Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0
Los Angeles SEO

Recent Comments

Sponsors

Sponsor

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

”souvenirs”

Archives

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


  • January 16, 2013

    There’s no reason to ban ‘assault’ rifles

    By Andrew L. Jaffee, netwmd.com

    … For the purpose of this article, we’ll focus on AR-15s since it is what CBS calls “the most popular rifle in America” and one often designated an “assault” rifle. An AR-15 is the civilian equivalent to the military’s M-16. So what’s the difference?

    Kelly Alwood, a firearms trainer and consultant, told TheBlaze the only difference is that one [the military AR-15] is fully automatic and the other is semi-automatic [the civilian AR-15]. It’s a small yet simultaneously big distinction. Firearms for use by the military are able to shoot continuously with one pull of the trigger, machine-gun style. Civilian firearms, on the other hand, only allow one shot per trigger pull.

    [Calling the civilian AR-15 an "assault rifle" is] “a way to demonize something for a political agenda and misconstrue [the guns] and the public on the Second Amendment,” Alwood said.

    TheBlaze, Jan. 11, 2013 (emphasis added)

    There’s really no difference between the hyperbolic-named “assault rifle” and a hunting rifle, so all this talk of banning “assault weapons” is just another ruse and scare-tactic meant to disarm Americans — to destroy the Second Amendment to our hallowed Constitution. The current gun control push will punish law-abiding Americans the most, as street thugs, Mexican cartels, and crazies will always be able to find automatic or other deadly weapons on the black market. Our Founding Fathers knew all about what it meant to be the underdog trying to fight off tyranny, that of King George, leader of Britain, whose “forces were the best trained, most well equipped military in the world.” According to the New York Times (yes, the NYT):

    … While semiautomatic rifles were used in several recent mass shootings, including those in Newtown and in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed at a movie theater in July, a vast majority of gun murders in the United States are committed with handguns.

    In 2011, 6,220 people were killed by handguns, and 323 by rifles, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. …

    [TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT GUN RIGHTS]

    It is a fact that law-abiding civilians don’t go on shooting rampages. It is a fact that shooting rampages, while sensational, are just a tiny fraction of the causes of deaths in American society. Criminals mostly use handguns when using guns, and domestic disputes often involve things like crowbars, baseball bats, knives — almost anything can be made into a deadly weapon. Semi-automatic weapons do have a place in a free society, and ownership thereof is protected by the Second Amendment:

    Why “Tens of Millions?” Tens of millions of Americans—perhaps many tens of millions—own firearms that gun control supporters call “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines that gun control supporters call “large,” for self-defense, hunting, sports and other traditional purposes.

    Right about the Second Amendment. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, the view held by the Framers of the Bill of Rights, the most universally respected legal scholars of the 19th century, the vast majority of Second Amendment scholars today, most Americans throughout our nation’s history, and the Supreme Court in earlier decisions. The Court rejected the two mutually-exclusive theories of the amendment that gun control supporters had advocated for the previous few decades.

    Right about the Second Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear so-called “assault weapons” and “large” ammunition magazines. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and common defense purposes, purposes for which “assault weapons” and “large” magazines are well-suited.

    Right about gun control supporters trying to get more categories of guns banned as “assault weapons”. First it was semi-automatics that have detachable magazines and external attachments. Now it’s those firearms, plus semi-automatics that don’t have detachable magazines, plus those that don’t have external attachments, plus pump-action firearms. Gun control supporters keep expanding their lists of guns to be banned, hoping people who don’t know one gun from another will go along with banning them, so long as they’re called “assault weapons.”

    For practical purposes, civilian AK-47s and AR-15s are used by gun enthusiasts for hunting, target shooting, collecting, and for self-protection. For philosophical reasons, “the Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment with protection of the citizens and their freedoms in mind.” Again, TheBlaze:

    … “We need these rifles because the government has them,” Alwood explained.

    He stopped there to say he realizes this is where gun enthusiasts and riflemen are made out to seem like anti-government “whack jobs” by the media, but that’s just not true.

    “I don’t want people to think of me as anti-government. Most gun owners are not anti-government,” Alwood said. …

    “[Without the Second Amendment] there is no way to resist the government, voiding all other amendments,” Alwood said. “Why should [the government] continue to give you your freedom of speech if there is no one to stop them[?] It’s the only safeguard we have to protect us from a tyrannical government. … Look at all countries in trouble with dictators, they have absolute gun bans.”

    The conservative publication Townhall recently called out two countries with a similar sentiment to this in mind:

    Neither the Venezuelan nor Chinese governments have particularly good track records when it comes to human rights. By maintaining a government monopoly on guns, both can ensure that further abuses are carried out with less protests from the citizenry. Overall, it is sad to see two dictatorial governments making it easier to abuse their citizens as they please while also squelching the possibility for resistance.

    Are Obama and all his anti-gun buddies saying that Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Noah Webster, and Patrick Henry didn’t know what they were doing when they all supported the right to bear arms? Looking at Obama’s proposals, one can only conclude that he disdains these great mens’ beliefs.

    Finally, let’s turn to the U.S. government itself to dispel the myth that “assault weapons” have anything to do with “assault” or military use:

    … As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]

    Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.[24]

    Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire….

    There’s one last piece of disinformation to clear up: that you can make a semi-automatic into an automatic by snapping your fingers (or clicking your heels twice):

    … modifying a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic one is not only highly illegal with extreme penalties but also no easy feat. …

    [TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT GUN RIGHTS]

  • Posted by Andrew Jaffee @ 6:04 pm | 63 Comments »

    63 Comments to There’s no reason to ban ‘assault’ rifles

    1. AlisonH says:

      If Obama & his fellow democrats really cared about the welfare of children then they would ban the murder of the most vulnerable—the unborn.Over 333,000 babies were aborted in the USA last year, that’s Sandy Hook multiple times over.I haven’t seen Obama shed any tears over those innocent babies.

    2. Canadian Otter says:

      UNFORTUNATE COINCIDENCE?
      With doctors in cahoots with Big Pharma, the latest psychiatric diagnostic manual (DSM-V) diagnoses normal human behaviors as mental disorders – which can be cured with … more drug$ and more visits to the doctor$.

      A new disease is “Oppositional Defiant Disorder” (ODD), which includes anyone who disagrees with authority./strong>. http://www.naturalnews.com/028280_psychiatric_industry_disease_mongering.html

      NOW THIS: Obama’s new gun control proposals include “Improvements in the existing system for background checks to include screening for mental illness” = http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-gun-ban-to-affect-80-percent-of-u-s-firearms.

      Orwellian government and the medical establishment – an old romance being revived now, before your very eyes.

    3. Canadian Otter says:

      My comment zapped by Spam Filter.

    4. dweller says:

      @ AlisonH:

      “If Obama & his fellow democrats really cared about the welfare of children then they would ban the murder of the most vulnerable—the unborn… I haven’t seen Obama shed any tears over those innocent babies.”

      And you won’t see him shed tears over them. Mr Obama was a flagrant & persistent apologist for infanticide. You think abortion would give him pause?

      Where a baby was completely out of the mother’s body and struggling for breath (and the pregnancy was thus already ended, leaving no pregnancy to be aborted)

      — nobody else in the U.S. Senate — even the most hardcore pro-abort types [Boxer, Kennedy, Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, et al] — was willing to oppose a bill requiring hospitals, doctors’ offices & ‘clinics’ to protect & sustain the life of babies “unintentionally born” after ‘accidentally surviving’ an abortion intended to kill them.

      Those senators saw right away that to oppose such legislation would draw into question the sincerity of their standard pro-abort claim to support ‘choice’ as a matter of protecting a woman’s health, etc

      — and they didn’t want to be suspected of endorsing infanticide. [The bill passed 98-0.]

      But Senator Obama WAS willing to oppose such a bill; and did oppose it. He voted “present.”

      And in the Illinois State Senate, he had ALSO actively & repeatedly opposed it (it was re-introduced 3 times) and he killed the bill by bottling it up in the Health & Human Services Committee [he was the Chair] before it could even get to the State Senate floor for an up-or-down vote. [Google: “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” Also: http://www.JillStanek.com ; she writes a weekly column for worldnetdaily.com]

      Obama justified himself by characterizing a baby born under such circumstances as a “pre-viable fetus.” However, if the baby at late term is ”pre-viable,” that’s of course because of whatever injuries may have been caused to her prenatally (and which compromised her chances of survival) by the abortionist who was trying to kill her.

      But “fetus”? If the baby is entirely out of the womb and no longer, in any manner or degree, attached to her mother’s body — then how in blazes is she a ‘fetus’? And more to the point — WHY does Obama call her a ‘fetus’?

      Answer: Because if she’s not a ‘fetus,’ then by law she’s a person. And the “Equal Protection” clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives her the same right to “life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness” that the Declaration of Independence acknowledges for ALL persons.

      So, if she’s a person, then that could conceivably create a legal basis for overturning Roe v. Wade. . . .

      Thus: To protect the option — as provided in Roe — to kill babies in the womb, the illustrious Sen. Obama favors the deliberate neglect of some babies out of the womb. Translation: He supports knowingly allowing those infants to die.

      He doesn’t just want the mother free; he wants the baby dead.

      Civilized societies have a word for that.

      It’s not a very nice word.

      But then, it’s not a very nice thing. [So how could it be a nice word?]

      And those civilized societies don’t elect proponents of that not-very-nice thing to lead them.

      Not civilized societies.

      During the mid-sixties—well before Roe v. Wade — pro-life thinkers predicted that when infanticide came to America, it would come by way of abortion. I confess that, at the time, I couldn’t conceive of how it might happen. I didn’t like either practice, but it seemed too far-fetched to me that the one could lead to the other.

      I was wrong. The linkage is no longer far-fetched, it seems: Welcome to Brave New World.

      “Over 333,000 babies were aborted in the USA last year, that’s Sandy Hook multiple times over.”

      Actually, the figure you cite is scarcely one-quarter of the TRUE annual stateside total of 1.35 million elective abortions (and those are only the reported ones).

      — “333,000″ may be the number accounted for by Planned Parenthood specifically — but there are plenty of other ‘providers’ as well.

    5. Canadian Otter says:

      @ dweller:
      I agree with you on this, Dweller.

    6. Canadian Otter says:

      CHINESE SOLDIERS ON US SOIL –

      Obama: Selling out America – literally – Obama had a mid-level U.S. official meet with a Chinese officer in 2011 to find out if the Chinese were open to a land and resource swap for debt forgiveness. The upshot of this is that the Chinese are now engaging in experimental “farming” and “scientific” studies in several locations in the U.S. (in various states). The personnel involved are all Chinese military, and the plan is to use these as the base for the expansion of “land settlements” in payment of the U.S. debt to China.
      http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-selling-out-america-literally/

    7. Canadian Otter says:

      A CHINESE CITY IN USA
      I found this item from 2011 – it shows the trend.

      China Wants To Construct A 50 Square Mile Self-Sustaining City South Of Boise, Idaho – (Chinese govt has) decided to buy up pieces of the United States and set up “special economic zones” inside our country from which they can continue to extend their economic domination. One of these “special economic zones” would be just south of Boise, Idaho and the Idaho government is eager to give it to them. China National Machinery Industry Corporation plans to construct a “technology zone” south of Boise Airport which would ultimately be up to 50 square miles in size. The Chinese Communist Party is the majority owner, so the 10,000 to 30,000 acre “self-sustaining city” that is being planned would essentially belong to the Chinese government.
      http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/china-wants-to-construct-a-50-square-mile-self-sustaining-city-south-of-boise-idaho

    8. Barry posed with children to announce his gun control measures, but he claimed executive privilege when Congress wanted to ask about Fast and Furious.

    9. Max says:

      AlisonH Said:

      I haven’t seen Obama shed any tears over those innocent babies.

      That’s because the unborn are not ‘alive’ and not babies.
      You have this ‘belief’ (not knowledge) based on religious ‘belief’. This is the same as Islamic Fascism – the interference and fascist imposition of religious belief upon secular life.
      It’s one of the main reasons the Republicans lost the election and thankfully at that – the Christian fundamentalists would have returned America to the Dark Ages.

      It’s just unfortunate for Israel that the wrong people wanted to help them.
      It’s unfortunate that there aren’t many people alive who genuinely hate fascism because it’s fascism.
      Everybody seems to just want to replace the other guy’s fascism with their own fascism.
      Even as it appears many of the people on this site say they cannot even imagine a civilization that is not run by fascism – they simply have no concept or desire for democracy.

    10. dweller says:

      @ Max:

      “I haven’t seen Obama shed any tears over those innocent babies.”

      “That’s because the unborn are not ‘alive’ and not babies.”

      “Not babies”? — really?

      Nu, so they’re what , then — cocker spaniels?

      Duckbilled platypuses?

      Three-toed sloths?

      — What?

      “Not alive”? — indeed.

      If wombs had windows — and they do, now (it’s called a sonogram: ultra-sound technology)

      — you would see any of these ‘not-alive’ ‘non-babies’

      suck their thumb

      navigate thru the amniotic fluid with an astonishingly efficient swimmer’s stroke

      and smile.

      You would also see them recoil in terror as the abortionist’s curette seeks them out, coming closer & closer

      — in order to kill these ‘non-alive’ ‘non-babies.’

      You would see the curette cut off a limb as a ‘non-alive’ ‘non-baby’ opens her mouth to scream.

      They can’t make sound at that stage of existence because they don’t breathe air but amniotic fluid; yet the intent to evade & the fear of annihilation — typical of all living things — are unmistakable to anybody who watches.

      Do you dare watch, Max?

      do you?

      “You have this ‘belief’ (not knowledge) based on religious ‘belief’.”

      How would YOU know what somebody else’s ‘belief’ is based on unless they’ve told you?

      You think that you are personally above ‘religious’ belief, Max?

      It’s your own religiously functioning beliefs that make you assume that only organized religion could be so benighted as to believe that life is somehow conferred strictly by a 9-inch voyage down the birth canal into daylight, and not until.

      What’s with that, Max? — some kind of magic in that little trip?

      “Everybody seems to just want to replace the other guy’s fascism with their own fascism.”

      You’ve observedthis, have you?

      — Have you notified the guy who stares back from the mirror when you shave?

      You’re all hate-fascism all the time, 24/7, Max.

      A man who lets himself fixate on such things will, in time, come to reflect them

      — a perfect photo-negative of them burned into his own consciousness.

    11. yamit82 says:

      @ Canadian Otter:

      China eagerly buying up U.S. assets

      Foreign firms see bargains here, and opportunities for technological gain and expanded reach.

      China stakes claim to S. Texas oil, gas
      CNOOC’s deal with Chesapeake Energy is the largest purchase of an interest in U.S. energy assets by a Chinese company. Chinese investment will boost South Texas drilling Slideshow: China’s hunger for energy
      By Monica Hatcher

      Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/local/article/China-stakes-claim-to-S-Texas-oil-gas-858329.php#ixzz2IEItGm9y

    12. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      Actually, the figure you cite is scarcely one-quarter of the TRUE annual stateside total of 1.35 million elective abortions (and those are only the reported ones).

      — “333,000? may be the number accounted for by Planned Parenthood specifically — but there are plenty of other ‘providers’ as well.

      I personally do not support abortion in most instances but It’s not my call and not yours either.

      It’s an ethical question, a religious question and should not be a legal issue any more than organ transplants or allowing assisted life termination for terminal illness where patients can linger on for even yeas in a vegetated state or those terminal ill in terrible pain with little if no possibility of pain alleviation.

      The longer people live the more such cases will present themselves and don’t give me the Bull about murder. Your standards are not mine and are no more valid to most people than anyone Else. Do what’s right in your own mind and don’t tell anyone to behave according to your insipid and vapid ethical beliefs. We are not believers in Youshka, his book nor his ethics. TG

    13. Max says:

      @ Max:

      LOL – Two dislikes – that’s two votes (and much more of course) for fascist religious fudamentalism.
      No wonder Ted found out this was listed as a hate site in the Israeli hospital.

    14. ArnoldHarris says:

      My attitude about guns an abortions has always been:

      “If you don’t like guns, don’t own one. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one.”

      But all this stuff, even though meaningful for some of us as Americans, has little to do with Israel. So I’m wondering why Ted Belman posts it here.

      Arnold Harris
      Mount Horeb WI

    15. Max says:

      ArnoldHarris Said:

      But all this stuff, even though meaningful for some of us as Americans, has little to do with Israel. So I’m wondering why Ted Belman posts it here.

      There’s a voice of sanity. The lead seems to be from Andrew Jaffee. It’s disappointing to see people using political formulas – it makes this site an extension of or the sockpuppet of other interest factions.

    16. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “I personally do not support abortion in most instances…”

      Really? — why not, if there’s nothing wrong with it?

      “… but It’s not my call and not yours either. “

      You speak for yourself ALONE.

      If it’s not your “call”

      — then it’s not your call either to be telling ME what MY call does or doesn’t consist of.

      “It should not be a legal issue any more than organ transplants…”

      But they ALSO should be a legal issue.

      “… or [any more than] allowing assisted life termination for terminal illness …”

      “Terminal illness” is an invented expression, concocted for the convenience of some and the comfort of others

      — essentially it’s a societally-sanctioned end-run around conscience.

      “…where patients can linger on for even yeas in a vegetated state or those terminal ill in terrible pain with little if no possibility of pain alleviation.”

      Pain alleviation has come a long way. “Little or no possibility” is a crock.

      Death, on the other hand, is permanent and irreversible.

      In any case, though, it’s not the PATIENTS’ pain that troubles you

      — but your OWN, upon beholding theirs.

      “[D]on’t give me the Bull about murder.”

      If the patient is innocent and causes neither harm nor imminent threat to anybody else’s life, and you kill him

      — then it is INDEED murder. Cold-blooded murder in the case of fetal homicide; sentimental murder in the case of euthanasia.

      But murder all the same.

      “Your standards are not mine”

      EVERYBODY knows it’s murder — even those who are deep in denial. . . .

      “We are not believers in Youshka, his book nor his ethics.”

      Religion hasn’t got SPIT to do with it.

      Just because one religion or another opposes drunk driving as an article of religious doctrine

      — doesn’t make the practice acceptable for adherents of every other one MERELY because they don’t happen to mention it in their own credo.

      “TG”

      No idea what this is about.

    17. dweller says:

      @ Max:

      “No wonder Ted found out this was listed as a hate site in the Israeli hospital.”

      You’d LOVE to have this site so regarded, Max.

      You’ve been maneuvering to set us against each other for as long as you’ve been on-board.

      Some readers here are still fooled.

      But not all.

    18. dweller says:

      @ ArnoldHarris:

      My attitude about guns an abortions has always been: ‘If you don’t like guns, don’t own one. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one’.”

      You can do better, Arnold.

      I could just as insouciantly throw out the same quip over the SHOOTING OF ABORTIONISTS:

      — “If you don’t like killing abortionists, then don’t kill them. (Subtext: But don’t presume to tell anybody else not to.)

      Or over forcible RAPE:

      — “If you don’t like rape, then don’t do it.” (Subtext: But don’t presume to sit in judgment over those whose personal taste for the pastime does lead them to rape.)

      In the Lincoln-Douglass Debates, Stephen A. Douglass said the same thing over SLAVERY:

      — In effect: if you don’t want your state to permit it, fine — but don’t presume to foreclose on the practice for other states that DO take to that “peculiar institution.”

      Lincoln’s response was to say that this was a national public policy matter that cannot, in its very NATURE, be left to matters of ‘choice.’

      “But all this stuff, even though meaningful for some of us as Americans, has little to do with Israel.”

      That may be so in a superficial sense, Arnold.

      — The inescapable reality, however, is that there are extraordinarily few (if indeed any) public policy issues that don’t ultimately get ’round, sooner or later, to having a bearing on Israel.

      The reasons for that could WELL prove more interesting than a lot of other subjects of discourse that we toss around, and I suspect that at some point the matter will arise in its OWN right.

    19. dweller says:

      @ Max:

      “It’s disappointing to see people using political formulas…”

      If from this, Max, we are to infer that there is no formulaic quality to your OWN postings, how are we to keep ourselves from giggling?

    20. ArnoldHarris says:

      Dweller,

      I not a moralist. I am in fact a combination of American taxpayer and military veteran; proud Jewish nationalist; husband, father and grandfather; trained and experienced journalist and city and regional planner; small owner and manager of an online specialized data processing business; viewer of fine feature-length motion pictures and viewer of even finer books; and rural dweller in a place located relatively far away from folks my wife and I do not choose to live amidst; and owner of firearms that are both my joy and, if it comes down to that, my protective tools.

      There is nothing I know of in Jewish law that compels a woman to give birth to a child, the event of which, threatens her own health and possibly her life. As for Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Zoroastraian, Wiccan, Gaia worship or any other devotional system, my interest in them is confined primarily to whether or not their adherents are or are not enemies of my Jewish nation; and secondarily to whether or not they anything about their theory or practice excites my intellectual curiosity. But what they do with their foeti — healthy or otherwise, is neither my concern nor my interest.

      If you imagine I have any other moral obligations in regard to that topic, feel free to attempt to engage me in argument.

      Arnold Harris
      Mount Horeb WI

    21. yamit82 says:

      dweller Said:

      Really? — why not, if there’s nothing wrong with it?

      If abortion is not forced or coerced upon those concerned and it does not effect or endanger me, I may for my reasons not like or agree with their actions but it’s none of my business and not my call. Jews shouldn’t have abortions because we need the numbers. There is no shortage of childless Jewish couples and single women who would not adopt all unwanted Jewish babies. The gentiles may they have tens of millions of abortions… there are too many of them to be sustained. Their numbers endanger us all.

      You speak for yourself ALONE.

      If it’s not your “call”

      — then it’s not your call either to be telling ME what MY call does or doesn’t consist of.

      I only stated my opinion which is mine and while I do not like you insist that my opinion be heeded or enforced on anyone You would even if it requires doing harm and injury to those who perform abortions. You sir a a religious fanatic and should have been kept under lock and key.

      Would you kill abortionists if you could; meaning kill them and get away with the deed? The way you emote on this issue I believe you would.

      But they ALSO should be a legal issue.

      No it shouldn’t be a legal issue unless a crime other than the actual act of aborting has been committed like coercion or as a result of an abortion someone other is injured or harmed. Morality should not be legislated but be based on consensus and general consent just like guns.

      “Terminal illness” is an invented expression, concocted for the convenience of some and the comfort of others

      — essentially it’s a societally-sanctioned end-run around conscience.

      You almost have me speechless on this one dude. You had the chutzpa to say I am without compassion. You dude are without a soul, a crazy unfeeling fanatic. May you experience terminal illness with unremitting pain for a long time and post your comment here in a convenient place so that you will never forget what you wished for others. Sicko!!!!

      Pain alleviation has come a long way. “Little or no possibility” is a crock.

      Death, on the other hand, is permanent and irreversible.

      In any case, though, it’s not the PATIENTS’ pain that troubles you

      — but your OWN, upon beholding theirs.

      Not far enough and in many cases the treatment brings on death faster than the normal course of the illness. That too could in your sick mind be also considered as murder?

      If the patient is innocent and causes neither harm nor imminent threat to anybody else’s life, and you kill him

      — then it is INDEED murder. Cold-blooded murder in the case of fetal homicide; sentimental murder in the case of euthanasia.

      But murder all the same.

      I have seen many who beg to be allowed to die and the refusal is unjust and unwarranted punishment on innocents. Suicides outnumber combat deaths in Afghanistan and before that Iraq and the suicide rate would be out of sight in prisons if it were not for the controlled environment.

      Certainly capital punishment could be considered more humane and just than some lifetime terms in prisons. Better for society as well, as the cost of incarceration would be largely reduced thus easing the burden on society of keeping millions of felons locked up.

      EVERYBODY knows it’s murder — even those who are deep in denial. . . .

      Everybody doesn’t know and I wouldn’t

      Religion hasn’t got SPIT to do with it.

      Just because one religion or another opposes drunk driving as an article of religious doctrine

      — doesn’t make the practice acceptable for adherents of every other one MERELY because they don’t happen to mention it in their own credo.

      Of course it has everything to do with religion because that’s the basis of all legal codes re: moral and ethical values upon which all societies are structured. Even though many of those ethics and values predated our religions they were codified into religious values and principles which formed the pillars of our legal law codes. Because of them we have ceased throwing our virgins into active volcanoes. They allowed those like you to be locked up instead of shot although Lincoln would have had you shot for treason and probably sedition. :)

    22. dweller says:

      @ ArnoldHarris:

      “I not a moralist.”

      The assertion itelf represents a morally-referential position.

      My point is that ultimately there’s no getting around it

      — man is at his core a moralizing creature, made that way.

      “There is nothing I know of in Jewish law that compels a woman to give birth to a child, the event of which, threatens her own health and possibly her life.”

      There is nothing in Jewish law that ‘compels’ a woman to subject herself to the possibility of pregnancy either.

      Having done so, and having shared in the creation of a new life, she is responsible — as is the father.

      — There is certainly more (far more) in Jewish law about OBLIGATIONS than there is about ‘RIGHTS.’

      Of the myriad responsa (thousands of ‘em) to be found in Jewish law — in re all sorts of questions — there are strikingly few (ASTONISHINGLY few) on the matter of the deliberate aborting of a pregnancy.

      The reason is that at least until Napoleon opened the European ghettoes at the end of the 18th century, it was largely unthinkable for Jews to CONSIDER aborting pregnancies except to save a mother’s directly & imminently threatened life — not her ‘health’ (a remarkably elastic expression these days), but to save her imminently endangered, physical LIFE.

      In which latter case, the induced aborting of the pregnancy was not ‘permitted’:

      — it was COMMANDED.

      In fact, it was not even her ‘choice’ at that point; it was the COMMUNITY’s duty to save her life (if informed medicine believed it could BE saved) — whatever that required.

      Life is precious — sacred — at EVERY stage of development or decline.

      Of all the peoples of the ancient world, only one of them was known to unhesitatingly reject the practices of abortion, infanticide & homosexuality (“freakin’ yids, always gotta be different!”)

      — and the first 2 of those practices hardly even appear in scripture (and then only obliquely), as such practices were so inconceivable to the Jews that they didn’t need to be told. It would’ve never occurred to them to consider them.

      “… what [adherents of other devotional systems] do with their foeti — healthy or otherwise, is neither my concern nor my interest.”

      I take it that you’ve not recently seen a real-time sonogram of a ‘foetus’ (healthy or otherwise) in-utero.

      Ever?

    23. rongrand says:

      I guess I should not weigh in on this but, just some simple observation.

      Listen folks let’s agree if the fetus is not a life then abortion of it would not weigh on our souls.

      Having said that, there is scientific evidence the fetus is a life in the womb and in a short time (average I guess 9 months) will mature and leave his or her mothers womb and be a loving child.

      This miracle of birth has occurred from the beginning of time nothing has changed. All of us at one time was a fetus in our mothers womb and the blessings of G-d survived.

      Pregnancy whether wanted or unwanted becomes the responsibility of the parents. This life depends on their absolute care and love. One big responsibility. The same responsibility we have towards are parents and grandparents. Disposing either of them is bottom line taking a life.
      We don’t want either on our soul.

      More attention should be towards preventing pregnancy not destroying it.
      If unwanted, there are many families ready to assume the responsibility of love and caring.

      G-d help us make the right decision.

    24. ArnoldHarris says:

      Dweller, on serious reflection of these issues, I find the shrill arguments of the anti-abortion crowd as vapid and asinine as the shrill arguments of the anti-gun crowd.

      As for your question about whether or not I ever have seen a sonograpm of a foetus, I have not. But I have studied the Sherri Finkbein case, having first read about it more than 50 years ago. Sherri was the Phoenix, Arizona television producer of a local children’s show. She got pregnant while unknowingly taking Thalidomide tablets that her husband had brought back from a trip to the United Kingdom. When her obstetrician learned of this, he strongly advised her to about her foetus.

      No local hospital or medical clinical would do this. Therefore, she flew to Sweden, where the abortion was performed without incident. The Swedish obstetrician who performed the abortion told her the aborted fetus had no legs and only one arm, and was so badly deformed that it’s gender could not be ascertained. His opinion was that had she brought that foetus to term and given birth, the child would not have survived.

      Immediately upon news of this incident having been spread around Phoenix, she was fired from her job with the television station, her husband lost his job as a teacher with the local school district, and they both had to move to another state. But Sherri Finkbein’s experiences and the outcome of all of the above, was what led to the Row v Wade decision some 11 years later.

      I’ve always supported Roe v Wade, irrespective of the fact that I consistently vote Republican where gun rights are threatened.

      As for those vile bastards who would have compelled that woman to give birth to a child so deformed that not even its gender could be ascertained, and with only one arm and neither leg, I would tie millstones around their necks with chains, weld the chain links so they could not be removed, and make them walk the earth with such a burden.

      And no, I don’t really give a damn about what some holy roller thinks of all this, be he or she Christian, Jew, Moslem, or whatever.

      Arnold Harris
      Mount Horeb WI

    25. rongrand says:

      @ ArnoldHarris:

      And no, I don’t really give a damn about what some holy roller thinks of all this, be he or she Christian, Jew, Moslem, or whatever.

      Mr. Harris, I have commented on this site for a number of years and I enjoy your comments, your a fine gentleman.

      This is not about any or some holy roller idea.

      The case you site is rare and not the norm and trust me I would be lying if I said I wouldn’t go the abortion route.

      Think for a moment, so far this year as of today there were in the US 1,693 abortions and since 1973 54,076,252. I can’t believe they fall in that category.

      Today both our granddaughters are at the office, day off from school (Martin Luther King holiday) 12 & 7, there isn’t a day go by that part of my daily prayers I thank G-d for blessing our family with the girls.

      At times we are called upon to kill our enemies or be killed by them. It’s gives no one pleasure in doing so, part of our human nature. Babies are by no means our enemy. If we don’t want them for sure somebody will and they will love them to death.

      Again, it’s not a holy roller thing.

    26. ArnoldHarris says:

      RG, on further thought about this issue, I have to agree with you that abortion isn’t merely a holy roller issue. And yes, there are not very many Sherri Finkbein Thalidomide foeti. I could not rationally approve of at least a certain number of the remainder. But I yet do not know of any universally acceptable standards, medical or otherwise, for permitting or refusing an abortion.

      My wife and I have only a single granddaughter to date, born in late July 2012. But our daughter and her husband, a professional fire inspector and assistant fire chief, promise that barring any unforeseeable circumstances, there will be three more grandchildren. In addition to our daughter, we have three other children, all male. Only one of them is married, and he and his wife as of yet have no children. But my wife and I also recognize that inasmuch as they are now all adults of 25-35 years of age, what they choose to do with their lives no longer is within our control. But they all grew up as healthy, respectful and productive kids, with no bad habits, and we trust both their individual judgement and their degree of focus on the important points of decision regarding management of their lives.

      To get back to the general point of the post to which we have been commenting, I think that unless the liberals learn to respect our citizen gun rights, and the conservatives learn to respect the reproductive rights of women, especially those significantly in need of such choices, then we have a society split by an unbridgeable set of social and political chasms, the likes of which may render it difficult or even impossible in the long run to maintain the United States of America as a united commonwealth.

      Arnold Harris
      Mount Horeb WI

    27. rongrand says:

      @ ArnoldHarris:

      As a conservative I am sure you will agree its about responsibility for one actions.

      Prevention is a start and there are many options available including abstinence and self-control.

      As for the liberals, we can’t expect much especially since the liberal media pushes their agenda.

      We have to hope and pray the conservative Republicans in Washington wake up and fight back.

      One thing for sure they can’t have my gun.

      Funny thing, I am not a Glenn Beck fan but I believe he saw this coming a few years ago.

      Ovomit would throw us into debt, grow the government, create class warfare dividing the country and allow the secular progressives take control.

      The reason I have described him as an “Acorn community organizing pamphlet distributing anti-Semite pretending to be a Christian for political reasons who embraces Islam, orchestrated by George Soros & company and the liberal left media and the MB and no friend of Israel”.

    28. the phoenix says:

      rongrand Said:

      Prevention is a start and there are many options available including abstinence and self-control.

      dear ron
      what would be your take on a pregnancy as a result of rape?

    29. rongrand says:

      @ the phoenix:

      I don’t have a take, I didn’t say the decision to have an abortion is easy under any of these circumstances.

      My heart and prayers would go out to any woman or young girl who is raped and becomes pregnant.

      So far today there were 2060 abortions and I doubt they are all the result of rape.

      Listen sport who said it was easy.

    30. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “I personally do not support abortion in most instances…”

      “Really? — why not? if there’s nothing wrong with it.”

      “… but It’s not my call and not yours either.”

      You speak for yourself ALONE.

      “If it’s not your ‘call’ — then it’s not your call either to be telling ME what MY call does or doesn’t consist of.”

      “If abortion is not forced or coerced upon those concerned and it does not effect or endanger me…”

      So, you think YOUR mother should’ve had a ‘choice’?

      “I only stated my opinion which is mine and while I do not… insist that my opinion be heeded or enforced on anyone…

      Nonsense. (And one of the shallowest claims routinely put forward by the pro-abort crowd.)

      The truth is that ALL legislation of any kind — as well as the absence of it — by its very NATURE, entails the imposition of somebody’s opinion on somebody else.

      — It’s inescapable.

      “Morality should not be legislated but be based on consensus and general consent…”

      I seriously doubt that you (of all persons) are anything on the order of an anarchist, Yami, so quit hocking-me-a-tchynik with this inane tommyrot that YOU don’t believe any more than I do.

      “You would [insist that my opinion be heeded or enforced] even if it requires doing harm and injury to those who perform abortions.”

      Where do you get that from anything I’ve said?

      — The only ‘harm & injury’ I would do to abortionists is whatever the law would prescribe as punishment if and when, God-willing, the vile practice were outlawed.

      “You sir a a religious fanatic and should have been kept under lock and key.”

      Now, here is the clearest-cut assertion of projection that you’ve made in, oh, maybe. . . .what, the last 20 minutes?

      “Would you kill abortionists if you could; meaning kill them and get away with the deed? The way you emote on this issue I believe you would.”

      “The way [I] emote“? — I am, without exception, the least emotional poster on this site.

      Perhaps what you really mean is that you’re disconcerted by the certainty & force with which I say what I think — especially in matters where you carry a troubled conscience.

      — Can’t help that. Should I be any less than formidable, just to please you? — I don’t ask YOU (or anybody else) to express him-or-herself more haltingly. I take what you deal out as YOU see fit, and I deal with it as it comes.

      “He who kills man will be killed by man.” [Gen 9:6]

      Does that mean I’m personally elected to play the role of judge, jury & executioner?

      — Of course not. There are courts & other public civil institutions, with orderly procedures which are instituted among men, and which are designated for the carrying out of justice.

      But do I believe that abortionists who ply their killing trade for any reason other than to preserve life DESERVE to die for their heartless deeds? — you bet your sweet, tender tookhas.

    31. dweller says:

      @ rongrand:

      “what would be your take on a pregnancy as a result of rape?”

      “My heart and prayers would go out to any woman or young girl who is raped and becomes pregnant.”

      Omeyn, v’omeyn. Agreed, absolutely.

      Yet abortion is every bit as traumatic an experience, neurologically & hormonally, as rape. (Perhaps more traumatic.)

      And it’s as deadly to the baby — who is at least as innocent as the woman — as abortion for any other reason.

      Shall we punish (by execution, no less) the CHILD

      — for the crime of her/his FATHER?

      — How in God’s Name can that possibly be JUST?

      As a matter of perspective:
      Stateside abortions that are performed for stated reasons of conception caused by rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother — combined

      — amount to between one and three percent.

    32. dweller says:

      @ ArnoldHarris:

      “I find the shrill arguments of the anti-abortion crowd as vapid and asinine…”

      …as those of the pro-abortion crowd?

      “But I have studied the Sherri Finkbein case, having first read about it more than 50 years ago.”

      I too. I remeber hearing about it when it happened.

      Hard cases make bad law, Arnold.

      If the child was dead in the womb, it should have been possible to remove it before term.

      If it was alive and not posing a direct threat to anybody else’s existence

      — then it was innocent and was entitled to the same protections as you or I.

    33. ArnoldHarris says:

      Dweller, I shall not argue with you in accordance with your standards, but only from the standpoint of my own.

      Nobody who is not yet born can be a citizen of the United States of America. Rights in this commonwealth are conferred by citizenship, or at least by lawful residency in the case of persons granted residency status in our country. In my judgement and in accord with my standards, the “unborn” are entitled no more to legal status of citizenship than Bram Stoker’s “undead”.

      In addition to the above, I think that my rights to keep and bear arms, in terms defined and enshrined some 225 years ago in the Constitution of the United States, measurably depend on our society’s willingness to uphold the rights of women to determine for themselves conditions under which they will allow a zygote growing within them to develop into a foetus and to be born as a live baby. The extent to which we deny this most fundamental of all rights to women is the same extent to which we approach acceptance of the base slavery of Sharia.

      Therefore, I will permit no one of you individually nor all of you collectively to infringe my rights to keep and bear arms. Thus, in equal measure, I can never and shall never agree to allow infringment upon my daughter, who is very much still of child-bearing age.

      Arnold Harris
      Mount Horeb WI

    34. dweller says:

      @ ArnoldHarris:

      “Rights in this commonwealth are conferred by citizenship…”

      Not so.

      “… or at least by lawful residency in the case of persons granted residency status in our country.”

      Wrong again.

      With all due respect, Arnold, rights in America are NOT ‘conferred.’

      Rights are assumed (irrespective of citizenship, or lawful residency, or anything else). “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, liberty and the Pursuit of happiness…” (in that order, BTW)

      Voting rights and (perhaps) property rights, etc may be about citizenship.

      The right to go on living is NOT. It is unalienable.

      — Government cannot ‘confer’ it; likewise, government cannot take it (subject to Due Process, TBS).

      “In my judgement and in accord with my standards, the ‘unborn’ are entitled no more to legal status of citizenship than Bram Stoker’s ‘undead’.”

      How convenient for you, Sir, inasmuch as — you having already passed thru the unborn stage of life — your own rights are no longer threatened by somebody trying to write you out of the human family at the stroke of a pen.

      Also, of course (and more to the point), comparing the unborn to the ‘undead’ from the perspective of citizenship is entirely irrelevant. Unalienable rights are not about citizenship; see above.

      “In addition to the above, I think that my rights to keep and bear arms, in terms defined and enshrined some 225 years ago in the Constitution of the United States, measurably depend on…”

      Your right to keep & bear arms ‘depends’ on NOTHING; the right to defend yourself is self-existent. It is the govt’s duty to protect & guarantee that right.

      — Nothing else is material to that unembroidered fact.

      “[T]he rights of women to determine for themselves conditions under which they will allow a zygote growing within them to develop into a foetus and to be born as a live baby…”

      So the baby is ‘not alive’ until he/she is born?

      How is that enlivenment (is that even a word?) accomplished?

      — Is there something ‘magical’ about a nine-inch ride down the birth canal?

      Do you believe that your OWN mother should’ve had a ‘choice’ to order your OWN life snuffed out before you ever saw the light of day?

      “The extent to which we deny this most fundamental of all rights to women is the same extent to which we approach acceptance of the base slavery of Sharia.”

      Only if you can prove that the unborn child is not in fact alive or a member of the human species. (Good luck with that. . . .)

      And bear in mind, Arnold, that rhetorically speaking, you (as the moving party) have the Burden of Proof

      — moreover, even if you didn’t have the Burden (though indeed you do, but even IF you didn’t), the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of both the child’s humanity and his/her existence (and that evidence continues to mount) — notwithstanding her/his current place of domicile for the first 40-something wks of life.

      “Thus, in equal measure, I can never and shall never agree to allow infringment upon my daughter, who is very much still of child-bearing age.”

      So, I suppose then, that “in equal measure,” you would’ve approved HER mother’s taking the option to snuff out your daughter’s life while yet in utero? — you & her mother merely ‘chose,’ at the time, to decline the option? — but it would’ve been OKAY if you HAD exercised that ‘choice’?

    35. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      How convenient for you, Sir, inasmuch as — you having already passed thru the unborn stage of life — your own rights are no longer threatened by somebody trying to write you out of the human family at the stroke of a pen.

      Also, of course (and more to the point), comparing the unborn to the ‘undead’ from the perspective of citizenship is entirely irrelevant. Unalienable rights are not about citizenship; see above.

      “One of the fundamental beliefs of Judaism is that life does not begin with birth, nor does it end with death. This is articulated in the verse in Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to G?d, who gave it.”

      A basic law of physics (known as the First Law of Thermodynamics) is that no energy is ever “lost” or destroyed; it only assumes another form. If such is the case with physical energy, how much more so a spiritual entity such as the soul, whose existence is not limited by time, space, or any of the other delineators of the physical state. Certainly, the spiritual energy that in the human being is the source of sight and hearing, emotion and intellect, will and consciousness does not cease to exist merely because the physical body has ceased to function; rather, it passes from one form of existence (physical life as expressed and acted via the body) to a higher, exclusively spiritual form of existence.”
      Read More

    36. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      So, you think YOUR mother should’ve had a ‘choice’?

      Yes, if I were not born my soul would have returned to it’s source and I would have been returned in another body.

      Nonsense. (And one of the shallowest claims routinely put forward by the pro-abort crowd.)

      The truth is that ALL legislation of any kind — as well as the absence of it — by its very NATURE, entails the imposition of somebody’s opinion on somebody else.

      — It’s inescapable.

      But only I determine if any law infringes on my freedoms and inalienable rights not you.

      I seriously doubt that you (of all persons) are anything on the order of an anarchist, Yami, so quit hocking-me-a-tchynik with this inane tommyrot that YOU don’t believe any more than I do.

      Wrong I am a true anarchist, I thought it would be obvious to such a mystic with such a fine tuned intuition.

      — The only ‘harm & injury’ I would do to abortionists is whatever the law would prescribe as punishment if and when, God-willing, the vile practice were outlawed.

      So as long as they are legal you are OK with that? You were not so respectful of the Law in your past. what changed? Prison?

      Now, here is the clearest-cut assertion of projection that you’ve made in, oh, maybe. . . .what, the last 20 minutes?

      Not projection I perceive you are a volcano ready to erupt if pushed too far. I perceive your contrived emotional control to be just that, contrived and controlled but on the verge of losing it.

      Perhaps what you really mean is that you’re disconcerted by the certainty & force with which I say what I think — especially in matters where you carry a troubled conscience.

      What makes you believe I have a conscience? Now you are projecting.

      “He who kills man will be killed by man.” [Gen 9:6]

      should read from the Hebrew: “Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man. Rashi:”through man shall his blood be shed”: If there are witnesses, you kill him.” “Why?” “For in the image of God, etc.” “He made man: This is an elliptical verse. It should read: “the Maker made man,” and there are many such instances in Scripture.”

      In Jewish Law the witnesses mus be the executioners. Smart Law!!

      But do I believe that abortionists who ply their killing trade for any reason other than to preserve life DESERVE to die for their heartless deeds? — you bet your sweet, tender tookhas.

      Where is your christian charity? Would Youhka feel the same as you? ;)

    37. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      So, you think YOUR mother should’ve had a ‘choice’?

      Yes, if I were not born my soul would have returned to it’s source and I would have been returned in another body.

      Nonsense. (And one of the shallowest claims routinely put forward by the pro-abort crowd.)

      The truth is that ALL legislation of any kind — as well as the absence of it — by its very NATURE, entails the imposition of somebody’s opinion on somebody else.

      — It’s inescapable.

      But only I determine if any law infringes on my freedoms and inalienable rights not you.

      I seriously doubt that you (of all persons) are anything on the order of an anarchist, Yami, so quit hocking-me-a-tchynik with this inane tommyrot that YOU don’t believe any more than I do.

      Wrong I am a true anarchist, I thought it would be obvious to such a mystic with such a fine tuned intuition.

    38. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      — The only ‘harm & injury’ I would do to abortionists is whatever the law would prescribe as punishment if and when, God-willing, the vile practice were outlawed.

      So as long as they are legal you are OK with that? You were not so respectful of the Law in your past. what changed? Prison?

      Now, here is the clearest-cut assertion of projection that you’ve made in, oh, maybe. . . .what, the last 20 minutes?

      Not projection I perceive you are a volcano ready to erupt if pushed too far. I perceive your contrived emotional control to be just that, contrived and controlled but on the verge of losing it.

      Perhaps what you really mean is that you’re disconcerted by the certainty & force with which I say what I think — especially in matters where you carry a troubled conscience.

      What makes you believe I have a conscience? Now you are projecting.

      “He who kills man will be killed by man.” [Gen 9:6]

      should read from the Hebrew: “Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man. Rashi:”through man shall his blood be shed”: If there are witnesses, you kill him.” “Why?” “For in the image of God, etc.” “He made man: This is an elliptical verse. It should read: “the Maker made man,” and there are many such instances in Scripture.”

      In Jewish Law the witnesses mus be the executioners. Smart Law!!

      But do I believe that abortionists who ply their killing trade for any reason other than to preserve life DESERVE to die for their heartless deeds? — you bet your sweet, tender tookhas.

      Where is your christian charity? Would Youhka feel the same as you? ;)

    39. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      — The only ‘harm & injury’ I would do to abortionists is whatever the law would prescribe as punishment if and when, God-willing, the vile practice were outlawed.

      So as long as they are legal you are OK with that? You were not so respectful of the Law in your past. what changed? Prison?

      Now, here is the clearest-cut assertion of projection that you’ve made in, oh, maybe. . . .what, the last 20 minutes?

      Not projection I perceive you are a volcano ready to erupt if pushed too far. I perceive your contrived emotional control to be just that, contrived and controlled but on the verge of losing it.

    40. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      Perhaps what you really mean is that you’re disconcerted by the certainty & force with which I say what I think — especially in matters where you carry a troubled conscience.

      What makes you believe I have a conscience? Now you are projecting.

      “He who kills man will be killed by man.” [Gen 9:6]

      should read from the Hebrew: “Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man. Rashi:”through man shall his blood be shed”: If there are witnesses, you kill him.” “Why?” “For in the image of God, etc.” “He made man: This is an elliptical verse. It should read: “the Maker made man,” and there are many such instances in Scripture.”

      In Jewish Law the witnesses mus be the executioners. Smart Law!!

      But do I believe that abortionists who ply their killing trade for any reason other than to preserve life DESERVE to die for their heartless deeds? — you bet your sweet, tender tookhas.

      Where is your christian charity? Would Youhka feel the same as you? ;)

    41. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “…’Terminal illness’ is an invented expression, concocted for the convenience of some and the comfort of others — essentially it’s a societally-sanctioned end-run around conscience.”

      “You almost have me speechless on this one dude.”

      Impossible.

      “You had the chutzpa to say I am without compassion.”

      That’s right. (That is that you are without compassion. Not that it took chutspa to say so.) Compassion is not limited to some & not others. You confuse that word with sympathy. They aren’t identical.

      “You dude are without a soul, a crazy unfeeling fanatic. May you experience terminal illness with unremitting pain for a long time and post your comment here in a convenient place so that you will never forget what you wished for others.”

      If in fact I am ‘soulless,’ you risk great damage to your own soul in wishing “terminal illness” on me (or anybody else).

      “Pain alleviation has come a long way. ‘Little or no possibility’ is a crock.”

      “[Pain alleviation hasn't come far enough] and in many cases the treatment brings on death faster than the normal course of the illness. That too could in your sick mind be also considered as murder?”

      Could be, if done for that PURPOSE. Pain alleviation mustn’t be sloppy.

      Not so brave, are you, ToughGuy, when it comes to matters of pain. . . .

      “If the patient is innocent and causes neither harm nor imminent threat to anybody else’s life, and you kill him — then it is INDEED murder. Cold-blooded murder in the case of fetal homicide; sentimental murder in the case of euthanasia. But murder all the same.”

      I have seen many who beg to be allowed to die and the refusal is unjust and unwarranted punishment on innocents.

      Why is it ‘unjust’? Because somebody who is hardly in a position to be thinking clearly (let alone, rationally) in those moments is to be denied their currently fondest wish?

      I repeat: it’s not their pain that troubles you. It’s your OWN anguish at peceiving it. THAT’s what strikes you as unjust. You just don’t want to consider that.

      Ultimately, it represents your deep resentment of God.

      Pain is God shouting at you, saying ‘Drop everything. I need your attention NOW.’

    42. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “Suicides outnumber combat deaths in Afghanistan and before that Iraq…”

      Yes, but not because of physical combat injuries. Rather, because of what they’ve seen, and sometimes done.

      The trauma has produced PTSD. There IS a cure for that, but it isn’t suicide.

      “… and the suicide rate would be out of sight in prisons if it were not for the controlled environment.

      Ditto, the above.

      “Certainly capital punishment could be considered more humane and just than some lifetime terms in prisons. Better for society as well, as the cost of incarceration would be largely reduced thus easing the burden on society of keeping millions of felons locked up.”

      Off-point. (A worthy subject for discussion but not relevant to this one.)

      “We are not believers in Youshka, his book nor his ethics.”

      “Religion hasn’t got SPIT to do with [fetal homicide]. Just because one religion or another opposes drunk driving as an article of religious doctrine — doesn’t make the practice acceptable for adherents of every other one MERELY because they don’t happen to mention it in their own credo.”

      “Of course it has everything to do with religion because that’s the basis of all legal codes re: moral and ethical values upon which all societies are structured. Even though many of those ethics and values predated our religions they were codified into religious values and principles which formed the pillars of our legal law codes.”

      As I already noted, it wasn’t necessary to make abortion or infanticide illegal among the Jews of the Torah. It would’ve been unthinkable to them except to save the mother’s life.

      In any case, my point above (and I probably should’ve stated it better) was that religion ALONE has nothing to do with abortion.

      — I know plenty of ATHEISTS who are dead-set against abortion.

      Religion never entered into their consideration of the matter. It’s enough for them — or ANY rational person — to know that the science of Genetics is what discovered when life begins.

      “Lincoln would have had you shot for treason and probably sedition.”

      If he wouldn’t shoot Vallandigham — who was guilty as sin for those things — he sure-as-blazes wouldn’t have shot li’l old winemaker me — who wasn’t.

    43. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “How convenient for you, Sir, inasmuch as — you having already passed thru the unborn stage of life — your own rights are no longer threatened by somebody trying to write you out of the human family at the stroke of a pen. Also, of course (and more to the point), comparing the unborn to the ‘undead’ from the perspective of citizenship is entirely irrelevant. Unalienable rights are not about citizenship; see above.”

      “One of the fundamental beliefs of Judaism is that life does not begin with birth, nor does it end with death.”

      Irrelevant & off-point to the gist of the comment you quoted.

    44. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “So, you think YOUR mother should’ve had a ‘choice’?”

      “Yes, if I were not born my soul would have returned to it’s source and I would have been returned in another body.”

      You don’t know that within yourself. You’ve read it (yet you don’t even know that the writer knew it within HIMSELF), and you’ve latched onto the idea — but you have no intimate knowledge of it.

      I could as easily (actually, more easily) assert that the soul does not reincarnate — that if there IS such a thing as metempsychosis, it is not the soul that undergoes it.

      One thing of a certainty, in any event, however, is that if your mother HAD in fact exercised that ‘choice,’ and, effectively, put out a hit contract on her own flesh-&-blood while yet you resided in the womb

      you would have died in agony. It’s very clear from the data that the unborn child is quite capable of experiencing physical pain (though at that stage, he/she has far less of the capability to withstand it than an older, born child).

      Moreover, as I’ve already indicated, you would also have undergone, at the approach of death, the same terror of annihilation that ALL living things experience.

      “I only stated my opinion which is mine and while I do not… insist that my opinion be heeded or enforced on anyone…”

      “Nonsense. (And one of the shallowest claims routinely put forward by the pro-abort crowd.) The truth is that ALL legislation of any kind — as well as the absence of it — by its very NATURE, entails the imposition of somebody’s opinion on somebody else. It’s inescapable.”

      “But only I determine if any law infringes on my freedoms and inalienable rights not you.”

      No, NEITHER of us gets to determine that. That’s the proper function of DUE PROCESS

      — and that’s yet another reason why elective abortion is such a cruel & unjust deed:

      since the unborn isn’t even granted what even the most VICIOUS of murderers IS accorded: a day in court, the right to hear (or for an advocate in her/his behalf to hear) the charges against him, and to be allowed — as would any accused person — the presumption of Innocence till proven guilty. And what, after all, IS she guilty’ of?

      Being in the wrong place at the wrong time. . . .?

    45. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “Morality should not be legislated but be based on consensus and general consent…”

      “I seriously doubt that you (of all persons) are anything on the order of an anarchist, Yamit, so quit hocking-me-a-tchynik with this inane tommyrot that YOU don’t believe any more than I do.”

      “Wrong I am a true anarchist, I thought it would be obvious to such a mystic with such a fine tuned intuition.”

      Actually it was obvious to such a rational mind as my own that you couldn’t possibly be an anarchist (of any stripe); viz., one who rejects the legitimacy of states. [anarkhia --- ??(?), or an(a): "without"; ???(??), or arkh(os): "ruler, authority, the State, etc"].

      A true anarchist would not endorse the State of Israel — or any other state

      — let alone, the organized armed forces which form the core of any state’s legitimized social monopoly of violence.

      “The only ‘harm & injury’ I would do to abortionists is whatever the law would prescribe as punishment if and when, God-willing, the vile practice [elective abortion] were outlawed.”

      “So as long as they are legal you are OK with that?”

      I’m not ‘OK’ with legalized fetal homicide, but I’ve never endorsed vigilantism.

      “You were not so respectful of the Law in your past. what changed?”

      NOTHING changed. The laws I opposed were themselves unlawful — unconstitutional.

      Resisting them nonviolently, while accepting the transitory consequences for such resistance, represented the HIGHEST respect for the principle of law; it was the most powerful means of doing away with some, and focusing public attention on others.

      Or maybe you found Martin Luther King, Jr’s ‘violation’ of the Jim Crow statutes was disrespectful of law too?

      BTW, and apropos your inane remark from an earlier thread which expired while I was offline:
      The U.S. Supreme Court overturned my CONVICTION (for Refusing Induction); it didn’t just vacate the remainder of the sentence. It held that I should never have been called up in the first place — as that this had had been done purely as a punitive measure to silence & intimidate dissent, when my “draft number” was nowhere near the top of the list.

      In effect, it said that the Selective Service Act had been abused by the Fed govt, which had used it as a political bludgeon. (See: Gen. Lewis Hershey — the “club of induction.” Clearly, he wasn’t speaking of club in the sense of ‘a small circle of friends’. . . .)

      So, I wasn’t ‘amnestied’ — that was a political act: of the Executive & Congressional Branches — and I wouldn’t have accepted it had it been offered me. (I might’ve accepted an apology, but I wsn’t holding my breath for that.)

      I was ordered promptly released from prison — ultimately by SCOTUS — some 6-7 yrs BEFORE Carter’s ‘amnesty’ program was ever implemented, and at least two yrs BEFORE the subject was even a plank in the ’72 (McGovern) Demo platform.

    46. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “You sir a a religious fanatic and should have been kept under lock and key.”

      “Now, here is the clearest-cut assertion of projection that you’ve made in, oh, maybe. . . .what, the last 20 minutes?”

      “Not projection I perceive you are a volcano ready to erupt if pushed too far.”

      So then, how come I haven’t YET ‘erupted’ in all these years? — or maybe (let me guess:) you haven’t really “pushed” very far?

      — LOLROF.

      “I perceive your contrived emotional control to be just that, contrived and controlled but on the verge of losing it.”

      Right — ‘losing it’ in a paroxysm of giggles.

      The way you emote on this issue [i.e., elective abortion], I believe you would [personally kill abortionists].”

      “Perhaps what you really mean is that you’re disconcerted by the certainty & force with which I say what I think — especially in matters where you carry a troubled conscience.”

      “What makes you believe I have a conscience?”

      Well, it isn’t as if your deportment was very persuasive in that dept.

      But the answer is actually quite uncomplicated & straightforward: B’reisheet.

      If a man is created b’tselem elohim, then he has a conscience. It’s just that simple.

      The Conscience [<con: "with"; science: "knowing"] is God’s personal Embassy in the foreign land that is the world of men.

      Of course, whether a man is especially responsive to conscience is another matter.

      Your nicotine habit is one way (among others) that YOU always manage to keep a couple steps ahead of conscience. Whenever a little (or maybe not-so-little) truth is about to bubble to the surface from the depths of your consciousness & into the quiet light of conscience

      — you find that you need a smoke. (Fancy that.)

      But there are an infinite number of ways that people have for evading the pangs & proddings of conscience.

      “He who kills man will be killed by man.” [Gen 9:6]

      “…should read from the Hebrew: ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”

      Yes, that’s one take on it; I’ve seen several.

      Another is “Whosoever sheds the blood of man IN man shall his own blood be shed, for in the image…” [R.Moshe Feinstein, I think; but it's been way too many years for me to remember for sure if it was he.]

      “Rashi: ‘through man shall his blood be shed’: If there are witnesses, you kill him. ‘Why?’ ‘For in the image of God, etc.’ He made man: This is an elliptical verse. It should read: ‘the Maker made man,’ and there are many such instances in Scripture. In Jewish Law the witnesses mus be the executioners. Smart Law!!”

      So, then, you think vigilante lynching by the witnesses is OKAY in the case of (civilian) murderers?

      “But do I believe that abortionists who ply their killing trade for any reason other than to preserve life DESERVE to die for their heartless deeds? — you bet your sweet, tender tookhas.”

      “Where is your christian charity?”

      Once you’ve defined the word as you intend it to be used here (so we’ll be on the same page for the discussion) I’ll have an answer for you.

      Not until.

      “Would Youhka feel the same as you?”

      My, my. my. Since when does a Jew need a middle man, a go-between, in such matters?

      — nu, ask him yourself, ken ayin hara.

    47. yamit82 says:

      dweller Said:

      Well, it isn’t as if your deportment was very persuasive in that dept.

      But the answer is actually quite uncomplicated & straightforward: B’reisheet.

      If a man is created b’tselem elohim, then he has a conscience. It’s just that simple.

      Not quite so simple. “you are called ‘man’ and the nations of the world are not called ‘man’. ”

      In the Bible, the children of Israel were called “man” [adam] whereas people of the other nations were referred to as “the man” [ha?adam] or “sons of man” [bnei adam]. Rabbi Simeon, a prominent student of Rabbi Akiva, interpreted the word “man” to refer exclusively to an Israelite. He stated that gentiles are not to be called “man”!

      Rabbi Judah Halevi among others, the author of the Kuzari, expressed the theory that there was a substantial difference, both psychological and hereditary, between people possessed of “Jewish” and “Gentile” souls. As far as R. Halevi was concerned, this difference was a natural phenomenon. As he stated:

      The first man [Adam] received from the deity a vital soul in all its completeness, and an intellect of the highest possible level for a human being…Now the first man begat many children. Of all of them, however, only Abel was worthy to stand in his place…and when he was killed by his brother, Cain…[God] gave Adam Seth in place of Abel. Seth resembled Adam and therefore became the chosen among men…The sons of Jacob were all chosen. All of them together were worthy of the divine message…Though there were among them sinners who were hated by the deity, there can be no doubt that they were still chosen in a recognizable sense since their roots and nature were “chosen” and they were to beget children who would be “chosen”. Kuzari I.95.

      The Rambam disagreed with R. Halevi and established the principle that Jewish identity does not derive from physical descent, but rather from the spiritual teachings of ancestors like the patriarch Abraham (who was himself the biological son of the idolator Terah) and Moses. Thus he stated in his responsum:

      “Know that for the most part our ancestors who left Egypt were idolators. In Egypt they had mixed with the gentiles and had learned from their actions until the Holy One??blessed be He??sent our teacher Moses??peace upon him??the master of all the prophets. He separated us from the nations and brought us under the wings of the divine Presence??us and all the converts??and gave all of us one law. Let your heritage not be insignificant in your eyes. If we count as our ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, you are related to the One who spoke and the universe came into existence. Thus it states explicitly in Isaiah, “This one will say, ‘I am the Lord’s’ and the other will be called by the name of Jacob”

      Kabbalist Jews whose world?view had been formed by the teachings of the Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbala, argued that it was not merely Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, but Rabbi Akiva himself who reserved the title of “man” only for Israelites. According to some kabbalists, Rabbi Akiva’s statement, “beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image” referred not to humanity in general, but only to Adam, the first man, of whom alone the Torah specifies that he was created in God’s image. This kabbalistic thesis was meant to emphasize the singularity of the Jewish people. Thus the sixteenth?century kabbalist, Samuel De Uceda (b. 1540), stressed in his book, Midrash Shemuel:

      The [divine] image of holiness belongs only to the people of the children of Israel…Thus “man” refers to the first man [Adam]…of him [Rabbi Akiva] said, “Beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image”…It is so [also] for the righteous and, indeed, all the people of the children of Israel.

      Note their is no concept of Humanity in the modern sense in Hebrew. We speak only of the nations of the world (Umot Ha’olam)

    48. yamit82 says:

      dweller Said:

      Well, it isn’t as if your deportment was very persuasive in that dept.

      But the answer is actually quite uncomplicated & straightforward: B’reisheet.

      If a man is created b’tselem elohim, then he has a conscience. It’s just that simple.

      Not quite so simple. “you are called ‘man’ and the nations of the world are not called ‘man’. ”

      In the Bible, the children of Israel were called “man” [adam] whereas people of the other nations were referred to as “the man” [ha?adam] or “sons of man” [bnei adam]. Rabbi Simeon, a prominent student of Rabbi Akiva, interpreted the word “man” to refer exclusively to an Israelite. He stated that gentiles are not to be called “man”!

      Rabbi Judah Halevi among others, the author of the Kuzari, expressed the theory that there was a substantial difference, both psychological and hereditary, between people possessed of “Jewish” and “Gentile” souls. As far as R. Halevi was concerned, this difference was a natural phenomenon. As he stated:

      The first man [Adam] received from the deity a vital soul in all its completeness, and an intellect of the highest possible level for a human being…Now the first man begat many children. Of all of them, however, only Abel was worthy to stand in his place…and when he was killed by his brother, Cain…[God] gave Adam Seth in place of Abel. Seth resembled Adam and therefore became the chosen among men…The sons of Jacob were all chosen. All of them together were worthy of the divine message…Though there were among them sinners who were hated by the deity, there can be no doubt that they were still chosen in a recognizable sense since their roots and nature were “chosen” and they were to beget children who would be “chosen”. Kuzari I.95.

    49. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:
      “you are called ‘man’ and the nations of the world are not called ‘man’. ”
      The Rambam disagreed with R. Halevi and established the principle that Jewish identity does not derive from physical descent, but rather from the spiritual teachings of ancestors like the patriarch Abraham (who was himself the biological son of the idolator Terah) and Moses. Thus he stated in his responsum:

      “Know that for the most part our ancestors who left Egypt were idolators. In Egypt they had mixed with the gentiles and had learned from their actions until the Holy One??blessed be He??sent our teacher Moses??peace upon him??the master of all the prophets. He separated us from the nations and brought us under the wings of the divine Presence??us and all the converts??and gave all of us one law. Let your heritage not be insignificant in your eyes. If we count as our ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, you are related to the One who spoke and the universe came into existence. Thus it states explicitly in Isaiah, “This one will say, ‘I am the Lord’s’ and the other will be called by the name of Jacob”

      Kabbalist Jews whose world?view had been formed by the teachings of the Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbala, argued that it was not merely Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, but Rabbi Akiva himself who reserved the title of “man” only for Israelites. According to some kabbalists, Rabbi Akiva’s statement, “beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image” referred not to humanity in general, but only to Adam, the first man, of whom alone the Torah specifies that he was created in God’s image. This kabbalistic thesis was meant to emphasize the singularity of the Jewish people. Thus the sixteenth?century kabbalist, Samuel De Uceda (b. 1540), stressed in his book, Midrash Shemuel:

      The [divine] image of holiness belongs only to the people of the children of Israel…Thus “man” refers to the first man [Adam]…of him [Rabbi Akiva] said, “Beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image”…It is so [also] for the righteous and, indeed, all the people of the children of Israel.

      Note: their is no concept of Humanity in the modern sense in Hebrew. We speak only of the nations of the world (Umot Ha’olam)

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Will Israel attack Iran

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS

    LOVE




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites