BTW, I didn't say what you re quoting me as saying. The scholars at MyJewishLearning.com said it, based on Talmudic discussion, which in turn is based on Torah.

The simple fact of the matter is that, unlike slavery or other serious wrongs, the Torah is silent on abortion per se. Odd, don't you think?

Your Catholicism is narrow-minded in that it is rigid and intolerant of differing points of view. You are not acting Catholic, that is universal, you are acting in the self interest of your belief system, wishing to legislate your religion's moral code to become the law of the land.

Lula, I applaud your desire to behave in accordance with your faith's doctrine and realize it as part of your conscience. But, it is your faith, not mine; they are your faith's doctrine, not mine; and youre behavior must have limits, just as mine must.

Be well.

I don't know whether Israel Shahak is a secular Jew or an opponent of religion and Israel or not. It doesn't matter. He has also said that the Edito Princeps of Talmudic law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah is replete with the most offensive precepts against Gentiles but also attacks upon Christianity and upon Christ, one being found in the Shabbos 104b which claims that Jesus learned witchcraft in Egypt.

I note that while you complain about who these men are, you do not deny what they say especially concerning the Talmud containing offensive and disturbing statements and precepts against Christianity, Christ, and His mother.

There are plenty of Christian sources who say the same of the Talmud, but if I would have cited them, you would have cried foul, claiming bias.

My case against the Talmud is nothing new. Opposition against the Talmud due to its assaults upon Christian principles, its derogatory statements against Christ, etc. have been known for a long time although not by many Christians.

Lula: Anti-Talmudic thought has been linked to anti-semitism since the middle ages and before. Today, the likes of David Duke, cart out the same stuff, ill-informed stuff, you are. The Talmud was written in the first couple of centuries of the common era. Much of it was an effort to figure out how to be Jews, observe the commandments, in the diaspora.Jews were being attacked on all sides. The church wanted the to convert, seized the books, burned them, and brutalized Jews for its study.

Many of the early references to Jesus may not even been about your Jesus. The name was common in those days. Moreover, for the sake of improving relations, Talmudist removed offensive parts from the work very early in its history.

Its funny, Lula, but I think if you burn a few people at the stake, drive them out of village after village, at some point those people might acvtually begin to dislike you. Go figure. Today, the things you mention, paripheral to the Talmud itself, are used to by rascists like David Duke to inflame. I don't see you all in a dither about this sort of thing.

I really think you might consider reading some of the Talmud before you get so in a snit about it.

BTW, I did take a look at some of the "antiChristian pieces of the Talmud as they are all over the Net. Interestingly, all are out of context (go figure) and many are simply statements repudiating the idea that God decided to make himself into a man just to get himself whacked.

Lastly, Jews really just want to be left alone. Christian salesmen come to our doors all the time selling holy water, wanting to "perfect" us. I do have an attitude about this. Am I a rascist? No. I feel thye same way about car salesmen and telemarketers. I just want to be free to practice my faith in peace and not have others attempt to cram their crap down my throat, viz-a-viz laws regulating morality and ethics based in their own religious paradigms.

Well, they're just so soft and pink, after all . . .

I want my baby back, baby back, baby back...

Chili's baby back ribs!
(barbequeue sauce!)

Mmmmm, had those for dinner last night.

The new Honey Chipotle ones are especially delectable.

But not as good as Gentile baby flesh . . .

And the best part is that we don't have to wait for a religious holiday like Passover to eat 'em.

It's open season on Gentile babies every day.

[quote]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."


So Daiho,

The Talmudic rabbis’ interpretation of Exodus is fine, however, their conclusion that a fetus is not considered a human being isn’t. It's troubling. Based on what you’ve given here, it just doesn’t add up. There is nothing in Exodus 21:22-23 that could possibly lead them to come to their conclusion that the fetus isn't a human being. What is in the mother's womb if it isn't a life of a human being?

In Genesis 1:20-21, 24, Scripture makes a clear distinction between the status of life (nephesh) between people and animals and that of plants. “Nephesh” conveys the idea of a “breathing creature”. As such, plants do not have “nephesh”.

Based on the Talmudic rabbis' conclusion, you arrive at your own and say:



Here you make the giant leap that "the fetus is not a child" is somehow now "fact". In saying this, you contradict David and Isaias of the Old Testament and even God Himself. David in the Psalms certainly knew his life in the womb was important to God. “For thou hast possessed my reins; thou hast protected me from my mother’s womb.” “My bones are not hidden from thee which thou hast made in secret:”
Isaias 49:1 “ The Lord hath called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother he had been mindful of my name.”
St.Luke 1:41 recorded that St.John the Baptist "leaped in his mother’s womb."


Flavious Josephus, a famous Jewish historian (37-38?--101 AD), certainly had a completely different view of the worth and life of the child in the womb from that of the Talmudic rabbis and now, you. So did many others.

Of Exodus 21: 22, Josephus from his Antiquities iv. 8 and also Philo and the Septuagint have, "of a child unformed;" and verse 23, "But if the child be formed, (exeikonismenon, means animated and organized) he shall give soul for soul;" as if all were referred to the child, which the Vulgate explains of the mother. To destroy the life of either was punished with death.

"She who first taught the art of expelling the tender fetus, deserved to perish by his own malice." Ovid and Calmet.

The precise time when the soul begins to animate the body is so very uncertain, that, after conception, the person who should cause a miscarriage wilfully, would expose himself to incur the guilt of murder. Josephus, contra Apion ii. Shews how the Jews abhorred such wickedness.

The Romans punished it with death. Haydock.
Homicidii festinatio est prohibere nasci. Tertullian, apol.



What's so hard for the Talmiduc rabbis' to figure out about God’s Commandment, "thou shalt not kill?" All these others seem to understand it.




Hopefully, after this exercise, you will better understand why I question certain conclusions drawn from the Talmud.

I don't have to read it. Others have read it and have made certain claims against it which haven't been denied or refuted.

Does it really make sense to you that I would be jumping for joy, accepting without question or discernment, Jewish writings which are colored by a hostile attitude towards Christian principles and contain derogatory statements regarding Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary?


If, as you say, the Talmud is based upon the Torah, why didn’t these Talmudic rabbis heed Moses when he prophesied Christ and told all Jews to “hear Him” ? What would Moses of the Law and the Prophets think of the offensive language about Christ in the Talmud?

Goodness, Lula, having trouble with comphrehension? Exodus plainly states that if the mother micarries, the perpetrator must pay monetary damages, if the mother dies, he must payt with his life. It certainly seems to be that God is differentiating here. Why? This is what the rabbis struggled with, that question. I asked you the same question and you evaded an answer because it doesn't fit the neat assumptions you bring to the text. The rabbis undertake to understand the various nuances and contradictions of Torah, as they,. like you, believed it was all quite literal. To do this they pretty much had to talk in circles, just as you and other fundamentalists do in order for a literal understanding to make any sense at all. You often forget that the Bible is a teaching tool. It uses stories to teach us lessomns. The lessons are there regardless of the facts of the text. This is why they are thought of as "myth" by scholars.



Yes. When have you seen a fetus "breathe"? I guess God was unaware that plants breathed. So much for God with a literal understanding...



Yes, I do, but it is not a giant leap at all. There is a fetus, a non-breathing, organized, collectiuon of cells growing into a human being; and there is a child, a breathing human being. I do, indeed, see tham as quite different. God recognized this as well when He said a miscarriage warrents monetary damages, not thye life of a person committing the act.



Both of these men were historians, not rabbis or theologians. Moreover, how does pushing back the line from "born" to "formed" change much? We are both in agreement that abortion after the first trimester is a serious problem, if not wrong. Rabbis were not scientists, they were simply trying to make sense of the Torah and how to apply the commandments to everyday life as it changed.



The Septuagint is mistranslatring the torah here and, I believe, doing so in order to make a moral point. Rabbis are left with the actual text of the Torah and wouldn't consider changing it to suit their moral sensibilities.

You bring Ovid into your case? Most interesting.



As I said earlier, it isn't this commandment that is the issue. Its the issue of when is a bundle of cells a human being. To this you answer, at conception; the rabbis answer at birth.



Oh my goodness, Lula, of course they have been denied and refuted. The earlier comments were exised from the texts themselves, self-censorship, as a result of understanding that defensiveness gets us nothing but enemies, and the later comments were taken out of context completely. Moreover, you must understand Jews have been killed for their non-acceptance of your "Lord and Savior." No wonder they might have a bit of a chip on their shoulder in the context of those times (a fact you consistently gloss over).

Fundamentalist Christians have apparently decided they can change God's word, translate it in various ways, and then completely miss the mark in order to make present sense of an ancient book. The Talmud is a record of an ancient people who tried very hard to figure out how to live by the law God gave at Sinai. They were free to change it, add to it, or take aay from it: the Torah was what they had to work with.



No less than it should bother you that Christians executed Jews for not converting. There is nothing derogatory about refusing to believe the fantastic claims of a virgin birth or man-made God. We would lock people away (and do) in hospitals for making similar claims today, but we don't kill them.

Be well.

"The simple fact of the matter is that, unlike slavery or other serious wrongs, the Torah is silent on abortion per se. Odd, don't you think?"

This point is refuted by the point that 'Thou shalt not kill' is one of the ten commandments. Not silent to me.

Lula posts:

So Daiho posts:

No, I'm not.



Agree. Now, how do you get from here to the rabbis' conclusion and your assertion that it's a fact that the fetus isn't a life of a human being?

Couldn't the monetary payment demanded by the husband and the judges be about a lesser degree of justice from that of an eye for an eye? It shows that the loss of the nephesh in the womb meant something to the mother, husband and the judges. It says nothing at all about the fetus isn't a life of a human being and that's why there is no logical way you can come to your conclusion.

Amen! I'll second that!

But you've got to put this commandment into context. You kill (or your actions result in the killing) of hundreds if not thousands or organisms every day. "Thou shalt not kill", taken to its highest degree, is completely impossible - your mere existence promotes the death of microbes within your body. You eat plants (and usually animals) every day as well, effectively killing many of these organisms. (A carrot doesn't last very long without its root system, after all, nor a cow without its ground innards you're eating on that hamburger right now . . .)

Thus, you can see that there are varying degrees where you are encouraged, nay - biologically designed - to kill. It's up to us to realize when that killing is a mistake.

"your mere existence promotes the death of microbes within your body. You eat plants (and usually animals) every day as well, effectively killing many of these organisms."

I relish each bite of dead plant and animals. I don't even register the microbes, though. I am a mass-killer. Microbe rights NOW!

You're right, SanCho, by the way. And again, the clear line is "Do not kill human beings" and the blurry line is "What is a human being?"

IMEABO, the trauma seen in women who have had abortions speaks for itself, and defines the line quite clearly. We aren't commanded not to kill for the good of those we would kill, but for the good of ourselves.

Dear Lula, I think you are getting caught in a need to see human beings in a certain way. The fetus is a developing human being, I see that, asserted that; the rabbis saw that, asserted that. Developing human being is not the same as a human being. One is in process, the other complete. That's why there is a "lessor" penalty and also why the rabbis concl;ude that under certain circumstances, such as a threat to the life of the mother, an abortion can be, or is obligated to be, performed.



Dear Jthier, it is, indeed, a blurry line. Your line may be different from mine, and different from Lula's. My argument is that because the line is so blurry, it takes civil law to draw one in the sand. God's law is not clear, in spite of all the wiggles some make with it in order to claim that it is clear.

Again, there is a reason our language refers to a fetus as a fetus and some people, confuse the issue by re-naming the fetus a "baby". This is clearly a deliberate effort to emotionally charge an issue and thus, confound the issue.

Be well.

Dear SoDaiho,

A cheerful thank you for hosting such an excellent and wide ranging discussion on the weighty topics of the day.





Absolutely, true. I try to see them as God sees them as stated in Jeremiah 1:5. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."

The area of human life to me is clear and unequivical. Human life must be respected and protected from conception to natural death.

Someone said whoever defines the language of the culture defines the culture. Ever since the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in 1973, the US has been engaged in a culture of death. Orwellian newspeak has been most successful in the area surrounding the abortion debate.

You are familiar with "a fetus is not a person". But does being fully human depend upon our size?

As I read this I realized that both pro-abortion and pro-life advocates need to see human life in a certain way to sustain our position. The pro-life side maintains the life of the baby in the womb is there from the moment of conception. The pro-abortion side doesn't recognize the life or the humanity of the baby in the womb at all. Simple as that.

Laws that contradict morality cannot compel obedience...and court rulings aren't laws. Only COngress has the authority to make laws. Yet, Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court ruling which permits procured abortion on demand. Court rulings cannot negate the law of God, the First Lawgiver.

How do pro-abort advocates get around God's Law, "Thou shalt not kill? Through telling lies. Murder in a democracy is a legal definition. We know nowadays that law is what courts and justices, often relying on public opinion want them to be. This is the philosophy that dominated the Supreme Court at the time of Roe v. Wade. Since abortion is not classified by law as murder, that Commandment of ALmighty God didn't apply and the philosophy that declares that all men possess certain unalienable rights given by their Creator was contradicted.

Can you say BLURRY? Court rulings cannot negate the law of God. Period. If they do they cannot compel obedience.

Here is a quote from Dr. Charles Rice of the Notre Dame Law School that is worth considering.

"Every society has to have a god and ultimate moral authority. If the real God is displaced, another will take His place. Today the replacement god is the autonomous individual who makes himself the defining authority; ultimately of course, such authority will be assumed by the state."