Archbishop Vigano
- Thread starter Nicholas Weeks
- Start date
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
Or you could respond to the point, instead of ducking out offended?
Nicholas Weeks
Bodhicitta
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
It's easy to understand -- I lost, send in the muscle, get it fixed ...
Rjm said
If Pence and Pelosi had been in the chamber on Jan 6th the crowd would have lynched them (without a trial)-- they invaded the Capitol with that intention, imo
Nicholas said
Not worthy of a thoughtful reply -- too silly and reveals ignorance of the actual event. Am reminded why I stopped visiting this site some time back
Really? Ignorance? Before you enlighten us I will add my 2 cents.
First and foremost the beating of the capitol police to forcibly enter the capitol (I have been at protests in DC with hundreds of thousands and not seen this level of violence or ever seen anyone with the hutzpah to attack our capitol)
But they were an unruly crowd of various groups each with their own agendas riled up by their own hate and perverted patriotism...had they gotten to occupied chambers our politicians would have surely been beaten or killed by the most aggressive folk.
It was basically an uncontrolled fox in the hen house...
But come on brother....answer point for point...please use debate tactics and not name calling and dismissing out of hand...
Otherwise I will be forced to rotflmao regarding the 2030 agenda.
If Pence and Pelosi had been in the chamber on Jan 6th the crowd would have lynched them (without a trial)-- they invaded the Capitol with that intention, imo
Nicholas said
Not worthy of a thoughtful reply -- too silly and reveals ignorance of the actual event. Am reminded why I stopped visiting this site some time back
Really? Ignorance? Before you enlighten us I will add my 2 cents.
First and foremost the beating of the capitol police to forcibly enter the capitol (I have been at protests in DC with hundreds of thousands and not seen this level of violence or ever seen anyone with the hutzpah to attack our capitol)
But they were an unruly crowd of various groups each with their own agendas riled up by their own hate and perverted patriotism...had they gotten to occupied chambers our politicians would have surely been beaten or killed by the most aggressive folk.
It was basically an uncontrolled fox in the hen house...
But come on brother....answer point for point...please use debate tactics and not name calling and dismissing out of hand...
Otherwise I will be forced to rotflmao regarding the 2030 agenda.
When? When is it proto-human? The egg? The sperm? That was old school understanding right? Not only was abortion an issue...but stopping the sperm...(contraceptives).
Speaking of groups of rapidly growing cells we used to think cancer was G!ds will right? And doctors shouldn't mettle? Now that is only the Amish, Mennonite and Mary Baker Eddy that reject the notion we should leave that group of cells to form? But we pass no judgement and dictate to others they can't remove what G!d put there.
Do we have laws regarding proto-humans?
But is it old school? I don't know any Jews that take issue with women choosing to abort...and they have 600 commandments including our 10.
What is with that? Jews March in pro choice rallies.and are down protesting the court decision today (as are many Christians)
But soon as the egg enters? Before G!d breaths life into the soul? Is the kid still going to hell if they aren't baptized or christened? Are we trying to overpopulate purgatory?
All this is 100% religious based....not science.
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/
"Judaism’s position on abortion is nuanced, and both principal camps in the American debate over abortion rights can claim support from Jewish texts.
While Judaism takes a far less stringent approach to abortion than do many pro-life denominations of Christianity, providing explicit exceptions for threats to a mother’s life and rabbinic support for terminating a pregnancy in a host of other situations, there is nonetheless broad objection to abortion in cases without serious cause. In addition, despite the consensus that abortion is permitted in cases where continuing the pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother, there is disagreement over just what constitutes a threat.
Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.
At the same time, feticide is prohibited by Jewish law, though there is disagreement over the exact source of this prohibition and how serious an infraction it is. Some consider it biblical in origin based on a verse (Genesis 9.6) that prohibits shedding the “blood of man within man” — a phrase understood to refer to a fetus. Moreover, Judaism teaches that the body is ultimately the property of God and is merely on loan to human beings. Multiple prohibitions in Jewish law— including prohibitions on suicide, getting tattoos and wounding oneself— collectively serve to reject the idea that individuals enjoy an unfettered right to make choices regarding their own bodies.
As a public policy matter, many of the major American Jewish organizations have been vocal in support of broadening or protecting abortion access. Orthodox organizations, however, do not support broad legal protections for abortion. A 2019 New York law liberalizing the state’s abortion laws was opposed by both the Rabbinical Council of America and Agudath Israel of America, two major Orthodox groups, though both groups have been explicit that laws banning abortions in late pregnancy when a mother’s life is at risk run afoul of Jewish teachings ...
Short of clear threats to a mother’s life, the permissibility of abortion is controversial in Jewish texts. There are Orthodox rabbinic sources that support abortion when a mother’s health is in danger even if her life is not at risk; when a fetus is conclusively determined to suffer from severe abnormalities; when a mother’s mental health is in danger; or when the pregnancy is the result of a forbidden sexual union.
However, these rulings are not universally accepted, and many Orthodox rabbis are cautious about laying down firm standards, insisting instead that cases be judged individually" ... etc
@RabbiO?
Last edited:
Glad I have no horses in this race. I think there are valid reasons for having an abortion, but I'm not in favor of using abortion simply as a means of birth control. I mean, wrap that rascal, take a pill, whatever, the right to choose should start there and not after the fact, IMO.
That is actually the vast majority opinion.
Nobody I know uses it as the standard for birth control (that would be mythology
..I mean inam sure we can find a few) Everyone I know that has paid for or.gotten an abortion has used various other methods of birth control hundreds if not thousands of times more often.
RJM... nice.text...but I will say again of the Jews I regularly interact..be they renewal or conservative ...they are pro choice...but granted they are only a few dozen out of millions and I know no ultraorthodox.
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
This appears to be the official Vatican statement:
https://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/en/news/2022/us-supreme-court-abortion.html
Abortion USA - Press Release June 24, 2022
Regarding the United States Supreme Court decision that modified the 1973 legal position Roe v. Wade on the issue of abortion, the Pontifical Academy for Life presents the following statement.
The Pontifical Academy for Life joins U.S. Bishops' statement on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. As Archbishop H. Gomez and Archbishop Lori declared:
“It is a time for healing wounds and repairing social divisions; it is a time for reasoned reflection and civil dialogue, and for coming together to build a society and economy that supports marriages and families, and where every woman has the support and resources she needs to bring her child into this world in love.”
The Court's opinion shows how the issue of abortion continues to arouse heated debate. The fact that a large country with a long democratic tradition has changed its position on this issue also challenges the whole world. It is not right that the problem is set aside without adequate overall consideration. The protection and defense of human life is not an issue that can remain confined to the exercise of individual rights but instead is a matter of broad social significance. After 50 years, it is important to reopen a non-ideological debate on the place that the protection of life has in a civil society to ask ourselves what kind of coexistence and society we want to build.
It is a question of developing political choices that promote conditions of existence in favor of life without falling into a priori ideological positions. This also means ensuring adequate sexual education, guaranteeing health care accessible to all and preparing legislative measures to protect the family and motherhood, overcoming existing inequalities. We need solid assistance to mothers, couples and the unborn child that involves the whole community, encouraging the possibility for mothers in difficulty to carry on with the pregnancy and to entrust the child to those who can guarantee the child’s growth.
Archbishop Paglia said: “in the face of Western society that is losing its passion for life, this act is a powerful invitation to reflect together on the serious and urgent issue of human generativity and the conditions that make it possible; by choosing life, our responsibility for the future of humanity is at stake”.
Vatican City, June 24, 2022
https://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/en/news/2022/us-supreme-court-abortion.html
Abortion USA - Press Release June 24, 2022
Regarding the United States Supreme Court decision that modified the 1973 legal position Roe v. Wade on the issue of abortion, the Pontifical Academy for Life presents the following statement.
The Pontifical Academy for Life joins U.S. Bishops' statement on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. As Archbishop H. Gomez and Archbishop Lori declared:
“It is a time for healing wounds and repairing social divisions; it is a time for reasoned reflection and civil dialogue, and for coming together to build a society and economy that supports marriages and families, and where every woman has the support and resources she needs to bring her child into this world in love.”
The Court's opinion shows how the issue of abortion continues to arouse heated debate. The fact that a large country with a long democratic tradition has changed its position on this issue also challenges the whole world. It is not right that the problem is set aside without adequate overall consideration. The protection and defense of human life is not an issue that can remain confined to the exercise of individual rights but instead is a matter of broad social significance. After 50 years, it is important to reopen a non-ideological debate on the place that the protection of life has in a civil society to ask ourselves what kind of coexistence and society we want to build.
It is a question of developing political choices that promote conditions of existence in favor of life without falling into a priori ideological positions. This also means ensuring adequate sexual education, guaranteeing health care accessible to all and preparing legislative measures to protect the family and motherhood, overcoming existing inequalities. We need solid assistance to mothers, couples and the unborn child that involves the whole community, encouraging the possibility for mothers in difficulty to carry on with the pregnancy and to entrust the child to those who can guarantee the child’s growth.
Archbishop Paglia said: “in the face of Western society that is losing its passion for life, this act is a powerful invitation to reflect together on the serious and urgent issue of human generativity and the conditions that make it possible; by choosing life, our responsibility for the future of humanity is at stake”.
Vatican City, June 24, 2022
Totally...and they clearly state the problem in the US...Those who purport right to life in the womb as a community do not follow the thru. Not even in the womb with prenatal care and definitively not after the child is born do we have government policies to care for the child or the mother. We simply create more impoverished and more criminals.
I'm not arguing science, nor is science arguing, I'm making a moral point.
People misuse science to affirm a moral perspective. Science has no morality, science is just science.
Purely scientifically, that bundle of cells is, from the moment of fertilisation, destined to be a human being.
Generally, I'm pro choice, but with eyes open. The only women I know who had abortions did so as a means of contraception, not for any medical reason, nor for any significant economic choice (two went on to have children under far more economically strained circumstances) – but these instances are anecdotal and no basis for making a decision.
And I am also informed by woman that the decision is not undertaken lightly, nor carried lightly, either ...
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
But the debate has come around to: why not? What makes it wrong?
Last edited:
As ever with moral questions, it's the reasoning.
The debate runs around a) the 'rights' of the particular woman, and b) the 'rights' of the unborn child.
As it stands today, a) over-rides b) up until a certain point in time, and then it switches and b) over-rides a) – with a sliding scale as to when that point is.
The question is as old as the hills, and really I'm not prepared to engage, because there are no easy answers. With our first-born, whom we lost at six months, we were forewarned that placenta development was falling behind calendar dates, and the child would be born with a significant degree of incapacity, and an early termination was mentioned, but we both refused, neither through any particular religious conviction – my wife said no outright – she is agnostic – but because 'we' were pregnant, and already considered the child as 'our child'.
So if someone wants to tell us we were wrong to conceive that bundle of cells as our child, I'll defend our right to do just that. But that's anecdotal, in this particular instance personal, but it's not enough to formulate a social rule.
It's only recently (my lifetime) that hospitals recognised parents actually grieve still-born and children lost during pregnancy. There was just one non-denominational church in London that held special non-denominational services of remembrance for the parents.
Science can determine an empirical value, but not meaning ...
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
So sorry for you and your wife gave had to go through @Thomas
Last edited: