Forum Replies Created
I’m betting zero
That was very good
True the president has some effect on the morals of our country
But Hollywood has much more effect.
Whew you have a democrat party that will demonize the president before he says or does anything, shame has been lost, honesty has been lost
When you have a film industry that glorifies murder mayhem and debauchery, society has been lost. The president is but a tiny part in the moral fabric of society when compare to those titans.
On the other hand the president sets actual policy for the country. Over there the president has out sized influence.
So when I need to chose a president if my choices are
Bad morals but good policy Vs good morals but bad policy,
Good policy wins hands down.
All the more so that my choice really is bad morals with good policy vs bad morals bad policy.
I mean who am I going to choose?
Someone who is openly what the Torah calls an abomination?
Someone who doesn’t believe in personal property rights?
Someone who wants to legislate every move anyone makes? An old bumbling, perhaps, has been?
A shrill lying attention seeker who doesn’t believe in personal property rights either
Or klobuchar who I know zero about?
My post was banned
Someone committing a crime, which he knows carries a certain punishment, who commits the crime while with his children so he can then say you can’t punish me because it will leave the children in a terrible predicament.
That is classic human shield.
Does it say anywhere human shield is only if there is danger to life ?
That’s a very unusual spelling of “I’m a total idiot or troll,” but I’ll accept it.
That’s not a very sound logical argument is it?
If I’m wrong show me how if I’m not then what’s your issue?
You don’t like how it puts you on the defensive with no response??
Ubiq I’ll grant you this.
If your rendition is correct, I agree with your contention that this is no big deal
Yes and you could have made it clear right from the start had you just responded to what I wrote
The following is a clarification from that governers office
Northam’s office said in a statement on Wednesday that his comments were taken out of context and that Republicans “are trying to play politics with women’s health.”
“No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, *************/and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor,************×********” Ofirah Yheskel, Northam’s spokesperson, wrote in the statement.
So he is talking about a woman who wanted a third trimester abortion, ולא הספיק השעה
So they would birth the baby
(now it’s no longer a fetus)
(now it’s a live baby)
And let the absents decide if they should keep it or kill it
And you (I never claimed this) claim this takes place daily in hospitals.
So you are actually claiming that the democrat party does infanticide.!
I only claimed they support the idea
But hey, I’ll take help from all quarters.
And of course this is good for Jews because it’s more in line with the Torah.
And since frum people, (by definition) only get an abortion with their Rav’s approval. It is to OUR (not their) advantage to have a more permissive stance on abortion in place than one the Republicans would adopt
No. It’s not to our benefit to have a government that condones and even glorifies murder.
It’s bad for us and for the society we live in.
Even in cases such as severe fetal complications, where it would be allowed in halacha it’s not mandated. So if our host country outlawed it, we would deal with it. If they disallowed it even in cases of danger to the mothers life, we would have an issue, but ultimately we would ignore it. However I don’t believe that is the case anyway.
In the democrat utopia, however they condone murder.
That is never good for us. And it’s unnecessary.
I completely disagree with you
and someone helpfully supplied the source.”
no nobody did. The source supplied id not at all refer to infaticide
Yes actually it did. You misread it at the time, based on you comment after but I dido bother to correct you.
It said, they would resuscitate the child, and then allow the parents time to decide whether to kill it or not.
In other words, give the parents the option to kill a live baby who was born a short while ago.
As per the article, time frame not established.
That’s murder. Pure and simple. Of an infant.
Or in a single word, infanticide.
It’s what I was referring to, it’s documented, and it’s on the wish list of the more radical fringe of the democrat party, which if history is any guide, means In a few years it will be mainstream democrat party platform.
Democrats the party of murder and infanticide. It’s what I said, it’s what I meant ,and I still stand by it. All I said no the other thread is that if your getting sidetracked from my main point there, then remove infanticide from the discussion, as it’s unnecessary for my point.
I never backed off, I never changed my mind,
I missed him
I’m in Brooklyn
Where can I go see him?
No. Not really
But either way, I didn’t back off my contention that they support infanticide, and someone helpfully supplied the source.
All I clarified, is that it was necessary for my point.
Your point, while at least now I know perhaps what you are trying to say, is a difficult one to understand.
We have the Torah which allows abortion in limited cases. (irrelevant what they are)
The democrat party which allows abortion on demand, certainly including cases where the Torah does not allow, and see the Rambam I brought before, a גוי חייב מיתה for preforming an abortion not allowed by the Torah
The republican party which according to you (I won’t quibble on that, I’ll grant it blindly) only allows abortion in cases of danger to the mothers life. Something which obviously the Torah allows, but outlawing many cases that the Torah allows.
