This kind of apportion is almost criminal, unless it is to save the mother's life. Where were those women before the 3rd month? they were sleeping and didnt know they were having a baby inside them??????

I dont think many people supposrt that at all.

That is all what everyone is saying including Gore. a little change will help a LOT. AND Yes you can avoid catastrophe not by delaying it but by slowing down its root cause.

The planet is very sturdy and have the ability to recover if you just give it a chance .... i.e by delaying (slowing) the driving force behind it.

First one , you are correct. Second one, partially correct.

When we burn coal, oil or any carbon-based material we convert matter that are not CO2 or Water into CO2 and Water. so we add to the natural quatities of these two compounds and that is where the problem started. The planet has the ability to compensate for our input ..... but to a limit. We have exceeded that limit in the last 20 years and it started to show.

What the science is saying is this: SLOW down .... Give the planet a chance to recover...... is that so difficult to do? I dont think so if we really want to do it.

Lula: No, it's not any man who determines what's right for us...Our Lord God has done that..He's given the guidelines...He's set the standard...He's laid down His laws....


Yes. Laws you break every day. There are 613 of them, Lula, not just ten. Jewish law says that a baby is not a human being until it is half way out of the mother's body at birth. Do you have a NT or even a Hebrew Scripture text reference for banning abortion?

The commandment against murder does not apply as it takes a human being, a person, to be killed. There is a reason we have gradations of things, Lula. One inch is not the same as 12. An abortion at 4 weeks is not the same as 6 months or nine. As I understand it, you are opposed to all abortions?

Moreover,. you seem to castigate me for being willing to make exceptions; one inch is different from one foot. But even if that one inch is problematic, do we apply the same rule?

Lula, from Judaism 101:

Abortion
"Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another. "

Lula posts:



Abortion is disgusting SoDaiho. Why? Cause it's bloody infanticide. There is no respecting it no matter what month or stage of life in the womb. We must judge nations and people on the way they treat people, especially the defenseless ones in the womb. We can't treat them as valueless and hold our head up.

That is why Hammurabi, the Father of Laws included abortion in his Code and Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine included it in his Oath. After the ancient Hebrews gave God's unchanging Commandment, "thou shalt not kill", the practice of abortion was condemned in the Didache in 70AD. "Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born." Most of the Church Fathers wrote about this and in the second century, Athenagoras wrote a plea to Emperor Marcus Aurelius: "We say that woman who use drugs to bring abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for the abortion."

Abortion has remained immoral in Church law and practice up to the present day and will be so until the end of time. Partisans like you, SoDaiho, ever since 1973, will never make it acceptable and respectable no matter how hard they try to sanitize it using benign sounding euphemisms. People don't like abortion and those abortionists who perform them are stigmatized, He does abortions is fatal in character assessment.

the sacredness of human life is a theme which permeates Sacred Scripture. All the principle themes reflect the relationship between God and human life and the duty to respond to the lives of others with great care and love. The unborn are included in this grouping.

Genesis account of the creation of man and woman, the crowning moment in the whole process of God's making the world and everything in it. God created male and female in His Image and Likeness.

Not even Original Sin takes away the image of God in human beings. St.James 3: 9-10 refers to this image and says that becasue of it, we should not even speak ill of one another.

The image of God! This is what it means to be human! We are not a bunch of cells randomly thrown together by some impersonal random forces. Rather, we reflect an eternal God who knew us from before we were made, and purposely called us into being.

Scripture teaches that the child in the womb is truly a human child who even has a relationship with the LOrd. The phrase "conceived and bore" is used in Genesis and the individual has the same identity before and after birth. See. Psalm 51:7, Brephos,that is, "infant", is used in St. Luke 1:41 and again in 18:15.

God knows the pre-born child. "You knit me in my mother's womb...nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret."
Psalm 139: 13, 15. and similiarly more in Psalm 22:10-11.

Scripture repeatedly condemns the killing of the innocent.

Starting with God's own finger writing in the stone commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13, Deut. 5:17, and Christ affirms it in St. Matt. 19:18, and notice that He mentions this commandment first. Apocalypse, The Book of Revelation 22:15 mentions that unrepentant murderers can't enter Heaven.

The early Christian writer, Tertullian pointed out that the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant women and she gives birth prematurely, (Hebrew--"so that her child comes out"), but there is no serious injury, the ofender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Exodus 21:22-24.

This applies the lex talionis or "law of retributation" to abortion. The lex taliionis establishes the just punishment for an injury. Notice the child is the focus of the lex talionis in this passage. Aborted babies must have justice, too. And they do. Today, Catholics call abortion a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance.

The killing of children is condemned by God through the prophets. In the land GOd gave His people to occupy foreign nations had the custom of sacrificing some of their children in fire. God told His people that they were not to share in this sin. They did however, as Psalm 106: 35, 37-38 relates. "they shed innocent blood"..."

The sin of child-sacrifice and that's what abortion is, is mentioned as one of the major reasons that Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and the people taken into exile. "They mutilated their sons and daughters by fire..." 2Kings 17:17-18.

today the killing of innocent, defenseless children in the womb is tolerated under the guise of a "women's right to choose". Choose what, SODaiho...choose infanticide, that's what....on the altar of "convenience." My own belief is that there is no universal condemnation of it becasue so few people have actually witnessed or seen the photos of babies after they have been aborted by saline scalding, or surgical dismemberment. It is the bloodiness that can only be obfuscated by mindless slogans as "choice", "rights" and yours, that "fetuses are not babies". Hogwash, of course fetuses are babies. Leave them safely growing in the womb and that proves it.



The key that not only did God make us, but that He values us. Read Psalm 8:5-7. To the point that He even became one of us and died for us while we were still offending Him. Rom. 5:6-8.

So here you have what the BIble says. On another day, if you wish, I'll make an argument without appealing to Sacred Scripture.

This is not scripture. The Didache, I thought, was not considered canon.




I don't know how it is considered church law when it is not mentioned once in scripture.

Jewish law preexists 1973 by more than a few centuries. I am not a "partisan" I am a Jew and a Buddhist. Both religious perspective, are in the main, rational to a fault. Reasonableness is key in religious matters.




Human life is sacred. Jewish law does not consider a fetus human life. The "unborn" do not fit in this category at all. The Hebrew nefesh refers to human being and this status only applies to a being half way out of the mother at birth.




Scripture teaches this? Or the church's spin on scripture? If this is the case, why not baptise in utero? Conceived and bore are two different things, two different stages of the process of a futes becoming a human being. Psalm 51:7 separates "iniquity" from "mother's sin". Iniquity has many meanings. As does sin. In Judaism there are at least three types, all having to do with making a mistake, not something transmitted from generation to generation. Brephos is a Greek word and should not be used in relation to the Hebrew Scripture. Luke, on the otherhand? Well, that's part of your tradition, not mine.



Interesting, the rabbis understand this in support of the notion that a fetus is not on the same par as a human being. Please read carefully. If a man pushes a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage, he will be fined according to the husband assignment of worth. The Hebrew is not give birth prematurely" but causes a "miscarriage". But if other damage occurs, such as death of the woman, then the eye for an eye part fits.

Lex taliones was not ever understood in the way Christians historically took and applied it. In fact, the rabbinic courts in Talmudic times made it nearly impossible to carry out, for example, captitol punishment. The Talmud uses other means, more human and far more just to punish. The retributionb in this text is not about the loss of a child for the fetus' sake, but rather for the potential value that the 'fetus become child' (at birth) would have had to the family. This very scripture is the basis for the Orthodox Jewish view that abortion is not only permissible, but obligatory in certain situations.



We are not arguing over killing children. At least I am not. I agree it is morally and legally wrong to kill a child. And your point about ancient Hebrews is? That we sometimes fall into the laws, rules, and customs of our host nations? Yes. It is true even Christians do this, with Christ's apparent blessing. But this scripture points to sacrificing children, not fetuses.



No. Its what you say it is. A son or daughter refers to a born person, not an unborn, undeveloped fetus.



You see, we have an enduring difference of opinion. You say "unborn child" I say "fetus". An infant is a baby that is born. Infanticide pertainsd to an infant. Do I support abortion as a matter of convenience? No. I never said that I did. It is you who are stridently making such black and white claims. I say I struggle with the issue. I say it is complex. You say, no struggle, nothing complex. Its black and white. I find such thinking abhorent and, frankly uncivilized, which is why I wrote this little article about intelligence in the first place.

Be well.

Either way, the child is just as dead. Granted, the actual abortion procedure is different....4 weeks is in the first trimester and 6 months (24 weeks) is in the 3rd trimester.

Different procedure equals same result...a dead baby.

Btw, do you know that while some abortionists refer to the embryo as a "blob of tissue" the science of embryology defines it as the initial stage in the development of a distinct person? Why..this distinct person has its own distinct DNA.



Oh no? Who told you that?



Yes, I'm opposed to all abortions except for the life of the mother. Truth is this exception is extremely rare. Women's bodies are designed by the Master for pregnancy, to carry and bear children. The women has a very high percentage of health complications from simple to death by abortion than carrying and delivering the baby. Most women, and I'm one, felt absolutely great, better than great while pregnant...you know, it's called a certain "glow". I love looking at and being around pregnant women. I think they are so beautiful.

Back to a few more questions, So Daiho.

Talking about graduation of things... why should that short birth canal be the dividing line between an unborn 'nonperson' without Constitutuional protection and a newborn person fully protected by the Constitution?

Good question. You'll have to ask the rabbis of the Talmud, its their ruling. My sense is that the rabbis needed a line, we all do, even you with your exception to the rule. The question is, for me, is compassion and rsason involvd in the decision. A blanket rule, like a law against an abortion, is such a rule that disallows compassion and reason in the decision making.

As I said, Judaism holds that the fetus is not a human being, murder is the killing of a human being, therefore abortion cannot be murder.

So, you say you favor abortion if the life of the mother is at risk? Then, you value the mother more than the "unborn child"? On what basis?

Be well.

Oh, you cite the Talmud. I'm not impressed and I bet if you know the Talmud you know why. For those reading who don't know anything much about the Talmud....

The Talmuds were compliled by the academies of Jewry in Palestine and Babylonia between the 2nd and 6th centuries AD, after the Hebrew Jewish priesthood, sacrifices, Temple and Sanhedrin had ceased to exist. There are big differences between the religion of the Israelites of the Old Testament and the present day Jewish religion which is primarily based upon man-made works called the Kabbalah and the Talmud.

The Talmud is is an extensive, encyclopedic compilation of very diverse opinions, interpretations, and discussions of over a 1,000 rabbis belonging to various schools of thought. While the Talmud hasn't superceded the Torah, in some cases it has rivalled it in importance.

The Talmud assaults Christian principles, has blasphemous statements regarding the BLessed Virgin Mary, and her Divine Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

A rabbi, Dr. Abraham Wolfson wrote the Talmud is a mass of false interpretations, exaggerations, puerilities, and absurdities; an enormous compendium of curious half-digested learning, etc...
Of the Jews who search the Talmud, he wrote You go where there are "two grains of wheat in two bushels of chaff. You seek all day to find them, and when you have them, they are not worth the searth."

If the Talmudists were to "search the Scriptures" written by the God inspired in Israel, instead of indulging themselves in the Babel of talmudic opinions, they would see the Mosaic Law in Jesus, the Son of David.

Judaism holds this? It's not the Mosaic Law, so is it the Talmud?

Lula: I am frankly loosing patience with you. How is it you see fit to insult any religion but your own? The Catholic Church is, like Judaism and Buddhism, a work in progress. Every Pope seems to have his own view and spin on things. You contradict yourself without apology as regards abortion, yet hold others to a very rigid standard. You insult the great rabbis and teachings of my faith, and try to rub my nose in your idol. Hubris, I believe is one of your sins, is it not? What about self-righteousness?

You cannot see past your rules. The Talmud is a living dialogue regarding the rules, just as your Vatican's collection of bishops argue the scripture and its various meanings and applications. You know, you are fortunate you were born when you were. There was a time when your Church wanted to keep you completely in the dark. and during that very period our people daily studied Torah in the original tongue. In your faith, if you didn't go along they killed you, in our faith, questions are highly valued: so much for an enlightened spin and compassionate faith, Catholicism.

I pray you become a good Christian, a compassionate being, who has the sense God gave you to use your brain. But, at this point, I think its a long shot.

A bow to you.

Don't be so stupid.

Don't be so stupid.

OK, I give, what is the source of this nonsense? And who is this rabbi you cite?

Lula asks:




Okay, show and tell time. SoDaiho, Where does Judaism hold that the fetus is not a human being?

I take it you didn't like my critique of the Talmud. Well, if I'm incorrect about the Talmud, then tell how so.

As far as the Torah, I revere it; it's Sacred Scripture.





Again, if this is nonsense..or incorrect....tell me how so.





Dr. Wolfson's quote is found in his book, "Spinoza", NeW York, 1932, page 21.

In 1994, a book was published by Israel Shahak, an Israeli Jew, born in Poland, incarcerated for 4 years in Bergen-Belsen Concentration camp during WWII. He lived in Palestine from 1945 until his death in 2001. His book, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years", speaks openly about the Talmud's anti-Christian teachings. He even opens with a paragraph that apologizes for the disturbing sections of the Talmud saying that it "must be admitted at the outset that the Talmud and Talmudic literature...contains very offensive statements and precepts directed specifically against Christianity. For example, in a series of scurrilious sexual allegations against Jesus, the Talmud states that His [Jesus] punishment in Hell is to be immersed in boiling excrement---a statement not exactly calculated to endear the Talmud to devout Christians" And you accuse me of insulting these great rabbis???

I already did. Judaism comes from the Torah and all the dialogue since, Mishnah, Talmud, Responsa to the present day, along with its prayers and practices. For Jews, each Jew must come to terms with Torah and how he or she understyands it. We seek council from the rabbis, from the history, debate and dialogue, but ultimately, must make our own decision. The rabbis base their thinking regarding abortion on the text from, Exodus(Shemot)21:22. This is what follows:


"The Jewish discussion about abortion begins with a biblical text. Exodus 21:22-23 discusses a situation in which two men are fighting. During the fight, one of the men accidentally hits a pregnant woman. The Torah says that if the woman is killed then, “a nefesh shall be given for a nefesh (a life shall be given for a life).” The man who struck her is considered a murderer and is punished accordingly. If, however, the woman miscarries but does not die, the man must pay monetary damages. He is not liable for murder because the fetus is not considered a nefesh, a human being."

and

"While establishing the status of a fetus, this text tells us nothing about the permissibility of abortion. It is another source—the Mishnah (redacted c. 200 CE), in Tractate Ohalot—that provides us with the underlying principle: “If a woman is undergoing a perilous pregnancy, the fetus may be destroyed since her life takes precedence over its life.” When a woman’s life is in danger, abortion is permitted. However, the range of this permissibility is subject to debate and hinges on a single question: Why does the woman’s life take precedence over the fetus?"
Cite: MyJewishLearning.com


Now, your bible, I understand, has distorted the Torah to drop away the monetary compensation and considers the miscarrage a killing. Interesting that the early Christian interpreters of the Torah would abuse God's word in this way, that is to suit their own ends. Jews often choose to interpret the scripture, but they never change it to suit themselves. Talk about a blasphemis act!

We discuss the question, ask other questions, and reason through the most challenging moral and ethical issues. This is true religious practice.

It is hardly thus to simply rely on brittle rules with questionable application.

So, let's begin where the quote leaves off which was my earlier question to you. You don't believe abortion should be done with the exception to save the mother's life. On the basis of what? You say a fetus is a child with rights, all the constitutional rights of a born human being, just as the mother, then why make her more valuable?

Yes, I am very blessed many times over. You keep saying these are interesting times...so true...they are our times.





My Catholicism somehow seems narrow-minded, wrong-headed and becasue I'm acting Catholic, I'm not using my brain to you..but is it narrow-minded to limit one's conduct according to the dictate's of conscience?

Discord amongst us here on JU will arise; it is unavoidable. It's good to have peace, but not at any price above all when the price is the violation of conscience.

You seem annoyed because I will not do what my Catholic conscience forbids. In any case, I believe that my obligations to God are greater than civil ones.




Thank you SoDaiho, I need all the prayers I can get.
You are also in my prayers.

Lula: You simply must do better with your references. That piece by Israel Shahak is very interesting. You are using a secular Jew, an opponent of religion and Israel, to make your case regarding the Talmud? And I cannot find a thing on this rabbi who wrote about Spinoza. Though its interesting that you would again, select someone writing about a pantheist who was ex-communicated ( a very rare and highly debatable act) so that the Jews and Christians in Amsterdam might get along better?

There are lots of critics of the Talmud. I am one. But I don't simply dismiss it. The sort of debate one encounters in Talmud is the sort of energy that has kept Judaism alive for millenia without a state.

You simply do not understand Talmud. It is applied Torah with a question mark. Each of us must answer the question, but the answers can never be capricious. answers in Talmud are always biblically based.

I can see that I haven't been clear in stating my position. My answer is based on the minimal exception upon which I would accept abortion in Constitutional terms...only for "the life of the mother".

In reality, and in practicality, I can't think of any time that this would ever happen. So for me, it really boils down to there is no exception...God's command, "thou shalt not kill" stands unchanged.

Take the case of a women who is pregnant and has discovered she has a deadly disease that requires surgery or treatment that in order to save her life. How on earth would an abortion change the dynamics? The woman in this case has options: have the surgery or treatment and that may kill the baby in the womb..I'm not saying they don't exist, but I can't think of one instance of where an abortion will save the life of a mother.

Carrying that over to the political realm, and considering the candidate who favors abortion in the one exception of "the life of the mother", I would vote for that candidate and have no conflict of conscience.

Our current laws allow procured abortion "on demand", that is abortion can be had at any time of the pregnancy and for any reason or no reason at all. That's where, in our discussion of abortion, you and I have the greatest difficulty. You haven't shown where Judaism, whether of the synagogically orthodox, reform, or conservative congregations, supports this.

I understand that Israel today has abortion laws very similiar to those of the US.

Lula: Laws seem to vary greatly. Here is an interesting link with data:

WWW Link

You cite Exodus 21:22-23 and provide this interpretion of it which concludes that He is not liable for murder because the fetus is not considered a nefesh, a human being."

Nah. Wrong interpetations result in wrong conclusions...(and unfortunately, wrong conclusions can lead one to believe in wrongful acts such as abortion on demand.) In order for this claim to be true, one must ignore the rest of Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments. Throughout the Old and New T, God consistently upholds His creation and laws concerning the goodness of them especially the life of mankind whom He made in His Image and Likeness.

You say, He is not liable for murder because the fetus is not considered a nefesh, a human being."

and then say,

and

"While establishing the status of a fetus, this text tells us nothing about the permissibility of abortion.

Yet, by your statement of #113, "I do not believe a fetus is a baby. I believe life begins at birth"....can't you see that you are using this to justify your belief in the "permissibility" of abortion on demand?

First, I do not support abortion on demand. Second, There is nothing to interpret. Exodus is clear. If a miscarriage results, the husband is due monetary compensation from the perp. If the mother is killed, then the ole eye for an eye theory kicks in. It seems to me God is saying there is a difference between the death of a fetus and that of a person. I can see that I am using the fact that a fetus is not a child to justify the permissibility of abortion in some cases, yes.