Now we know their names

BrooklynGigCenter wrote: [quote=metalnyc][quote=Livetotravel]There are many Repugs living in Park Slope - they started coming here in the get rich Reagan years and proliferated during the hay-days of hedge funds. Now that the perpetrators of great frauds on unsuspecting investors are being investigated by the scores - maybe, just maybe, the Repugs-come-lately will abandon Park Slope for good and return to Staten Island where they belong.

not that I'm originally from Staten Island, i do know plenty of people from there, including family. so why don't you go ahead and explain what that is supposed to mean. should i go back to Queens then? is Queens on par with Staten Island? my mom is originally from Brooklyn and dad from the Bronx, how do they stand in this hierarchy of boroughs? oh wait, that's right my mom is from Brooklyn so she is OK. whew!

why is it that Democrats, more often than not the Liberal sect, love to name call and get truly angry when someone disagrees with them politically? why can't they just have a dicussion?

I don't remember any Democrats screaming "Terrorist" or "kill him" at any McCain rallies....I think those were all YOUR buddies.

1. that didn't answer any of my questions
2. funny, just look at the posts on this board. it appears that the Dems love the name calling.

BrooklynGigCenter wrote: [quote=transplant][quote=BrooklynGigCenter]Seems that Republicans support socialism when it supports the rich, and oppose it when it helps the poor.

Example?

Have you not been watching the news? $700 BILLION BAILOUT FOR BANKS!

BTW, the most socialist state in the union? ALASKA. Taking money from the oil companies and giving it to the citizens of the state.

$700 Billion Bailout for Banks that are PUBLIC COMPANIES!!!! it's not $700 BILLION going into the pockets of the rich alone. this whole mess is a result of the the rich and the poor being stupid about their risks. people just love to blame the rich though.

transplant wrote: [quote=BrooklynGigCenter]Americans who think like this are the reason why our moral standing in the world is so low. And if you think that a positive moral standing is unimportant, then you're clueless. It affects everything we try to do throughout the world....it affects our world relationships in everything from finance to military options to our response to terrorism and so much more. We are supposed to be the beacon of light in this world, and the last several years of unending war have brought us to where we are today. And you can't tell me with a straight face that the world is better now than it was before Bush took office. And it's not just the terrorists' fault.

No, I agree, a positive moral standing in the world is extremely important, for all the reasons you state. So no, I'm not clueless, thanks.

But I don't think that betraying that which makes America great is worth it, just to "improve our moral standing." I think it's more important to think about who we're trying to impress. Terrorist-enabling dictatorships and thugs in the Middle East? Communist China? Hugo Chavez? Vladamir Putin? I don't think we need to be bending over backwards to impress these kinds of people. Yes, it would be nice if our allies in Europe thought better of us, it would make our job easier, but they can certainly make an effort to meet us halfway.

And "the last several years of unending war"? How is "several years" of war "unending"? I assure you, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be unending. The war in Iraq is all but won, and with forces diverted from Iraq able to shift to Afghanistan, the war there will be won soon enough as well.

You can't influence the bad people in this world unless you have friends, and you can't have friends by invading sovereign nations based upon fear and lies. And what's your definition of "winning" these wars? There's going to be no fucking victory parade, not when we've invaded Iraq and destroyed the country. Are you aware that before the war, Christians and Muslims were living (mostly) peacefully there, and now there are virtually NO Christians anymore? They've all been either killed or have moved. Yes, we've liberated the Iraqi people....mostly from their earthly bodies.

Here's an excert from the Time article. Victory will be a negotiated settlement.

"Actually, Obama and Petraeus seem to be thinking along similar lines with regard to Afghanistan. I mentioned that Petraeus had recently given a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation in which he raised the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban. "You know, I think this is one useful lesson that is applicable from Iraq," Obama said without hesitation. "The Sunni awakening changed the dynamic in Iraq fundamentally," he said, referring to the Petraeus-led effort to turn the Sunni tribes away from the more radical elements of the insurgency. "Whether there are those same opportunities in Afghanistan I think should be explored," he said. In fact, senior U.S. military officials have told me that there is a possibility of splitting Pashtun tribes away from the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan. "But we have to do it through the Karzai government," a senior officer told me, referring to the fact that the Army had acted independently of the Maliki government in creating the Anbar Awakening. "That is one lesson we've learned from Iraq."

transplant wrote: [quote=BrooklynGigCenter]

I don't remember any Democrats screaming "Terrorist" or "kill him" at any McCain rallies....I think those were all YOUR buddies.

They were screaming "Terrorist" at the mention of Bill Ayers. Seems appropriate, seeing as how he's, you know, a terrorist.

As for the "kill him" thing, apparently the only person who actually heard that was the reporter who wrote (read: made up) the story:

http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html

Funny how republicans bring Ayers up over and over again, when:
a. every time they do so, McBush's favorability ratings go down
b. they have nothing else to pin on Obama that's relevant
c. Palin and her husband belonged to an organization that wanted to SECEDE FROM THE UNION

You want to keep going, or are you ready to quit making stupid statements?

So where are we partying on Nov 4th?

While I agree that many of the Democratic positions are better than the Republican's (the war, abortion, etc..), still nothing has been said to convince people why Obama is a good choice. Yes, he is the lesser of two evils and I hope he wins, but he still is a highly flawed candidate. Why the celebrity politician status? He is not worthy. His vote (and reason) on FISA are downright terrible.

And there are plenty of Canadians who come to the US for health care. They rather pay for it out of pocket than wait for the Canadian health care. I have two citizenships (born in NYC though) and I would never want to live in a country with government run health care. No system is better, they all have faults, but as someone that has a job with benefits, I would take the American system over any other one, easily.

brooklynpotter wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper]Sorry, changed my wording and took out altruistic.

Now, in THOSE cases, sadly, that is what had to be done. But, those are not the only reasons why there are partial birth abortions and the other reasons are what I take issue with. You make it sound as if every partial birth abortion is medically necessary and that is not always the case.

I never said I am against partial birth abortions if absolutely medically necessary. What I am against is using them (or abortion in general), as birth control which has also been done.

longtime sloper, you can't have it both ways. you can't have a judge and jury in every hospital or doctor's office, making decisions that are deemed, by you or your church, morally correct.

even if i didn't believe in most abortions, and only believed in them in those rare cases, i find it hard to see that there would be ANY way of making sure not one woman died because she couldn't get the care she needed.

a woman i personally know, in minnesota, needed to get an abortion for a 14 week pregnancy for a fetus that would not live. not compatible with human life. the only hospital in her area was a catholic hospital and they would NOT do the procedure. she had to go to a public clinic, and walk through throngs of yelling protesters, to have this pregnancy terminated.

no, i don't believe in abortion as birth control. and i don't believe it should ever be a cavalier decision. (and i'll add here that i do believe it's a woman's right to do at whenever she pleases. but that's an aside).,.. i can't see any other way to the the right thing by the woman who need these procedures than by keeping them safe and legal.

First of all, where did church come into this all? have i at any time mentioned anything at all about church? I can't have these opinions on my own? Anyway, I most certainly can say that I think the only abortions that should be legal (and therefore be kept safe for women who need it), are those medically necessary for the danger of the life of the mother or if the fetus has died in utero.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=eggcream]Palin for President! She has more experience than the community organizer.

More experience shopping, maybe.

Reminded me of this article - http://tinyurl.com/6b637c

brooklynpotter wrote: if you don't want to talk about the church or christianity, we can talk about my religion and how keeping me from a safe and legal abortion is against my religious freedom. my religion doesn't believe that it's killing. how do we solve that?

Why is this turning into a religious discussion? yes, i know this is a hot button issue amongst what most people consider to be religious fanatics, but, I have not once brought anyone's religion into this and you have no idea what religious affiliation I have if any at all.. But, if you want to bring yours into it, I found this on aish.com:

As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer6 after the mother with the intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna,7 if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden. Despite the classification of the fetus as a pursuer, once the baby's head or most of its body has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though they are both pursuing each other.

It is important to point out that the reason that the life of the fetus is subordinate to the mother is because the fetus is the cause of the mother's life-threatening condition, whether directly (e.g. due to toxemia, placenta previa, or breach position) or indirectly (e.g. exacerbation of underlying diabetes, kidney disease, or hypertension).8 A fetus may not be aborted to save the life of any other person whose life is not directly threatened by the fetus, such as use of fetal organs for transplant.

Judaism recognizes psychiatric as well as physical factors in evaluating the potential threat that the fetus poses to the mother. However, the danger posed by the fetus (whether physical or emotional) must be both probable and substantial to justify abortion.9 The degree of mental illness that must be present to justify termination of a pregnancy has been widely debated by rabbinic scholars,10 without a clear consensus of opinion regarding the exact criteria for permitting abortion in such instances.11 Nevertheless, all agree that were a pregnancy to causes a woman to become truly suicidal, there would be grounds for abortion.12 However, several modern rabbinical experts ruled that since pregnancy-induced and post-partum depressions are treatable, abortion is not warranted.13

As a rule, Jewish law does not assign relative values to different lives. Therefore, almost most major poskim (Rabbis qualified to decide matters of Jewish law) forbid abortion in cases of abnormalities or deformities found in a fetus. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one the greatest poskim of the past century, rules that even amniocentesis is forbidden if it is performed only to evaluate for birth defects for which the parents might request an abortion. Nevertheless, a test may be performed if a permitted action may result, such as performance of amniocentesis or drawing alpha-fetoprotein levels for improved peripartum or postpartum medical management.

While most poskim forbid abortion for "defective" fetuses, Rabbi Eliezar Yehuda Waldenberg is a notable exception. Rabbi Waldenberg allows first trimester abortion of a fetus that would be born with a deformity that would cause it to suffer, and termination of a fetus with a lethal fetal defect such as Tay Sachs up to the seventh month of gestation.14 The rabbinic experts also discuss the permissibility of abortion for mothers with German measles and babies with prenatal confirmed Down syndrome.

There is a difference of opinion regarding abortion for adultery or in other cases of impregnation from a relationship with someone Biblically forbidden. In cases of rape and incest, a key issue would be the emotional toll exacted from the mother in carrying the fetus to term. In cases of rape, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach allows the woman to use methods which prevent pregnancy after intercourse.15 The same analysis used in other cases of emotional harm might be applied here. Cases of adultery interject additional considerations into the debate, with rulings ranging from prohibition to it being a mitzvah to abort.16

I have attempted to distill the essence of the traditional Jewish approach to abortion. Nevertheless, every woman's case is unique and special, and the parameters determining the permissibility of abortion within halacha are subtle and complex. It is crucial to remember that when faced with an actual patient, a competent halachic authority must be consulted in every case.

1 While there is debate among the Rabbis whether abortion is a Biblical or Rabbinical prohibition, all agree on the fundamental concept that fundamentally, abortion is only permitted to protect the life of the mother or in other extraordinary situations. Jewish law does not sanction abortion on demand without a pressing reason.

2 Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat II: 69B.
3 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, 423:1
4 Ashkenazi, Rabbi Yehuda, Be'er Hetiv, Choshen Mishpat 425:2
5 Igros Moshe, ibid
6 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 1:9; Talmud Sanhedrin 72B
7 Oholos 7:6
8 See Steinberg, Dr. Abraham; Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics, "Abortion and Miscarriage," for an extensive discussion of the maternal indications for abortion.
9 Igros Moshe, ibid
10 See Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics. P. 10, for references.
11 See Spero, Moshe, Judaism and Psychology, pp. 168-180.
12 Zilberstein, Rabbi Yitzchak, Emek Halacha, Assia, Vol. 1, 1986, pp. 205-209.
13 Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach and Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth cited in English Nishmat Avraham, Choshen Mishpat, 425:11, p. 288.
14 Tzitz Eliezer, Volume 13:102.
15 Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach and Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth cited in English Nishmat Avraham, Choshen Mishpat, 425:23, p. 294.
16 See excellent chapter in English Nishmat Avraham, Choshen Mishpat, 425 by Dr. Abraham Abraham, particularly p. 293.
Add to Facebook
Published: Sunday, May 30, 2004

If you would like to receive "Aish Weekly Update" or other features via e-mail, please enter your email address here:

LongTimeSloper wrote: [quote=brooklynpotter]if you don't want to talk about the church or christianity, we can talk about my religion and how keeping me from a safe and legal abortion is against my religious freedom. my religion doesn't believe that it's killing. how do we solve that?

Don't think I will be getting into a discussion of anyone's religion.

why? this is a core part of this issue. if jehovah's witness' are legally allowed to refuse blood transfusions, and christian scientists can (albeit not always) refuse medical care, why can't i follow my religion when it comes to abortion? i'm not asking you to have one (though forcing me not to have one is not unlike forcing you to have one).

you never said i couldn't have that view, you said that i should not be able to practice that view. and i wanted you to rationalize that.

as for askmoses.com, that's one rabbi. there are thousands and each has a different take on judaic laws. not all rabbis hold this view, and the halaka (jewish law) clearly states that abortion is not murder.

brooklynpotter wrote: you never said i couldn't have that view, you said that i should not be able to practice that view. and i wanted you to rationalize that.

as for askmoses.com, that's one rabbi. there are thousands and each has a different take on judaic laws. not all rabbis hold this view, and the halaka (jewish law) clearly states that abortion is not murder.

but the halaka does clearly state that it should not be used for birth control and should only be used in cases where the mother's life is in serious danger.

Even the reform position says it should never be used for birth control purposes, guess we agree again.

Well, that is what you choose to take from it, I too believe in education and contraception. And, this is also only one view of one sect of Judaism, there are plenty of Jews out there who would not agree with the reform view at all.

And I disagree with that point of view and do believe that abortion is murder since the fetus inside of a woman has a beating heart. Why is it a fetus when it is an unwanted pregnancy but a baby with other pregnancies?

And, I am sorry, you are making it sound as if not having an abortion would be going against the views of your religious sect, it's not like reform Judaism is saying you must have an abortion, they are just saying they would allow it if you chose to. So, not having one would not mean you are going against the teachings of your religion. Are you saying that any Reformed Jewish woman who is pro choice is going against her religion when she chooses to have her child instead of aborting? That seems warped.