Which position is more in line with the Torah?
I think it’s a no brainer
The republican position is totally in line. For גוים are required to create דינים. I’m not Aware that they are required to create laws that mimic the Torah.
However they clearly are not allowed to create laws that violate the Torah meaning the 7 מצוות one of which is murder. Which according to the Rambam I brought, unlawful abortion is.
So no. A Torah abiding Jew cannot support the democrat position on abortion
Death penalty isnt the topic of this thread,
Right neither was halachic abortions. But your the proponent of zeroing in on single lines and talking about them so I’m not sure what your issue is here
(I brought it up in passing to make a point that (I thought) was an obvious exaggeration .
Now your saying exaggeration is OK?
Your changing your position?
Do you believe in do as I say not as I do?
Cause all the issues you had with what I wrote you seem to have no issue admitting you did
משנה תורה, הלכות מלכים ומלחמות ט׳:ד׳
(ד) בן נח שהרג נפש אפילו עובר במעי אמו נהרג עליו וכן אם הרג טריפה או שכפתו ונתנו לפי ארי או שהניחו ברעב עד שמת הואיל והמית מכל מקום נהרג וכן אם הרג רודף שיכול להצילו באחד מאיבריו נהרג עליו מה שאין כן בישראל.
By the way you know what the Torah does approve of? Death penalty.”
does it though?YES
do you cal the government that kills more than once in 70 years a חובלנית ?YES
you exaggerated and didn’t mean what you said?
im to lazy to scroll back through my comments
care to pinpoint what you mean?
and you wont tell me where we argue
we argue on what r eliezer meant
Evidence that what?
THAT YOU HAVE NO clue what the discussion is about
I am not talking about the op. In fact I’m not even sure I read the op till recently .
so you were not following the conversation because you didnt even know what it was about
שבעה דברים …
I commented on this comment “”Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support abortion being legal.””
Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support ALL abortion being legal.”” WHEN TAKEN IN CONTEXT
“You lose me when you don’t respond to direct questions.”
My sincerest apologies.
start with this one
Death penalty – well it doesnt deter crime,
One of my all time favorite arguments.
Does prison time deter crime?
Do fines deter crime?
I explained why a frum person would support legal abortion.
I am not sure what “greater context” my reply overlooked.
that the question was how they can support the
**** democrat position *****
Anybody can join any conversation. So If I comment on a specific comment . Other posters assume that that applies to anything said on the trhed. Which of curse it doesn’t
“I find myself torn between admiring your self confidence and pitying your self assurance. ”
Its neither . I was commenting on a specific point . not whatever any other poster may have said (or thought) was included in that point.
So let me get this clear because you like when I get things right.
You were not adding to the totality of the conversation.
Rather you were commenting on a specific line or Phrase used during the conversation without regard to what it meant in the context of the greater conversation.
Question, all those times you told me that you were not the one unable to follow the context of the conversation, I was.
Being as your comment was totally out of context, according to your current position, what was the point of stating I could not follow?
In what way could one have seen that your powerful intellect is capable of following a conversation?
As an aside, the Chafetz Chaim discusses the danger of taking things out of context. He says one can come to say that the Torah enjoins up to worship idols. For does it not say ועבדתם אלהים אחרים ?
True it was your point
But it wasn’t r Eliezers
And it certainly wasn’t Josefs understanding of r Eliezer when he made his remark
Which is the exact line you commented on.
By the way you know what the Torah does approve of?
Something you go your your conservative approach to life, clearly feel is stupid ”vos is zicher is zicher ”
Thanks for the help, even more thanks that now I see others are reading the posts.
You lost me in your prelude which conveniently left out the op’s post which set the topic which is not what you claim.
You lose me when you don’t respond to direct questions.
You lose me when you mischaracterize posts and ignore repeated clarifications
I think other than that I follow you.
Tell me if I got it.
You jump into a conversation, interjecting something not really on target,
You double down on your Comments ignoring all attempts to get you back on target
You contradict yourself without bothering to explain
And your convinced that you are correct in the face of evidence to the contrary
Do i have it all correct or did I leave something out?
The phrase ”requires long boring monologues” was me talking about what I had to do!!”
Don’t worry its both of us. I’m not sure why you think you get a monopoly on boring monologues
First of all, I don’t think I have a monopoly on it, but again context!!!! Had you understood what I meant you could never have responded with
”It requires nothing of the sort . I explain my position rationally and truthfully. I’m not the one who mislabels “infanticide” or lost the flow of conversation.”
Because that makes no sense!
I’m talking about me being boring and you respond that you explain your positions clearly???
Who is talking about you and how you respond??
I’m apologizing for being boring and you interject no! Someone else is not boring??
Secondly make up your mind
”It requires nothing of the sort . ”
”Don’t worry its both of us. ”
Which of these answers is correct?
They are opposites of each other. You gave both to the same statement.
Do you even read what you write?
Ubiq, we move forward (finally)
RE said (with your explanantion) “That outlawing abortions won’t stop people from getting them since most people are not just doing an abortion for the sake of it. So therefore since most people getting abortions have a reason to want it, they will figure out how to do it even if it’s outlawed.”
You stuck in reason as “being in the mood of one” or “prom dress” Which is why you are thoroughly confused.
********* Those arent real things and were neveractually the topic I (or he, though obviously I cant speak for him ) was discussing .*********
So first of all I posted an article, which somehow made it in before your comment, showing that actually they are real things and seem to take place quite often
Secondly, and more importantly, you are the one confused.
This is exactly what Reb Eliezer was talking about. This is what Josef called him out on. And this is what I challenged you to source as being allowed in Torah literature (subsequently you’ve stated that you don’t believe such types of abortions would be permitted in Torah literature.)
That’s why I told you you need to follow the conversation.
Go back and read the op again, and put Reb Eliezer comment in that context and you will see quite clearly that’s the only way to understand it.
You jumped the gun to shoot at Josef, and when confronted, instead of just backing down you doubled down and contorted everything
So ubiq and Anil
I provided you with a source for my contentions. True I didn’t know it when I stated it and was even willing to grant that it doesn’t happen. But it seems like it does.
Sorry if I used prom gown. Seems I should have said wedding gown. Hope that doesn’t change the argument too much
That is the SOLE topic of conversation. You tried to switch it to Abortion for the sake of it (though now you claim you never said that which is fine , since its absurd . In your 4th commet in this topic on February 20, 2020 9:01 pm at 9:01 pm reply #1833811 you said “We’re talking
”abortion because being pregnant will not allow me to fit into my prom dress ”
Abortion because I want to go to Cancun in a month and don’t want to deal with morning sickness” Those arent real things )
No no no and again no.
Abortion for the sake of it was re statement of what doesn’t take place. Abortion to fit into a prom dress is not cooled abortion for the sake of it it is abortion for a reason that is issue the Democrat Party allows abortion for any reason it actually also would allow for no reason but r e claims that never takes place so we need not discuss it Joseph called-out r e for supporting the Democrat Party even though they allow abortion to fit in your prom dress there are no limits as to what is allowable grounds for abortion that is the issue that is why they are a party of murder
Woman Has Abortion Because She Couldn’t Fit Into Her Wedding Dress
SARAH TERZO DEC 26, 2013 | 1:16PM WASHINGTON, DC
Share this story:
In 2005, the Los Angeles Times ran a story by Stephanie Simon entitled “Offering Abortion, Rebirth.”
Ad Row 2
Simon interviewed an abortion provider named Dr. William F. Harrison and observed abortions at his clinic. Harrison died in 2010, after closing down his clinic because of health reasons.
The article quotes Harrison saying, “I am destroying life.”
Simon described witnessing an abortion on an 18-year-old girl. The author says the girl had not told her parents about her pregnancy. The unborn baby was 13 weeks along. At 13 weeks, the child has fingers, complete with fingernails. If female, the child has a uterus of her own. He or she can respond to touch and has both a heartbeat and brain waves. He can also suck his thumb. (See ultrasound pictures of 13-week-old babies here.)
According to the author:
Harrison glances at an ultrasound screen frozen with an image of the fetus taken moments before. Against the fuzzy black-and-white screen, he sees the curve of a head, the bend of an elbow, the ball of a fist.
“You may feel some cramping while we suction everything out,” Harrison tells the patient.
A moment later, he says: “You’re going to hear a sucking sound.”
The abortion takes two minutes. The patient lies still and quiet, her eyes closed, a few tears rolling down her cheeks. The friend who has accompanied her stands at her side, mutely stroking her arm.
When he’s done, Harrison performs another ultrasound. The screen this time is blank but for the contours of the uterus. “We’ve gotten everything out of there,” he says.
Right after her abortion, the teenager said:
“There’s things wrong with abortion,” she says. “But I want to have a good life. And provide a good life for my child.” To keep this baby now, she says, when she’s single, broke and about to start college, “would be unfair.”
The article also profiled several other women coming in for abortions.
A high school volleyball player says she doesn’t want to give up her body for nine months. “I realize just from the first three months how it changes everything,” she says.
Kim, a single mother of three, says she couldn’t bear to give away a child and have to wonder every day if he were loved. Ending the pregnancy seemed easier, she says – as long as she doesn’t let herself think about “what could have been.”
Many pro-lifers find it hard to understand why some women would rather abort than put the baby up for adoption – pro-lifers tend to think it would be better to adopt out a child than to kill that child. But often the thought of giving up a baby is painful for women, and many women have heard the message over and over again that abortion is not killing.
The article also describes:
Amanda, a 20-year-old administrative assistant, says it’s not the obstacles that surprise her – it’s how normal and unashamed she feels as she prepares to end her first pregnancy.
“It’s an everyday occurrence,” she says as she waits for her 2:30 p.m. abortion. “It’s not like this is a rare thing.”
Amanda was 15 weeks pregnant and has not told her boyfriend about his child. Amanda also says:
I’ve been praying a lot and that’s been a real source of strength for me. I really believe God has a plan for us all. I have a choice, and that’s part of my plan.
As much as pro-lifers don’t like to admit it, many religious people get abortions. There are some churches that support abortion. In a recent Facebook post, Abby Johnson mentioned that a member of her Episcopalian church told her to leave after she became involved in the “antichoice” movement. One study says that many women who have abortions claim to be Christian and that one out of five women coming in is a self-identified born-again or evangelical Christian (1).
Later in the article, two other women give their reasons for having abortions.
His first patient of the day, Sarah, 23, says it never occurred to her to use birth control, though she has been sexually active for six years. When she became pregnant this fall, Sarah, who works in real estate, was in the midst of planning her wedding. “I don’t think my dress would have fit with a baby in there,” she says.
The last patient of the day, a 32-year-old college student named Stephanie, has had four abortions in the last 12 years. She keeps forgetting to take her birth control pills. Abortion “is a bummer,” she says, “but no big stress.”
People on both sides of the abortion debate often say that abortion is an agonizing decision for women. They say that women do not take abortion lightly. Many pro-lifers view women as the second victims of abortion. Although this is often true, it is the sad case that some women do use abortion as birth control.
The clinic that Dr. Harrison works at makes an effort to shield women from guilt. In the abortionists’ own words, “[w]e try to make sure she doesn’t ever feel guilty … for what she feels she has to do.”
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
The article goes on to say:
For the few women who arrive ambivalent or beset by guilt, Harrison’s nurse has posted statistics on the exam-room mirror: One out of every four pregnant women in the US chooses abortion. A third of all women in this country will have at least one abortion by the time they’re 45.
“You think there’s room in hell for all those women?” the nurse will ask.
If the woman remains troubled, the nurse tells her to go home and think it over.
“If they truly feel they’re killing a baby, we’re not going to do an abortion for them,” says the nurse, who asked not to be identified for fear protesters would target her.
This sounds all well and good, but right after this statement, the article goes on to quote this very same nurse saying to a teenager who is 5 weeks pregnant:
“It’s completely formed about nine weeks,” the nurse tells her. “Yours is more like a chicken yolk.”
According to The Biology of Prenatal Development:
Between 4 and 5 weeks, the brain continues its rapid growth and divides into 5 distinct sections.
The cerebral hemispheres appear, gradually becoming the largest parts of the brain.
Functions eventually controlled by the cerebral hemispheres include thought, learning, memory, speech, vision, hearing, voluntary movement, and problem-solving.
You can watch the heart of a 4-week-old unborn baby beating at this link. The baby, even at 5 weeks, is hardly an egg yolk.
Although Dr. Harrison admits that what he’s doing is killing, he contradicts himself later by saying, “It’s not a baby to me until the mother tells me it’s a baby.”
As of 2005, Dr. Harrison had performed over 20,000 abortions. He left practice in 2010 and died shortly afterward. When Harrison left practice, his abortion clinic closed its doors. He was unable to find another doctor willing to perform abortions at his clinic.
1. Barbara Vobejda “Abortion Reaches Wide Cross Section of Women; Study of U.S. Patients Seeking Procedure Finds Many Belong to Religious Groups That Oppose It” The Washington Post August 8, 1996
LifeNews.com Note: Sarah Terzo is a pro-life liberal who runs ClinicQuotes.com, a web site devoted to exposing the abortion industry. She is a member of the pro-life groups PLAGAL and Secular Pro-Life. This originally appeared at Live Action News.
Share this story:
Home Sidebar 1
Ad Row 4
Ad Row 3
Ad Row 1
COPYRIGHT © 2020
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
That outlawing abortions won’t stop people from getting them since most people are not just doing an abortion for the sake of it”
Where did he say that.
I’m not sure what that means .
Maybe then you should read what you comment on before commenting
February 19, 2020 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm#1833327REPLY
You are fooling yourself when it comes to abortion. ************No one does abortion for the sake of it.******** The rich will travel wherever it is allowed and the poor will endanger themselves.
Just read this quote in your post. Had to chuckle
”requires long boring monologues”
It requires nothing of the sort . I explain my position rationally and truthfully. I’m not the one who mislabels “infanticide” or lost the flow of conversation.”
The phrase ”requires long boring monologues” was me talking about what I had to do!!
So to follow it up with
”It requires nothing of the sort . I explain my position rationally and truthfully. I’m not the one who mislabels “infanticide” or lost the flow of conversation.”
Is irony at its best!
Your comment that you don’t lose the flow of conversations attached to your comment which totally missed the flow of the conversation!!!
though even in that regard he is guilty he bragged about trying to be with a married woman for crying out loud)
That was years ago
That was my original point it’s not that way anymore
You know what people coming across the border with children are doing?
Using their children as human shields
I believe that is a war crime
The use of human shields is forbidden by Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. … The Customary International Humanitarian Law guide suggests that rules prohibiting use of civilians as human shields are “arguably” customary in non-international armed conflict
So don’t start crying about the government arresting law breakers.
Every time the government arrest someone they are taking a parent away from children.
I’m sympathize with some more Palestinians
women having abortions so they can fit in prom gowns, women having abortions so they can say they had an abortion woman carrying a healthy pregnancy to term only to decide to have the child killed during delivery . Does anyone here have any documentation to support these claims?”
No. Nobody even claimed they take place. The issue is that the law allows it. And depends a woman’s right to do it.
Can you respond to what I actually write rather than what you ”wish I wrote so you can have a response”?
It’s what I’ve been saying all along
You missed the boat. Sorry.
I want to have an abortion so I can say I had an abortion.” Said no woman ever.
Exactly. That was Reb Eliezer point. And that’s why he feels outlawing abortions won’t help. Because only such an abortion would be stopped if made illegal. And such abortions never happen anyway.
Nobody here claimed they do.
That was the scenario that never happens. I think all agree that never happens (though personally I’m not so sure I’m today’s crazy world, but my position has no need for it to happen so I’m granting it as an established fact)
I’m getting weary.
Sure I can agree to those last two lines.
It has nothing to do with the conversation
We were discussing the evils of the democrat parties position on abortion.
Can you agree that’s not going to be limited to Torah sanctioned abortions?
Reb Eliezer supported THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THEIR ABORTION PLATFORM
THAT’S WHAT JOSEF CALLED HIM OUT ON.
ubiq then claimed the torah allows it also slyly meaning the torah also allows abortion just not in the same cases as Josef called out Reb Eliezer on.
If this is too complicated to follow im out.
Ubiq I’m the one who used the term infanticide
I meant it as the extreme result of the dens sick love of a woman’s ”’right to choose ”’
It was never the totality of this conversation it is not even a necessary part of it
Want me to rephrase. No problem
Trump is a pleasure loving flawed human being who publicly espouses and actually serves policies that are in somewhat in line with an upstanding proper and moral lifestyle, though he himself may not live that way
Versus the democrat party which actively pushes animmoral and depraved lifestyle of murder (abortion) and depravity (lbgtqrpnvx) aka gay ”lifestyle ”
I think as a Jew the choice is quite clear
Gun control – anti, more school shootings please
RIGHT. CAUSE IN THE CHURCH IN TEXAS LESS PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED HAD THE OFFICER NOT HAD A GUN DUE TO GUN CONTROL.
War- love it the more the better RIGHT THAT’S WHY TRUMP JUST GOT ROASTED BY DEMOCRATS FOR PULLING TROOPS OUT OF SOME COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
(Health)OBAMAcare -no thanks, more sick people please
Death penalty – well it doesnt deter crime, and hey at least we get a dead guy whats zicher is zicher WHAT ABOUT JAIL AND FINES. DO THEY DETER CRIME?
