”So if a man rapes a woman and she becomes with child, you sat it is ok for that woman to murder her child because his father was a rapist.
That is your paraphrase, not what I wrote. Please don’t paraphrase. Quote. When you paraphrase without understanding all of the ramifications, then you inject your own pre-inclinations (not to mention loaded and inflammatory language). So you’ve put words in my mouth and attacked what you wrote, not what I wrote! These are the tactics of someone spoiling for a fight, eager to demonize and destroy an adversary, not someone trying to understand and resolve an issue.
Your simplistic paraphrase, for example, allows the situation in which a woman is raped but does nothing until the day before the baby is to be born when she decides she wants an abortion. I didn’t advocate abortion in such an eventuality. Implying that I did so is misrepresentation, perhaps slander.
I can’t think of a context in which words are more lethal than the issue of abortion. In this issue particularly, words can kill – literally.
If one advises a woman to abort when there is no danger to life, then a needless death ensues by relying on that advice.
If, on the other hand, one advises a woman not to abort when not aborting is a real and imminent danger to her life, particularly in cases where there is little expectation that the fetus would survive anyway, then relying on that advice results in a needless death.
Even when there is a good expectation that the fetus would survive, who has the divinely ordained authority to determine which life should be preserved and which lost? Who, in that case, more than the mother in concert with attending physicians and an Orthodox rabbi? Must she rely on the advice of a stranger who knows nothing of the details and relies solely on a few misconceptions of the Bible? The Biblical principle of sanctity of life extends to the mother too.
Reckless advice on either side of the issue of abortion, therefore, is tantamount to murder. Reckless and harsh allegations – of murder, killing, disobeying “G*o*d’s commands,” taking an innocent life, and murdering one’s child – dictate an equally stern remedy.
Over-simplifying the position of one’s perceived adversary in order to facilitate an attack – along with using inflammatory language – are the greatest reasons that progress is rarely made on the issue of abortion. Each side points to the extremists on the other side to exaggerate the other side’s position, making attacks easier and more effective. Thus, everyone is categorized either as encouraging abortions freely or never; both of which are reckless. There seems to be no moderate voice.
Would you prevent a rape victim from douching immediately after the assault? I don’t think that any reasonable person would presume to bar someone else from doing so. Conception probably hasn’t occurred yet, so the allegation of murder would be absurd in the extreme, sheer malicious misrepresentation. How do you – you, personally – know when conception has occurred in a rape victim? Whether you realize the implications of your own charges or not, you have presumed to know better than scientists and the attending physician.
Would you insist that the rape victim must give conception a chance by not douching? You cannot even read the Bible yet. So what divine authority do you have to impose your views on another woman? Don’t presume to authoritatively throw around your personal views of the Bible as if your views and misconceptions define “G*o*d’s Law,” particularly to Jews who do read it and have been studying and practicing it for millennia.
”What if that man has two other children, if you can kill one of his children because of his crime, shouldn't it be ok to kill his other children? I think it is wrong to say you have the right to kill someone because of their parents crime.
I'll refer you to II Kings 14:6 -But the children…
Presuming to teach from translations merely perpetuates the misconceptions. Ribi Yehôshua described this as “the blind leading the blind.” Such adamant crusading of misconceptions about what the Bible says is one of the greatest clouds that obscures any solution to the abortion issue.
You may ask questions about Scriptures, not preach about them nor “refer” Jews to them as if they are in need of enlightening from gentile “spiritual Jews” of Displacement Theology.
"About danger to the mothers life, every time a woman carries a child in her womb and gives birth there is a minuscule chance that she might die. There is no way a doctor can know when a woman will die.
There are situations in which even I could tell a person was going to die. Physicians can tell better than I can. You presume to know more about this than me or attending physicians. What is your training and education that makes you so much more qualified to make these decisions? The choice isn’t between the advice of attending physicians or ha-Sheim, as you assert. The choice is between the advice of attending physicians and your advice. Why should women rely on you for these decisions instead of relying on the advice of attending physicians? If you’re wrong, then you become responsible for their deaths. You murder. More often than not, relying on the advice of their attending physician, rather than you, would save lives; while relying on your advice would more often kill – murder – somebody.
The Biblical principle of sanctity of life also applies to the mother. It isn’t up to you to sacrifice the mother’s life when there is no prospect of saving the fetus anyway. Your advice is reckless – murderous – in the extreme. Should a murderess condemn a victim as a murderer? You would cast the first stone?
Simplistic and extreme “anti-abortion” arguments that turn out to have no legitimate basis are what make life easy for “pro-choice” advocates, and make them so popular, by comparison, in the eyes of the majority of the public. Simplistic and extreme arguments provide examples that make it easy for “pro-choice” advocates to convince most people that “anti-abortionists” are simply ignorant extremists. Whether you realize it or not, you’re helping the “pro-choice” camp!
To begin helping the “pro-life” camp instead,
”So a woman will ask a doctor if she will die and based on his opinion she may disregard g*o*ds command not to take an innocent life and murder her child. I refer you to II KIngs 1:2 to 1:4- And…
What is your authority to judge a mother’s life less precious than the life of her fetus? By what divine authority do you presume to know who will die and who won’t better than the attending physicians, or to impose your judgment on another woman? You don’t know better than attending physicians how life threatening a situation is. You may well commit more murder and injury with your reckless advice than any single abortion! Nor is it up to you to decide that both mother and embryo should face near-certain death when the mother’s life could be saved. It is, then, you who presumes to murder the woman when the embryo couldn’t be saved in any case! Do you also know better than the physicians when an embryo can be saved?
Beyond that, by what authority do you, as a gentile, preach your views, which are alien to Judaism, to Jews? You assume, wrongly, that a medical opinion is necessarily a contradiction of your idea of “g*o*d’s command,” despite the fact that you admit that you haven’t yet learned how to read “g*o*d’s command” in the Bible. Nevertheless, you go on to preach your contra-Biblical misconceptions to Jews who do read it and have studied it for millennia.
"How dare a woman inquire of a doctor if she shall live of die and use his opinion to justify murder, breaking g*o*ds law.
You can’t read
”I do desire to learn, so I would like to have your take on these points.”
To Return to the eZine Directory:
”At this time I am writing in response to your comments on abortion. I am refering to what you said on newsletter 95.03 page 17. You said abortion on demand was "simple murder", but that in exceptional circumstances it is justified. The two that you list were rape and danger to the mothers life.
úååöî
, íéèôùî
or íé÷ç
, much less define them correctly or apply them justly. Non-Jews, preaching their contra-Biblical misconceptions to Jews who do read it and have studied it for millennia, displace Jews from their legitimate position as teachers of Tôrâh who understand Tôrâh. The doctrine by which non-Jews displace real Jews with their own alien and make-believe Bible-authority is called Displacement Theology. That is miso-Judaic and I find it shocking and disturbing. How dare you!