So what? Who cares that it is part of Jewish law? That has nothing to do with it. Are you saying that everyone who is not Jewish should accept these teachings? I hope that is not what you are implying. Oh and you’re back again.
I don’t support the death penalty for murder though. I’ve already answered the mother’s healh question NUMEROUS times.
It is a human though. There is no non-human fetus. If 2 humans created it it’s a fricking human!!! Don’t you get that? To which you will reply with the not a person argument:rolleyes:
No. I have said this multiple times. I don’t understand why you keep missing the point. Show me anywhere where I have suggested that the Jewish point of view should influence any individual person’s point of view. I have consistently argued the opposite.
The point is that people of good integrity can come to different conclusions based on a variety of different information. The pro-choice position accepts this reality and allows the freedom for individual women to come to the ethical conclusion that closely matches their moral compass.
It is EXACTLY that one perspective should NOT overrule another that is at the heart of the issue.
Yes, I’m back? So?
This is exactly what I am referring to. You may believe it with such certainly, as is your absolute right, but not everyone does. And this OK, too. For example- Jewish law teaches something else. Would a religious Jew be immoral for believing that? (and for the record, I actually disagree with many aspects of Jewish teaching on that point). People of good faith can disagree on metaphysical arguments without having to paint the other as immoral and bad. That has been virtually my point, or underlies my frustration, in every interaction with you.
Just quoting this because I think they’re good questions, and perhaps classyladyhp did not see them.
A sperm does not have human life. It’s something that a man produces. It’s not human.
I can’t answer for how a lot of people read the natural consequence of having sex, i.e. the chance of conceiving, as being “punishment”. Because I certain consider the consequences of being the male contributor to a conception event every single time I put myself in that position.
Between contraception (ideally multiple methods) and early pregnancy detection, it would be my hope that the small number of conceptions would be managed within the first trimester.
People object to all sorts of things. I don’t find that motivation to be politically correct.
No you haven’t. You’ve said you support exemptions but steadfastly refused to say why when the same exemptions are not available for those who kill already born people.
Take the death penalty out of it to avoid your weaseling here. Do you then support life sentences for doctors and those who drive people to clinics? And for those (including my ex girlfriend) who provided the phone number of abortion clinics overseas to pregnant women?
By your logic, my apple had apple tree life, as it could become an apple tree. Do you believe, therefore, that I ate an apple tree this morning?
Or is your “potential=actual” logic only applicable when it’s a human fetus which may become a human?
Please note, I’m not using “logic” in any sense understood by the majority of the population; please read it in as sarcastic a voice as you can.
So it’s OK for everyone to have to be forced to support YOUR moral laws, but it’s not OK for other moral laws to be supported? It’s only OK for YOUR morals to be enforced? You seem to think that it’s OK for you to proclaim what is right and what is wrong, and that everyone should follow your dictates, but you don’t give the same privilege to others.
I LOVE bagels and cream cheese…but I put a slice of ham on it, not lox. I don’t like lox. And I love quite a bit of deli food. In fact, I have given up on most delis around here, and eat at the only kosher style deli in town. They will put some Swiss on my corned beef sandwich, so I don’t have to order it separately. However, I believe that the pig is full of nommy goodness, and I love the ham and the bacon and the ham hocks and almost all of the pig. I’ve seen Jews eat shrimp and pork, though, so I understand that eating treif doesn’t necessarily mean that one is not a Jew, only that it means that one is not observing Jewish dietary law at that time.
It gets tricky, though. Mother’s health becomes hard to pin down-
At what point is a mother entitled to such protection? When it’s 90% guaranteed she’ll die if the pregnancy continues? 30%? (I’m not asking you to pick a number, but to illustrate the complexity of the position).
What about emotional health- what if she’s suicidal? Or has a history of severe Postpartum psychosis? Or get diagnosed with a disease during preganacy but the meds will harm the baby? Should she wait until she delivers, even if that ups the chance she will dies of the disease (like avoiding cancer treatment)?
Who gets to decide if her reason is good enough? If the stakes are critical enough? How could we possible legislate this?
This is the morality of being pro-choice. I respect women enough to believe they can make these decisions on their own- after consulting with their doctors, therapists, clergy, spouse or just their own conscience.
And to play devil’s advocate- I’m going to answer the question (about if you believe it’s murder but aborting for health of mom is ok) for you: Self-defense. It’s always been ok to kill in self-defense.
You’ll take my bacon-wrapped scallops out of my cold dead hands before I’ll give them up. 
And I was raised kosher!
Which is why I am intrigued by arguments finding the Second Amendment to be the constitutional underpinning of abortion.
Self defense doesn’t of course answer the other questions about this you posed.
Can you clarify? I don’t know my Constitutional Law enough (um… at all!) to know the implication of your point, but would like to!
See post 2274. Indeed.
It’s not something I’m 100% on board with but…
The basis of the Second is a long held right to self defense, and the right to remove something, even if fully human, growing inside you is self defense. There’s work done looking at the Bill of Rights as a whole, how what it defends is personal integrity in ever widening circles. The First protects our inner thoughts, the Second our bodies, the next few our homes etc.
Eugene Volokh has written some stuff on abortion as a self defense right I believe. I don’t always agree with him but he’s a great writer and very accessible to non-lawyers.
…
It’s not the pregnancy that’s punishment; it’s forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term that is punishment. In a “you made your bed, now you have to lie in it” way. Well, guess what: having sex isn’t necessarily making the bed.
The natural consequence of having sex is orgasm more often than it is pregnancy. Given the fact that we are biologically built to engage in sex anytime we want and generally want to do so often regardless of the small window of fertility, it can be argued that procreation is not even the primary reason for sex. It’s possible we as a species have evolved to the point where sexual activity engages social cohesion to the benefit of our continued survival. Simply, it’s our social bonding that determines our success as a species and not, at this point, the extent to which we procreate.
In fact, you can easily gauge the extent to which the proliferation of our species is having a measurable negative impact on the survival of vast swaths of the human population as our resources to support the population is depleted. Many people already realize that if we don’t drastically reduce consumption of finite resources, we are putting our very species at grave risk. Regulating (preferably self-driven regulation) procreation is what will ultimately reduce the population crisis. Although, this is not intended to be a justification for abortion or a call to forcefully regulate births on a governmental scale.
It is a way to better understand the human species, IMHO. Like it or not, we are essential animals ourselves, albeit very intelligent animals. We can to, a large extent, determine the paths our lives take, but there is interaction with the world around us that breeds a measure of uncertainty. We don’t control everything. The single bit of iron-clad control we have is our decision-making. For all that is right and good, I believe self-determination and bodily autonomy are the most essential of ideals.
That’s a reasonable thing to hope for. It seems quite clear, however, that legal partial or complete prohibition of abortion is not going to achieve that ideal. On the contrary, it will create more suffering as women are forced into desperation and more children are brought into the world unwanted or unhealthy or destined for a future of pain and suffering.
So? What’s your point?
You’re not using my logic though. In have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
An apple is not alive. A tree is alive. A tree is not a human it can’t become a “potential human”. I think you ate an apple this morning:rolleyes: and who knows what else you had with the apple.
Actually, the apple seeds ARE alive, and have the potential to become apple trees. The seeds are capable of growing into apple trees. So the seeds are potential apple trees by most people’s logic. By your logic, they ARE apple trees, only very small and not fully formed yet. I think that the apples themselves are alive, too, up to a certain point after they’re harvested.
Potatoes are alive, and so are onions. Both are capable of sprouting and growing if you’re not diligent about using them up. And I’ve thrown away old stalks of celery into the compost pit, only to find them growing.