Circumcision regulation has not been one of them.” ”

    but now they have more time on their hands thanks to attitudes like his, they are on to the next agenda banning Judaism.

    Building up our enemies is stupid, even if they were not pushing things against the torah, kal vechomer when they are!

    #1700019

    CTLAWYER
    Participant

    @Divrihayamin
    NY is but one state out of 50.
    The bunch of state assembly members you name are not major Liberals on the National scene.

    You need to take off your NYcentric glasses. The post I questioned did not say minor NY politicians, it referred to major liberals,

    #1700450

    divri hayamim
    Participant

    In ’16 Proposition F allowing 16 years olds to vote in San Francisco got
    172,744 votes
    47.9% of the vote

    It might not be mainstream of the left, but either was same sex “marriage” in ’05.

    The hard of left and the real powers of influence all support 16 year old voting, and this is clear to anyone with a brain as a future mainstream position of the left.

    #1700451

    divri hayamim
    Participant

    PS Richard Gottfried YMS is more important to turning his agenda in to national policy, than any politician on the national stage.

    #1700741

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “I said it a few times, thats my view. I should clarify though, what I mean by “morality” is really religious based morality.”
    You mean you don’t think chokim (stuff like kashrus) should have any bearing on law. 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 giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was a misunderstanding). Almost all frum yidden do NOT consider the issur on abortion to be a chok. As to why you do have that perception, I reiterate what I said earlier, you’ve been adversely influenced by socially liberal friends.

    “I believe adultery is immoral, I dont think many here (besides Joseph) believes the US government should legislate adultery”
    That’s the mentality that caused a lot of blue states to be “no fault states.” Meaning, a woman can have all the affairs she wants and still clean out her husbands bank when they get a divorce (I think it can technically go the other way too, but let’s be real here). In the most civilized countries, men are afraid to get married. Doesn’t seem like the lack of morality in legislation was good for society to me… Or to anyone other than crazy, leftist feminists…

    #1700816

    er
    Participant

    Divri:
    1. You had said, The biggest threat to Jewish religious liberty is the left.” I would agree that there are some on the left who have a problem with bris milah and shchitah and would also agree, as others have suggested that those views may surface more loudly one day, after they have their way on some other more “pressing” fronts. But the numbers and percentages of those on the left who have these views are far outnumbered by wackos on the extreme right who are avowed anti-semites and wish they could ship us out of here. Moreover, unlike these right-fanatics, very few of the left activists have an issue with the religion called “Judaism;” they are against these practices along the same lines as PETA protesting against eating steak.
    2. You said” “Homosexuality and adultery . . . have been forbidden by many societies for years, not just on religious grounds.” I beg to differ. All such countries have at least a tradition of Christianity or Islam, whether or not they are still overtly religious. Greece was pre-Christianity and apparently didn’t have a problem with homosexuality.
    3. In light of my argument for ‘live and let live’ rationale, you would in fact support legislation against avodah as I described it?
    4. Seems we’ve lost the legislative fight on same sex marriages and other social issues. Even conservative judges have had to uphold this as a right based on the state constitutions. The best hope is that there is now a conservative supreme court. In the meantime, it’s clear to me that fighting harder legally or argumentatively only produces an equal and opposite response. Maybe the only hope is to convert their politics by abandoning the angry rhetoric. The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade ended up becoming a pro-lifer because she said the Chrisitian right was “nicer” than the left. L’havdil, when it comes to esrog, people aren’t concerned with just being yotzei, and go beyound mikar hadin. Maybe we have to see these social/morality laws as defining the absolute bottom of the barrel, and meanwhile build conservative values through programs and other means instead of politics, laws, and fighting, which isn’t working anyway. Not to mention, once the political tides turn, the political parties the frum world loves to bash will look at us as their enemy and good luck getting them to help us.

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 192 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending