Abortion. The United States of America.

[Jacob]

I see. Well, given how often newborn babies get herpes infections from the lips of a rabbi, or how often complications lead to long-term permanent damage and sometimes death, I'll put you down as a supporter of child abuse, since there is no good reason to be slicing off bits of children's genitals that will have sexual function. You should be ashamed of your nasty religious practices. The rabbis should be in jail.

I can tell you this as a person who is not a victim of circumcision, hearing the experiences of those who have been. The circumcised are missing out!

This is another matter of medical consent that you seem to want to deny other people. What if that young boy decides later in life to reject fascist Judaism? He is mutilated for life. Of course it's harder for them to complain because you got in early, like all religions' approach to abusing children.

Stuart

Shalom.

I do not know if or that I fully understand you. However, if you are saying that in repeating your words or speaking of circumcision as it is found in the Torah I am subject to these things, I hadn't considered it. I do not know about the truth of your statements. But you do not need to or have to be circumcised. Sexual immorality is against God's Law. But circumcision or uncircumcision is not about sexual function. If you know of something that is wrong, you are right to identify it and warn others if applicable. However, you are not correct IF or WHEN you speak against the Torah, so I would encourage you to agree with God's Torah, His Law, even if you come to believe in God from among the Gentiles.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[Bradley D]

Shalom.

When was that?

I am a Citizen of the United States of America. I am a resident of Tacoma, Washington. I belong to Israel. I am Torah Observant or I observe Torah Law or Torah law. I am therefore against abortion more than just knowing (that) it is wrong. We have God's Law to back it (this) up (that abortion is wrong). And we observe God's Law. We observe God's Law already. And in observing God's Law we know that abortion is wrong. This is helpful in case there was any uncertainty or lack of clarity. I urge everyone to study God's Law. Study the Torah. God's law is my study all the day, my study and meditation both day and night. I do not know what you are talking about with the Federal Government. I think you are saying that there is State Government and Federal Government. State Government would pertain to the State. Like Washington State. Federal Government would pertain to what? I do not trust what you are saying. Neither do I know it to be true.

Shalom.

Jacob

I just heard on the news this past week. I'm against abortion. I believe in being responsible for your actions. But how about the grey areas of incest and rape?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I just heard on the news this past week. I'm against abortion. I believe in being responsible for your actions. But how about the grey areas of incest and rape?

You punish the criminal, not the baby. Killing a baby for the sin(s) of his father is wicked.

 

[john w]

I see you have given up on reasoned argument now. QED nothing.

You are right to. Appeal to religious dogma is not a principle you should apply to other people who do not share your religion.

Stuart

Translation: I picked your "argument" of...

you cannot tell anyone else what they can do regarding their own bodies,

...as we, through our elected officials, do it all the time, through laws, which, by definition, are an enforcement/imposition of morality, so your objection is not that there are not laws against using your body for whatever you want(You even concede this in the prohibition of prostitution), or that the government cannot establish laws, prohibiting the use of your body. No, your objection is against a particular law prohibiting the use of one's body, i.e., abortion, so you are reduced to the above cliche, that took you hours to obtain, from GOOG, Bing,.....and an emotional "response." Weighty.


Sit, Col. Klink, until I decide to recognize you further-you are dismissed.

 

[Stuu]

Translation: I picked your "argument" of...



...as we, through our elected officials, do it all the time, through laws, which, by definition, are an enforcement/imposition of morality, so your objection is not that there are not laws against using your body for whatever you want(You even concede this in the prohibition of prostitution), or that the government cannot establish laws, prohibiting the use of your body. No, your objection is against a particular law prohibiting the use of one's body, i.e., abortion, so you are reduced to the above cliche, that took you hours to obtain, from GOOG, Bing,.....and an emotional "response." Weighty.


Sit, Col. Klink, until I decide to recognize you further-you are dismissed.

Well I think you might slowly be getting there. This is not about what the law says, it is about what the law should say on principle.

Should the government make shouting fire in a theatre illegal except in the case of a fire? Yes, of course it should. And the interest value in this example is that everyone should have the right to free speech, but whether or not there is a fire, shouting fire will result in some people being injured. So the principles are that saving lives can allow the risk of injury, but avoiding injury comes ahead of playing pranks.

Should the government make abortion illegal? Your principles are that saving the life of the pregnant woman comes ahead of avoiding killing foetuses, and avoiding killing foetuses comes ahead of women's right to medical consent. My principles are that women's right to medical consent comes first (including deciding not to be killed by a foetus), ahead of the principle of avoiding killing foetuses.

Sometime religious people will claim that they are working from principled ethical thinking, but it turns out they are repeating scripture and really operating at the very early stage of ethical thinking where they fear what will happen to them (their god's wrath, the disapproval of their fellow religionists, etc).

Your argument above is just on the cusp of principle thinking, in that you tell me what laws the government makes, implying maybe that we should follow them, but you could easily be saying what principles you think the government should be applying when it makes the law, which would make you one of the better ethical thinkers here!

Stuart

 

[john w]

Well I think you might slowly be getting there. This is not about what the law says, it is about what the law should say on principle.

You did not argue that, i.e., :"This is not about what the law says,.." You argued:

you cannot tell anyone else what they can do regarding their own bodies,

I addressed what you argued, and picked it apart.


So, unless you concede that you were wrong, in arguing that "you cannot tell anyone else what they can do regarding their own bodies," no reasonable person, including myself, would attempt to engage you in your different argument, that " This is not about what the law says, it is about what the law should say on principle," for that would be rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the SS Titanic, since that would prove you are not here to debate, come to the truth, put "prove" that you are right. I'm no braniac, but I'm not Forest Gump, either, as only an idiot would entertain engaging you in further discussions, if you refuse to acknowledge that your first argument is wrong, flawed.

 

[Stuu]

You did not argue that, i.e., :"This is not about what the law says,.." You argued:


I addressed what you argued, and picked it apart.


So, unless you concede that you were wrong, in arguing that "you cannot tell anyone else what they can do regarding their own bodies," no reasonable person, including myself, would attempt to engage you in your different argument, that " This is not about what the law says, it is about what the law should say on principle," for that would be rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the SS Titanic, since that would prove you are not here to debate, come to the truth, put "prove" that you are right. I'm no braniac, but I'm not Forest Gump, either, as only an idiot would entertain engaging you in further discussions, if you refuse to acknowledge that your first argument is wrong, flawed.

You can't really prove anything right, especially with ethical argument. But you can operate from a principle of moving away from most suffering to least suffering. In that case it's simple, for most of the pregnancy a foetus is incapable of suffering so it comes down to whether the pregnant woman is suffering to the point where terminating the pregnancy reduces her suffering.

If you operate from 'killing is wrong', then there are so many exceptions to that you would find yourself having to set up a special condition, in which case you have to bat off the exceptions that even you yourself have raised, such as life-threatening foetuses.

Stuart

 

[Jacob]

I just heard on the news this past week. I'm against abortion. I believe in being responsible for your actions. But how about the grey areas of incest and rape?

Shalom.

Today is Rishon (First), 12-24, evening and morning, night and day.

Abortion is never okay. Not for incest. Not for rape. If we follow Torah Law and I do people die for these things, unless in the case of rape the persons involved get married or what other option is there? For adultery it is the death penalty.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[JudgeRightly]

Shalom.

Today is Rishon (First), 12-24, evening and morning, night and day.

Abortion is never okay. Not for incest. Not for rape. If we follow Torah Law and I do people die for these things, unless in the case of rape the persons involved get married or what other option is there? For adultery it is the death penalty.

Shalom.

Jacob

Punishment for rape is death, punishment for adultery is death, punishment for fornication is marriage.

 

[Jacob]

Punishment for rape is death, punishment for adultery is death, punishment for fornication is marriage.

Shalom.

Today is Rishon (First), 12-24. It is Yom, Day.

You are incorrect.

By rape you mean sleeping with an engaged or married woman. That is not the only definition for rape. That is adultery. Marriage is not a punishment for fornication.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[john w]

You can't really prove anything right, especially with ethical argument. But you can operate from a principle of moving away from most suffering to least suffering. In that case it's simple, for most of the pregnancy a foetus is incapable of suffering so it comes down to whether the pregnant woman is suffering to the point where terminating the pregnancy reduces her suffering.

If you operate from 'killing is wrong', then there are so many exceptions to that you would find yourself having to set up a special condition, in which case you have to bat off the exceptions that even you yourself have raised, such as life-threatening foetuses.

Stuart

Slower: Unless you concede that you were wrong, in arguing that "you cannot tell anyone else what they can do regarding their own bodies," no reasonable person, including myself, would attempt to engage you in your different argument, that " This is not about what the law says, it is about what the law should say on principle," for that would be rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the SS Titanic, since that would prove you are not here to debate, come to the truth, put "prove" that you are right. I'm no braniac, but I'm not Forest Gump, either, as only an idiot would entertain engaging you in further discussions, if you refuse to acknowledge that your first argument is wrong, flawed.

 

[Stuu]

Slower: Unless you concede that you were wrong, in arguing that "you cannot tell anyone else what they can do regarding their own bodies," no reasonable person, including myself, would attempt to engage you in your different argument, that " This is not about what the law says, it is about what the law should say on principle," for that would be rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the SS Titanic, since that would prove you are not here to debate, come to the truth, put "prove" that you are right. I'm no braniac, but I'm not Forest Gump, either, as only an idiot would entertain engaging you in further discussions, if you refuse to acknowledge that your first argument is wrong, flawed.

Alright, can I rephrase it then. No one should be telling anyone else what they can do in regards to decisions about medical procedures on their own bodies, including abortion, because no other person should have that right. That is clearly what I meant the first time, but it was you who introduced irrelevancies of what the government currently outlaws in cases of people causing harm to others. It's not about what the government does, it's about what the government (or any individual) should do.

Stuart

 

[john w]

Alright, can I rephrase it then. No one should be telling anyone else what they can do in regards to decisions about medical procedures on their own bodies, including abortion, because no other person should have that right. That is clearly what I meant the first time, but it was you who introduced irrelevancies of what the government currently outlaws in cases of people causing harm to others. It's not about what the government does, it's about what the government (or any individual) should do.

Stuart

Spin, with your "rephrase." That is slick. Follow the bouncing ball, Mitch.

Even slower: Unless you concede that you were wrong, in arguing that "you cannot tell anyone else what they can do regarding their own bodies," no reasonable person, including myself, would attempt to engage you in your different argument, that " This is not about what the law says, it is about what the law should say on principle," for that would be rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the SS Titanic, since that would prove you are not here to debate, come to the truth, put "prove" that you are right. I'm no braniac, but I'm not Forest Gump, either, as only an idiot would entertain engaging you in further discussions, if you refuse to acknowledge that your first argument is wrong, flawed.

 

[Stuu]

Spin, with your "rephrase." That is slick. Follow the bouncing ball, Mitch.

Even slower: Unless you concede that you were wrong, in arguing that "you cannot tell anyone else what they can do regarding their own bodies," no reasonable person, including myself, would attempt to engage you in your different argument, that " This is not about what the law says, it is about what the law should say on principle," for that would be rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the SS Titanic, since that would prove you are not here to debate, come to the truth, put "prove" that you are right. I'm no braniac, but I'm not Forest Gump, either, as only an idiot would entertain engaging you in further discussions, if you refuse to acknowledge that your first argument is wrong, flawed.

I accept your acknowledgement that you are no braniac.

Stuart

 

[Bradley D]

You punish the criminal, not the baby. Killing a baby for the sin(s) of his father is wicked.

What do you tell the female/teenager who is carrying the criminal's baby?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Shalom.

Today is Rishon (First), 12-24. It is Yom, Day.

You are incorrect.

By rape you mean sleeping with an engaged or married woman. That is not the only definition for rape. That is adultery. Marriage is not a punishment for fornication.

Shalom.

Jacob

No, by rape I mean that a man forcibly has sex with a woman (or woman with man), inside or outside of marriage.

Marriage is the punishment for fornication (consensual sex where neither person is married). Here are the verses:

Exodus 22:16-17
`And when a man doth entice a virgin who [is] not betrothed, and hath lain with her, he doth certainly endow her to himself for a wife;if her father utterly refuse to give her to him, money he doth weigh out according to the dowry of virgins. - Exodus 22:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus22:16-17&version=YLT

“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. - Exodus 22:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus22:16-17&version=NKJV

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
`When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days. - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy22:28-29&version=YLT

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy22:28-29&version=NKJV

Note: "and they are found out", indicating they are both willing participants, and neither was forced, like they would have been if it was rape.

Contrast those verses with the punishments for adultery and for rape in the different scenarios given in the appropriate chapters in the Law.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What do you tell the female/teenager who is carrying the criminal's baby?

This is what you tell her.
http://americanrtl.org/abortion-rape-exception.

What About Bodily Autonomy? If there were no God requiring parents to care for their children, then abortion would not be wrong. You lose bodily autonomy when you become a parent. And a man and woman become parents when the woman conceives. As a parent, for your child to survive both in and out of the womb, he will require your physical body. He or she will also require your emotions and finances, again both in and out of the womb, for survival and well-being. Killing your child at any time is wrong. Any parent who does not want parental responsibility might find another person to transfer the responsibility to, but they are not free to kill their child.

-http://americanrtl.org/personhood-talking-points

 

[Jacob]

No, by rape I mean that a man forcibly has sex with a woman (or woman with man), inside or outside of marriage.

Marriage is the punishment for fornication (consensual sex where neither person is married). Here are the verses:

Exodus 22:16-17
`And when a man doth entice a virgin who [is] not betrothed, and hath lain with her, he doth certainly endow her to himself for a wife;if her father utterly refuse to give her to him, money he doth weigh out according to the dowry of virgins. - Exodus 22:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus22:16-17&version=YLT

“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. - Exodus 22:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus22:16-17&version=NKJV

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
`When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days. - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy22:28-29&version=YLT

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy22:28-29&version=NKJV

Note: "and they are found out", indicating they are both willing participants, and neither was forced, like they would have been if it was rape.

Contrast those verses with the punishments for adultery and for rape in the different scenarios given in the appropriate chapters in the Law.

Shalom.

Today is Sheni, 12-25. It is Boker, Morning. It is Yom, Day.

I had trouble and didn't type the word forcible, not knowing how to speak of it but thinking about the word and not having another word. That it is wrong, always. Is it always the death penalty? I do not know how the Law reads in the United States of America.

I do not view marriage as a punishment. It is what needs to happen when there is sex outside of marriage, the woman not being married engaged or betrothed. It has to happen according to the law. fifty shekels of silver go to the young woman's father. She shall be his wife because he has humbled her. He shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

You speak of forced, or willing participants. It makes me think of if she cried out, because if she did she should be rescued not being a willing participant.

I know the punishment for adultery. If a woman is betrothed or engaged I believe it would be rape punishable by death. I know it would be. The man would be punished with death. As for a man I don't think it talks about if he is engaged, because that would be about a woman. Then things need to be understood rightly and some things should not happen and there should be punishment according to the Law. A man shall have his wife, etc....

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[john w]

I accept your acknowledgement that you are no braniac.

Stuart

you cannot tell anyone else what they can do regarding their own bodies...

Keep playing dodge ball, do the hokey pokey, and turn all about......i..e., posting-Most of the TOL audience sees that you made up the above-sure we can, and do.

 

[Stuu]

Keep playing dodge ball, do the hokey pokey, and turn all about......i..e., posting-Most of the TOL audience sees that you made up the above-sure we can, and do.

Not sure what you are taking to achieve those heavenly places. You've not been able to engage in any kind of rational discussion. I stand by the principle I stated, and I think you will find it is commonly held.

Stuart