Welfare -no thank you let em starve VS LET’S TAKE AWAY THE MONEY FROM THOSE WHO WORK FOR IT TO GIVE IT TO THOSE WHO DON’T. INCENTIVISING PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES
Abortion – well if we ban it maybe more mother wil die in back alley abortion, OR MAYBE THEY WILL TAKE MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACEand hey it may have led to crime redcusion n o thank you. More crime please lets cynically pretend we care about the life of the fetusSO YOUR SAYING ABORTIONS LOWER CRIME?
Death penalty – well it doesnt deter crime,
One of my all time favorite arguments.
Does prison time deter crime?
Do fines deter crime?
A huge thanks. That’s exactly what I was referring to. Thank you for saving me the trouble to look it up.
I’m with you
Though I do think that years ago he did cross the line even for a non Jew
My question is: When a guilty women is executed. We kill “her innocent unborn baby”
why does this not suupport “the right” to kill all guilty women’s children?
****how about work it the other way. Why takeh do we kill her while pregnant and not wait for her to have the baby first. I think the Gemmara decks with this issue. I don’t remember clearly it’s been a while. Possibly we say since the child was inside her, the child sinned too, possibly there is another answer given. Point is it’s dealt with and its a serious issue. But it’s not that it’s no big deal because it’s not a life anyway.
If I’m not mistaken a non Jew is חייב מיתה for preforming an abortion, because it’s murder. ******
I’m not even sure what you mean by “by killing her innocent unborn baby, also supports the rights of all criminals to end the life of all innocents” Is this a slippery slope argument?
Possibly. It is just a question so you can call it what you want.
It was sarcastic anyway.
Then we have this gem
”I did no mean to imply that ALL abortions are allowed. I took it for granted that everybody here knew that, and I’m sorry if that was unclear.”
So you are on record that an abortion done just so I can fit into my prom dress would not be OK.
Very good. So let’s ask you the question that Josef asked Reb Eliezer that you somehow missed.
The democrat party clearly supports even those abortions which you have now gone on record as Agreeing are not allowed. By Torah law.
So how can you support voting for democrats??
Right, Josefs question to a participant of a conversation of which I was part of.”
wow talk about oblique references . Neither your post nor the one you were replying to mentions abortion . If I missed the At bash code embedded in your weighing of Trump’s positive and negatives, that my bad . and I apologize.
This is getting tedious
You need to ”hold kup ”
It’s all part of a conversation
One does not need to comment on every line of a conversation to be considered part of the entire conversation, nor does one need to constantly keep refreshing each line. Sure my post didn’t mention abortion. It didn’t need to. I agree with the op so I had no need to reiterate.
You keep referring to specific lines as if each line is its own little world
That’s not how conversations work. If someone made a point about abortions, and then the conversation meandered a bit, when it gets back to abortion, it is referring to abortion as discussed earlier. That’s just how the world works. I’m sorry if that’s hard for you to deal with but I don’t make the rules
Rashi Sanhedrin 72 b says דכל זמן שלא יצא לאויר העולם לאו נפש הוא וניתן להורגו ולהציל את אמו אבל יצא ראשו אין נוגעים בו להורגו דהוה ליה כילוד
Before a baby is born (most of it or most of its head) its not a nefesh, after birth it is.
So can I just make an abortion for no reason? Consensual?
Or perhaps just maybe it means, it’s not a separate soul as it requires its mother to keep it alive so if it is endangering the mother you can kill it, for it is really killing itself anyway?
Abortion for the sake of abortion means I want to have an abortion so I can say I had an abortion. Sort of like crossing it off a bucket list. ”
Again, so thats not really a thing.
EXACTLY! And that’s exactly what r Eliezer said.
That outlawing abortions won’t stop people from getting them since most people are not just doing an abortion for the sake of it.
So therefore since most people getting abortions have a reason to want it, they will figure out how to do it even if it’s outlawed.
Whereas if they were just doing it because, they walked past an abortion clinic and saw the right and said ”hey that looks cool! Let me get an abortion. ” then outlawing it would stop them from happening.
So therefore according to r Eliezer there is no point to outlawing abortions because since most abortions take place for a reason, they will happen even if it’s illegal.
That was his argument.
Clearly supporting keeping all abortions legal
To which Josef…..
Still not sure how you read that he is supporting only halachik sanctioned ones.
who would you have define “necessity”
I would expect the one who used the word in a conversation to make sure it’s clear from the context what he is calling necessity at the moment he uses the word