According to Jewish law, a fetus is not considered a full human being and has no juridical personality of its own. Rashi states clearly of the fetus "lav nefesh hu--it is not a person." The Talmud contains the expression "ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.
The issue of therapeutic abortion itself is first dealt with in a second century Jewish legal text quoted in the Mishna. "If a woman is in hard labor (that threatens her life), one dismembers the fetus within her and removes it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life. Once the greater part of it emerges it may not be touched, for we do not set aside one life for another."
With respect to non therapeutic abortions, the relevant literature is the Responsa--questions written to and responses written by rabbinical authorities from the 10th century to today. There are many relevant Responsa concerning abortion. In all of them, the principles are those described above.
The first case concerns a child who is nursing and cannot survive without his mother's milk, being allergic to all other forms of nutrition. The mother, however, having become pregnant once again, sees that her milk has now ceased flowing. Here, where the issue is saving the life of a third party, as opposed to the pregnant woman herself, two different authorities mandate the performance of an abortion to save the life of the existing child.
Other cases emerge today as a result of a better understanding of mental health issues. The question is whether or not suicidal tendencies in a pregnant woman (tendencies that might, as a result of the pregnancy itself, impel the woman to take her own life), justify the performance of an abortion. In this case, even the most stringent of authorities permit an abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman.
In past centuries, many other circumstances have come before rabbinical authorities, as well. One case involved a woman whose pregnancy would leave her permanently deaf, and while some authorities rejected this as sufficient grounds for an abortion, no less an authority than a Chief Rabbi of Israel granted her permission.
In cases involving adultery, there is also a division of opinion. Some invoke the principle of "let the fruit of the act bear witness to the deed lest adultery flourish in the land." Others maintain that we must do everything possible to save the pregnant woman from great mental pain and anguish, shame being the greatest mental pain. And in several cases involving rape, this latter principle seems to dominate, with many authorities granting permission to take the steps necessary to ensure that a pregnancy will not result
The majority of Jewish legal sources indicate that abortion is permissible at any stage of the pregnancy if the well-being of the pregnant woman is jeopardized. In cases of non-therapeutic abortion, then, the major consideration is "the pain of the mother." It is out of consideration for the woman involved, and not the fate or condition of the fetus, which becomes the determining factor in prohibiting or permitting an abortion
Jews never believed in Hell... Maybe you should learn a bit...
Hell (probably traken from the Pagan Tartarus) is a complete invention...
In reality Jews do not believe the afterlife is of any importance on how to live your life... The Talmud and the Torah tells you how to live THIS LIFE! What happens after is of absolute no consequance!
I apologize, I forgot that it's either Heaven or nothing for most Jews. Actually, with your tone I was thinking you were an Athiest for a second there.
As far as my picture, you need to learn a little something yourself.
I am an agnostic... But what I do know is that IF your jesus ever existed (doubtful IMO) he was a man and no god...
What I also know is that xian religion isn't to be foisted on people who aren't xian... Given that the whole babble about "life begins at conception" blah blah blah is from the xian thology, then you have no secular argument against abortion!
you can't legislate the mindset into people that life begins at conception.
It is not a question of legislating a mindset. It is a question of outlawing a hoorendous act. If there are people that want to do the act anyway that is their choice. If they choose to violate the law then they would have to face the consequences.
Pitiricus wrote: I have children... What has this to do with that.. Nothing!
If you love your children then it would cross your mind or asked yourself what if I had aborted that child. If you can say so what either you don't love your children or you have no conscience. My guess is you have just bought in to the proabortion rhetoric and have given it no thought. Or Maybe you aren't capable of thought.
Well don't have an abortion... What another woman decides to do is no business of yours!
On moral grounds it is my business and societys business. If you don't like that tough.
According to Jewish law, a fetus is not considered a full human being and has no juridical personality of its own. Frankly I don't give a damn about that. Reason says the unborn child is a living human being from conception.
So don't try to legislate xianity!
Either you do not understand that my position has nothing to do with Christianity or you are simply defending an indefensible position by resorting to the seperation of church and state nonsense.
It (note the IT) belongs to the human genus... But it isn't a human person with rights... Until born, it is a parasite on the body of the woman, and any right it has can only be given by the woman.
Well, it isn't and never was your business, but I have noticed that male fundies have a problem with women's rights...
LOL!
And let me tell: PROVE IT that it is a person... Of course you can't as it is a belief (and a pernicious one at that, fostered by xianity weird ideas about original sin)
Well your Jesus story of a semi-god that would be born of a virgin and come back to life is a patgan accretion on Judaism...
LOL!
And of course it is paganism as God is ONE not two or three... And Mary (if the story has any truth) is the lady that invented the funniest excuse I ever heard to explain why she had a lover: it wasn't a man Joseph, it was God... How can this idiot believe her is not told in the story
From Websters: parasite (biology): An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Exactly the relationship of the fetus with the woman!
"Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms “pro-life” and “right to life” to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman’s right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.      Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase “a woman’s right to choose.” Does she have the right to choose murder? That’s what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.      The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.      We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body."
Main Entry: par·a·sitePronunciation: 'par-&-"sItFunction: nounEtymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food Date: 1539
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
I once offered to use the phrase "pro life" if the people on the other side would use the term "pro choice."
That went over like a lead balloon.
I've said before, the extremes on both sides of the abortion issue have so hijacked the language and the tactics that progress -- no matter how it's defined -- ever seems to be made.
par·a·site Pronunciation Key (pr-st) n. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
According to Jewish law, a fetus is not considered a full human being and has no juridical personality of its own. Rashi states clearly of the fetus "lav nefesh hu--it is not a person." The Talmud contains the expression "ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.
The issue of therapeutic abortion itself is first dealt with in a second century Jewish legal text quoted in the Mishna.
"If a woman is in hard labor (that threatens her life), one dismembers the fetus within her and removes it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life. Once the greater part of it emerges it may not be touched, for we do not set aside one life for another."
With respect to non therapeutic abortions, the relevant literature is the Responsa--questions written to and responses written by rabbinical authorities from the 10th century to today. There are many relevant Responsa concerning abortion. In all of them, the principles are those described above.
The first case concerns a child who is nursing and cannot survive without his mother's milk, being allergic to all other forms of nutrition. The mother, however, having become pregnant once again, sees that her milk has now ceased flowing. Here, where the issue is saving the life of a third party, as opposed to the pregnant woman herself, two different authorities mandate the performance of an abortion to save the life of the existing child.
Other cases emerge today as a result of a better understanding of mental health issues. The question is whether or not suicidal tendencies in a pregnant woman (tendencies that might, as a result of the pregnancy itself, impel the woman to take her own life), justify the performance of an abortion. In this case, even the most stringent of authorities permit an abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman.
In past centuries, many other circumstances have come before rabbinical authorities, as well. One case involved a woman whose pregnancy would leave her permanently deaf, and while some authorities rejected this as sufficient grounds for an abortion, no less an authority than a Chief Rabbi of Israel granted her permission.
In cases involving adultery, there is also a division of opinion. Some invoke the principle of "let the fruit of the act bear witness to the deed lest adultery flourish in the land." Others maintain that we must do everything possible to save the pregnant woman from great mental pain and anguish, shame being the greatest mental pain. And in several cases involving rape, this latter principle seems to dominate, with many authorities granting permission to take the steps necessary to ensure that a pregnancy will not result
The majority of Jewish legal sources indicate that abortion is permissible at any stage of the pregnancy if the well-being of the pregnant woman is jeopardized. In cases of non-therapeutic abortion, then, the major consideration is "the pain of the mother." It is out of consideration for the woman involved, and not the fate or condition of the fetus, which becomes the determining factor in prohibiting or permitting an abortion
So don't try to legislate xianity!
'Bill - Fold' 7/25/02 2:26am
I know I shouldn't ask...
But why do you think that Jethro or anybody can condemn anyone to an eternity in an imaginary place?
:-)
I know I shouldn't ask....
Why are you quoting the Talmud if you believe Hell to be imaginary?
THX 1138 7/25/02 6:07am
Jews never believed in Hell... Maybe you should learn a bit...
Hell (probably traken from the Pagan Tartarus) is a complete invention...
In reality Jews do not believe the afterlife is of any importance on how to live your life... The Talmud and the Torah tells you how to live THIS LIFE! What happens after is of absolute no consequance!
BTW:
as we are not in a theocracy, you may want to take away the face of your pagan semi-god from the picture... Just a thought!
I apologize, I forgot that it's either Heaven or nothing for most Jews. Actually, with your tone I was thinking you were an Athiest for a second there.
As far as my picture, you need to learn a little something yourself.
THX 1138 7/25/02 6:37am
I am an agnostic... But what I do know is that IF your jesus ever existed (doubtful IMO) he was a man and no god...
What I also know is that xian religion isn't to be foisted on people who aren't xian... Given that the whole babble about "life begins at conception" blah blah blah is from the xian thology, then you have no secular argument against abortion!
I don't wish to debate whether Jesus existed or not. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours. I can live with that.
Anyway, one could come to the conclusion that life begins at conception without any religion involved.
To me it's a logical conclusion.
A fetus isn't a human? Where did you and I come from?
you can't legislate the mindset into people that life begins at conception.
It is not a question of legislating a mindset. It is a question of outlawing a hoorendous act. If there are people that want to do the act anyway that is their choice. If they choose to violate the law then they would have to face the consequences.
Pitiricus wrote: I have children... What has this to do with that..
Nothing!
If you love your children then it would cross your mind or asked yourself what if I had aborted that child. If you can say so what either you don't love your children or you have no conscience. My guess is you have just bought in to the proabortion rhetoric and have given it no thought. Or Maybe you aren't capable of thought.
Well don't have an abortion... What another woman decides to do is no business of yours!
On moral grounds it is my business and societys business. If you don't like that tough.
According to Jewish law, a fetus is not considered a full human being and has no juridical personality of its own. Frankly I don't give a damn about that. Reason says the unborn child is a living human being from conception.
So don't try to legislate xianity!
Either you do not understand that my position has nothing to do with Christianity or you are simply defending an indefensible position by resorting to the seperation of church and state nonsense.
But why do you think that Jethro or anybody can condemn anyone to an eternity in an imaginary place?
Only God can condemn you to hell. It makes no difference whether you believe in it now or not if you eventually find yourself there.
Reason says the unborn child is a living human being from conception.
maybe your reason does. doesn't mean the rest of the world's does.
jethro bodine 7/25/02 9:36am
Ad hominem attacks... The last refuge of people with no argument!
THX 1138 7/25/02 8:31am
It (note the IT) belongs to the human genus... But it isn't a human person with rights... Until born, it is a parasite on the body of the woman, and any right it has can only be given by the woman.
jethro bodine 7/25/02 9:31am
What a twit you are... There were always abortion, and don't you think women couldn't take the plane to Paris or the bus to Ottawa?
And anyway you won't ever ban it federally... So they will only have to travel to New York for instance...
Comnplte twit!
jethro bodine 7/25/02 9:43am
Well, it isn't and never was your business, but I have noticed that male fundies have a problem with women's rights...
LOL!
And let me tell: PROVE IT that it is a person... Of course you can't as it is a belief (and a pernicious one at that, fostered by xianity weird ideas about original sin)
To Jethro...
prove also that God exists, that the sould exists and that there is a Hell..
Waiting...
Ad hominem attacks... The last refuge of people with no argument!
how rude have we been here....
pitiricus, meet jethro. jethro, meet pitiricus. that's pretty much jethro's m.o. when he gets backed into a corner.
\
it is a parasite on the body of the woman, and any right it has can only be given by the woman.
Sounds very similiar to Nazi statements regarding the Jews.
THX 1138 7/25/02 11:31am
Another false argument of the fundies... Jews weren't attached to nazi by a cord which could only supply food... at the cost of the woman's health...
I see you go through all the standard fundie false arguments...
Can't you be original for a change? Or does your pagan semi-god take away all rationality?
What the hell are you talking about?
It wasn't an argument, it was an observation
It was regarding, and in response to, the similarity of your statements to that given by Nazi's regarding Jews. Specifically the word parasite.
Now, have a nice day.
And take a pill.
Pagan semi-god?
What the hell are you talking about?
THX 1138 7/25/02 11:39am
Well your Jesus story of a semi-god that would be born of a virgin and come back to life is a patgan accretion on Judaism...
LOL!
And of course it is paganism as God is ONE not two or three... And Mary (if the story has any truth) is the lady that invented the funniest excuse I ever heard to explain why she had a lover: it wasn't a man Joseph, it was God... How can this idiot believe her is not told in the story
Lol!
Pitiricus:
Welcome to the board.
I think you have the record. Less than two days, and you've already been compared to Nazis.
Usually it takes longer, but it always happens eventually.
Piti,
Do you even know me or what I believe?
You are one angry, attacking, and bitter person.
Rick, do you disagree that it doesn't sound like a Nazi statement?
That's all I was saying.
Geesshhh!
Rick 7/25/02 11:42am
Probably because I said I was Jewish... This is the goodxian fundie reaction :-)
THX 1138 7/25/02 11:43am
When you put a portrait of your god when discussing abortion, I don't have to be told... I know!
You said you were an agnostic.
A portrait of my God?
You mean my pic?
LOL!
That isn't my God.
THX 1138 7/25/02 11:48am
An agnostic JEW... Quite different from an agnostic!
"Rick, do you disagree that it doesn't sound like a Nazi statement?"
It seemed more medical to me.
Or, blunt, and probably designed to provoke the very response you gave.
Yeah, I should have known better.
Rick 7/25/02 11:51am
Bingo :-)
Did you ever check the definition of a parasite?
From Websters:
parasite (biology):
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Exactly the relationship of the fetus with the woman!
No, it was just a hunch.
Parasite probably has a very precise meaning, though most people would probably give it a negative connotation that it maybe doesn't deserve.
And a bit more
From http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/prolife.html
"Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms “pro-life” and “right to life” to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman’s right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.
     Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase “a woman’s right to choose.” Does she have the right to choose murder? That’s what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.
     The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
     We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body."
Rick 7/25/02 11:55am
The ignorance of the fundies :-)
yes parasite has a very specific meaning, and the fetus IS a parasite on the body of the woman!
Main Entry: par·a·site Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food Date: 1539
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
And for those interested, here is the history of abortion
http://www.hopeclinic.com/history.htm
I've been around on the definition of terms here.
I once offered to use the phrase "pro life" if the people on the other side would use the term "pro choice."
That went over like a lead balloon.
I've said before, the extremes on both sides of the abortion issue have so hijacked the language and the tactics that progress -- no matter how it's defined -- ever seems to be made.
You forgot the fist meaning buster
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=parasite&r=2
par·a·site Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
You forgot the fist meaning buster
No I didn't.
Try my website.
Rick 7/25/02 12:00pm
I am for anti-women instead of pro-life...
It is also noteworthy that abortion rights are coming with women's rights...
Countries where women are emancipated have abortion rights... Those where women have no rights haven't...
Women vote!
I prefer Websters...
"I am for anti-women instead of pro-life... "
Then you're part of the problem, too.
Rick 7/25/02 12:04pm
Or you are part of it... The mistakenly-called "pro-life" are anti-women...
I'm in favor in ratcheting down the rhetoric so there can be actual communication between the two sides.
That makes me unpopular with both groups.
I prefer Websters...
I don't.
Now please retract your claws and relax.
You should give people the benefit of the doubt before you come in here like a bulldozer and start attacking.