# Really, I am just trying to understand



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

HOW is a 9 yr old, born person the same as an unborn, fetus?
I just don't understand it.
Perhaps it is just that it is a view so foreign to mine and to my education.
Obviously to some people it actualy does make sense.

And is an attempted murderer or attempted mutilator the same as the victim?
Is there such a thing as wounding or killing in self defense?
For people that believe in pro life "all the way" believe that they would stand there and die, stand there and let their kids die, if someone were trying to kill them? Would they never fight back?

Oh and someone who would never fight back or attempt to protect themselves from an attacker, in a violent way, are any of them not completely vegan?
Because that I just cannot wrap my mind around that.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Sort of the same way a newborn is as valued a person as the 9YO.

They are markedly different but they are valued as created in the image of G-d.

Attempted murderer equal to the victim? I don't get that either. When there is a homocidal bombing in Israel (I HATE the term suicidal bomber) every mainstream media outlet except FOX counts the murderer in the number of casualities.

This makes me yell out loud, makes my kids think I'm insane yelling at the screen.

Just my opinion, I guess.

I'm just editing to add Someone would need to literally go through my body to get to my children. I teach my children to never start a fight but if they're attacked they have every right to defend themselves. Nobody bothers with the Bakers.

Debra Baker


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

Sort of the same way a newborn is as valued a person as the 9YO.
Sort of, but a born baby can be gotten rid of without killing it if it is effecting someone's life to the detriment (causing them physical, mental, psychological harm) of course a newborn, which is not physically attached to a person, is not nearly as "able" to do this as is a fetus.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I'm not quite sure I understand.

Are you saying an unborn baby cannot be harmed without effecting the mother because they're physically attached to one another, but a newborn baby can be harmed without going through the mother?

Debra Baker


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

I wouldn't think twice about killing someone to protect my child.









I have a hard time understanding those that wouldn't, and i guess they feel the same way about me. I was stalked for 4 years, learned how to use a handgun, and man, i got good at lock and load. no way some crazed lunatic is going to get a piece of me. I'm taking him *out*. and i almost did. I would do the same for my kids.

I wonder though, if the folks that wouldn't, _would in fact defend their kids to the death if faced with the situation?_ My guess would be yes, because i feel it motherly instinct to do so. I mean, what woman would just stand there and let it happen all in the name of pro life?

As far as the pregnant 9 yr old, if she were mine, i would have her terminate the pregnancy. To me, her life, her health, is paramount and supersedes the embryo.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetbaby3*
As far as the pregnant 9 yr old, if she were mine, i would have her terminate the pregnancy. To me, her life, her health, is paramount and supersedes the embryo.

Same here.


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

I will try to explain the principles I am "operating from".
Firstly, though I am not attempting to debate, but just to understand the view that i don't understand, I will explain my view of a fetus. Since the fetus is dependant solely on the mother's body for life and is not "born" it is therefore not a fully living being. So although it sacred because it is a form of life it is NOT the same as a person. It is sacred, therefore, it is not to be disposed of without reason. Yet it is not a person, and jewish law does not consider its "death" murder. If someone causes a woman to miscarry, as far as I remember, they must pay damages as if they harmed a limb of her body.

The second priciple which is relevant here is the law of "rodeph" a rodeph is one who is persuing a person with the intent to kill them. Killing a rodeph is considered self defense and not murder. A fetus, in addition to not being a full fledged person can also be a rodeph if its presense is a threat to life or limb of the mother it can be killed and this is not murder. Because the fetus is not a full person and the fact that it is impossible to remove it from the situation where it is harming the mother *without* killing it, the principle of rodeph can be used more freely then it is used with a full person. (Where a person harrassing another person to the point that they will be driven insane can be put in jail, a fetus cannot.)

I hope that explains my view somewhat. Although all the translation and the introduction of for *general* you new concepts probably make it confusing- oh and my crappy writing skills.


----------



## daricsmami (May 18, 2004)

Quote:

Sort of, but a born baby can be gotten rid of without killing it if it is effecting someone's life to the detriment (causing them physical, mental, psychological harm) of course a newborn, which is not physically attached to a person, is not nearly as "able" to do this as is a fetus.
Let me see if I sorta understand (it takes me a while







):

Let's say you have two women, both with severe schizophrenia or terminal cancer, or are homeless living under a bridge, or what ever the case may be.

One has a newborn and one is pregnant. The newborn can be taken to Social Services. But the pregnant woman must wait X months until she gives birth to give away the child.

???

I agree (if this is what you're saying.).


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Actually, I don't know anyone who wouldn't protect their own children, either by fighting back, or by standing in the way to let thier kids get away. I also think most pro-lifers would accept a "self-defense" reasoning if carrying a child were *certain* to result in death of the child and death of the mother. Ectopic pregnancy is one such example. There is currently no way the baby in that case can survive. Leaving it there can cost the life of the mother. Therefore, removing it is a necessary evil. But, a baby is not an "attacker". They havr no intent to harm, even if theit existance comes sometimes in an unpleasant manner.

However, while a 9-year-old carrying a baby to term is *not* desireable at all, and will likely be much more difficult than a normal pregnancy of an adult woman, the risk of her dying is pretty low, especially being in a Western country and having access to good medical care.

Therefore, since I believe a baby born or unborn has equal value and a right to life, and since I believe that having an abortion would only compound her pain, more than birthing the child, I could never encourage or support an abortion in that situation. Unfortunately, there is *no* easy answer to her situation, and whatever she does, this is going to be part of her life forever. I'm disgusted that her parents allowed her to ride around with a man with no supervision, and I think the man himself is a vile beast.

That's my opinion--does that give you a better idea of why some wouldn't encourage an abortion? I'm not interested in debate, just giving my beliefs.

Interestingly enough, some months ago I saw a small article in the paper about a 9-year-old girl in South America who was also raped (by her father







) and refused an abortion. I was amazed at what she said about it. She could have justifiably gone down the path of bitterness, misery, pain, and anger. Instead, she was posititive. She kept the baby, and even was able to love him in her own child-like way.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

ITA with Cappucinosmom. Has nothing to do with self-defense, IMO. Of course I would kill anyone trying to kill me or my child. But a fetus is not trying to kill me or my child, in this case it is simply endangering the mother with it's very existence. Big difference, IMO, in culpability. An attempted/attempting murderer is different than an innocent fetus.

An ectopic is one of the rare situations where I would allow termination, because there is absolutely NO way in which the baby can survive. Any situation in which there is a chance the child can live (no matter the consequence to the mom) is not ground for an abortion, IMO.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

(duplicate post)


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
Any situation in which there is a chance the child can live (no matter the consequence to the mom) is not ground for an abortion, IMO.

Wow. I really don't get that. You're saying that even in a situation where the child would survive but its birth would assuredly result in the death of the mother, you wouldn't support termination? How is it that the fetus is so much more important than the mother - particularly where that mother hasn't made the choice to conceive?

I also don't get how anyone can assume that carrying a baby to term will have less of an impact on a 9-year-old girl than an abortion. That's an awfully ballsy assumption to make... I'd be more inclined to call it projection.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

"You're saying that even in a situation where the child would survive but its birth would assuredly result in the death of the mother, you wouldn't support termination? How is it that the fetus is so much more important than the mother - particularly where that mother hasn't made the choice to conceive?"

I don't think the child is more important. I think they are EQUALLY important. I don't feel that the desire of the mother has any impact. Doesn't mean it's not tragic and terrible, or that I don't hate it and wish that abortion were an okay solution. Killing one person to save another makes no sense, IMO. And I don't think I should make the choice, who lives and who dies. Letting the situation be and seeing what happens is what I feel is right. Just MO.

"I also don't get how anyone can assume that carrying a baby to term will have less of an impact on a 9-year-old girl than an abortion. That's an awfully ballsy assumption to make... I'd be more inclined to call it projection."

I didn't say that. I have a feeling an abortion might be psychologically better than carrying the child, for all involved. Doesn't make it right.

I have universal morals. I don't believe that because a situation is terrible, or beyond my comprehension, or too hard that the morals laws can suddenly be broken. I believe that abortion is killing (I choose not to say murder). Killing is not okay. No matter what the situation (except direct self defense). Just because this situation is sickening and terrible does not mean God suddenly says killing is okay.

Does that make sense?


----------



## daricsmami (May 18, 2004)

Quote:

Any situation in which there is a chance the child can live (no matter the consequence to the mom) is not ground for an abortion, IMO.
I think my living, breathing son here on Earth is a little more important. I can't imagine a mother choosing the life of a fetus over her children, partner, friends, and family. Idealistically, it makes a nice story. Giving up her life, for her unborn child. But, realistically, I find it a tad selfish and makes the woman seem like she's trying to martyr herself.

If both lives are equal, why should she give up her life? Then that is saying that the fetuses life is more important. Obviously, there's no answer to my question, because the alternative is having an abortion. But that logic seems wierd to me.

Abortion is such a frustrating topic. Everything becomes so muddy...


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *daricsmami*
Let me see if I sorta understand (it takes me a while







):

Let's say you have two women, both with severe schizophrenia or terminal cancer, or are homeless living under a bridge, or what ever the case may be.

One has a newborn and one is pregnant. The newborn can be taken to Social Services. But the pregnant woman must wait X months until she gives birth to give away the child.

???

I agree (if this is what you're saying.).


Wow. Yes. I'm glad someone gets me here.

Dragonfly, right. I don't understand either (hence this thread). That was my point in bringing up the "attempted murderer". A person and a person are equal in importance, until one is effecting, or attempting to effect the other to the detriment, then there is an issue of self defense (rodeph).....
still trying to understand HOW self defense does not make a difference here.

Killing one person, who is causing serious harm, to save another DOES make sense to me...mabey that is the crux of it.

Quote:

I have universal morals. I don't believe that because a situation is terrible, or beyond my comprehension, or too hard that the morals laws can suddenly be broken.
Um, I have morals to. Mabey they are just more developed than yours, more complex. As I explained above. I think the insuation that others that don't agree with your *view* don't have morals is insulting. My highly developed, documented moral system does not dictate that there are times for killing because the situation is beyond *my* comprehension. We see killing as nesasary is certain situations (like self defense) because "G-d's word" tells us so, by our interpretation. No moral law is being broken in those cases.

Quote:

I believe that abortion is killing (I choose not to say murder). Killing is not okay. No matter what the situation (except direct self defense). Just because this situation is sickening and terrible does not mean God suddenly says killing is okay.
What religion or system do you use? As I said above... Are you vegan? How do you define "direct self defense" (situational examples please). Where is it written that G-d says all killing is *no* ok? Why is "direct self defense" ok if G-d says that all killing is wrong? What words did G-d use to differentiate between plain self defense and "direct" s.d.


----------



## Knittin' in the Shade (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:

Any situation in which there is a chance the child can live (no matter the consequence to the mom) is not ground for an abortion, IMO.

Really? No matter the consequence to mom? What if it will leave her other children orphaned?

I am staunchly pro-life (anti-abortion) but I do believe if the mom will did becuase of the pregnancy (and I mean liteally _die_ not figuratively) that it's self-preservation (self-defense, if you prefer that term) to abort.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

I don't think the child is more important. I think they are EQUALLY important
I respectfully disagree. How can an embryo be equal to a child or an adult? i dont get that. The unborn childs life should never supersede the life of its mother. ever. (unless of course, the mother chooses to).

Quote:

An ectopic is one of the rare situations where I would allow termination, because there is absolutely NO way in which the baby can survive.
I am so glad you do.









I cant tell you how many times i have sent women to the OR *emergently* because of an ectopic. I had one woman who was barely conscious, had a blood pressure of 70, heart rate of 140, and we did an ultra sound at her bedside. there it was. a tiny embryo, looking exactly like it should, with a heart beat of 150. a seemingly perfect "baby". but both it and its mother would have died (and almost did right there) had they not taken the baby and the tube (she couldnt keep the tube, it was disecting).


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

This isn't abortion related, exactly.

I think there are some people who would not kill an adult _rodef_. They aren't necessarily vegetarians, just absolute pacifists. I met such a person some years ago--this man:

http://www.warresisters.org/nva0702-4.htm
http://www.agapecommunity.org/Wally.html

He was a civil rights activist and faced down people with weapons, with his hands open.

I guess, even though he didn't "fight" back, that he resisted violence. Which isn't exactly the same as allowing yourself to be killed. He did live to be 93.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I believe the only time it's appropriate to take a human life is in self defense.

One could well argue self defense in the case of the 9YO girl.

Boy I wish as much energy is expended *prosecuting* the rapist as it is debating the abortion issue!!!!

DB


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

"I think the insuation that others that don't agree with your *view* don't have morals is insulting."

I didn't say, or mean that you dont have morals, just not universalist morals. Like, that something is ALWAYS wrong. I respect you and your religion, and I don't think anyone is an immoral person just b/c they disagree with me.

Please don't rolleyes at me, sweetbaby3. I am so annoyed. I got suckered again. This thread was calmly, politely asking for infomation as to how people like me might see this situation. I explain my point of view, and you act snarky.

"I respectfully disagree. How can an embryo be equal to a child or an adult? i dont get that"
It just is, to me. The same way a handicapped person is the same as a healthy person, or a newborn is the same as an adult. I agree the baby's life does not supercede the mothers. That has nothing to do with it.

"What religion or system do you use? As I said above... Are you vegan? How do you define "direct self defense" (situational examples please). Where is it written that G-d says all killing is *no* ok? Why is "direct self defense" ok if G-d says that all killing is wrong? What words did G-d use to differentiate between plain self defense and "direct" s.d."
I hope if I explain this, and answer it respectfully, I wont be mocked or made fun of. I am a Christian, probably what you would call a Fundamentalist, though I tend to be very socially liberal on all matter but abortion.

What you must see is that I equate abortion with murder. I tried not to use that word, out of respect, but I have to to explain myself. I see it as the killing of an innocent. The bible says that we may kill in self defense. I do not see killing a fetus whose existence threatens the mother as self defense. Some do, I understand that. It's a small distinction, and I can see both sides. But I see abortion of that fetus as a murder, but allowing myself (if I were the mother in question) to die not as a murder. In that case, God has decided that I will die, and I won't commit murder just to stop him. KWIM?

No, I am not a vegan or a vegetarian. I do not believe animals have souls or are the same as humans. I have no problem killing animals for our use, but I think we must be responsibile with that ability and power. I do not see it as murder.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

NOt only do I agree with sweetbaby, I also wish to point out that she has spelled variations of supersede correctly TWICE in this thread









sweetbaby you rule (for a republican anyway)


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Can we please respond to another with a certain amount of tolerance?

I am not looking for everyone to break out in cheery show tunes in manner of Rogers and Hammerstein but let's all try and stay cool.

It is tough, this is never an easy subject to stay calm about.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy*
I am not looking for everyone to break out in cheery show tunes in manner of Rogers and Hammerstein but let's all try and stay cool.









:

If someone does decide to break out in show tunes, can you at least tape it and send it my way? I could use some entertainment over here!


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I think this is the right thread to express what I believe should be done in this situation.
I think that an abortion would be the best thing to do for this child. I can't fathom why her having the baby could be the right thing for HER. She is only nine and has recently lived thru being raped. Her body and soul have gone thru enough. She should NOT have to sacrifice what is left of her childhood to have a baby she had no say in conceiving. I belief it would be easier for her to get over having an abortion than having a child and becoming a mother at the age of 9. Just because she probably won't die from carrying the pregnancy to term doesn't mean it will not damage her body greatly. Nine year old girls are not meant to be pregnant and absolutely aren't meant to be mothers.
I don't think of this as a moral or religious thing but about what will make this child suffer less. Which I believe is the moral and right thing to do. Her life is more important than the embryo she is carrying. Her well being and her ability to heal is more important than an embryo. This child's health is more important than an embryo.
I have read the post on here explaining why some believe an abortion is wrong no matter what and I am trying to understand that view. But I just don't get it especially in the case of this 9 year old child. I do not understand how anyone could think an embryo is as important as this child's life , health and her suffering .


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

I had a whole reply typed out and my electricity went off...
CO I applaud the man and his strong principles. As you know, I'm sure, the halachos (laws) of rodef could be studied extensively, like all halacha. I remember in elementary school discussing all the different scenarios "if they say they will kill the whole town if you don't hand over a certain person to be killed do you hand over? If they don't name a person? if they say kill him or I kill you, if they say we will kill him or you kill him.... Not that I remember the answers of course.








I love torah, the learning never ends









Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
I didn't say, or mean that you dont have morals, just not universalist morals.

Never heard of universalist morals.

Quote:

Like, that something is ALWAYS wrong.
What do you believe is ALWAYS wrong? Killing? but killing is not ok EXCEPT in cases of "direct" self defense- how does that differ from the other kind?
In my mind if there is an except it isn't ALWAYS.

Quote:

The bible says that we may kill in self defense.
ok, where? Does it say "self defense" or "direct self defense" again, what is the difference?
Why not just no killing, period? Isn't any killing breaking the moral laws?

Quote:

I do not see killing a fetus whose existence threatens the mother as self defense.
I realize that, but why?

Quote:

But I see abortion of that fetus as a murder, but allowing myself (if I were the mother in question) to die not as a murder. In that case, God has decided that I will die, and I won't commit murder just to stop him. KWIM?
If a fetus is a person then your sentence could also read "if someone is choking me to death and I can stab them with my letter opener I won't, that would be murder. I won't murder the person just to stop him, G-d has decided I will die.
Why is a fetus killing you different?
What if the person is only beating you to a pulp but has stated they will not kill you. Do you trust him and let him beat you not defendig yourself? What if the person only wants to blind you, or cut off your legs? Would you not defend yourself at the risk of harming the person?

Does your religion have no requirement for self preservation?


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Simonee :LOL I have to admit, i used spellcheck to check my spelling, and amazingly, i spelled it right!


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

My religion sees a difference between killing and murder. Murder being wrong, and killing being okay if done in self defense (and some would argue for the death penalty, as well).
I do not see this case as self defense, because her child is not trying to kill her. It is not an active thing- it is just harming her by the fact of its existence. I see a difference. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on that?

When I say universal morals, I mean thinking that the morality of something, an act, is not dependent on the situation or the emotional effects of the act. For example, I do not think stealing is okay if the money stolen was stolen for medicine for a sick person, though it's pretty understandable and justifiable, IMO. I think certain things are just wrong and just right, and it doesn't matter how they impact people. I still think we should do everything we can to lessen people's (like that little girl) pain and keep her healthy and safe.

There's no "except." MUrder is always wrong, and I see this as murder.

I think your analogy is totally different. A fetus does not try to hurt you. It does not have ill will towards you, and does not want you to die. It bears no guilt.

Its much more like Siamese twins. If you know your twin will kill you by its very existence, if you do not kill him, I would not think it moral to stab the twin in hopes that they could separate you and save you.

Of course I think there should be self-preservation. Just not when doing so would require the murder of an innocent. (i use the term murder to differentiate from killing, as I think they are morally different acts, not to be inflammatory).


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

Sarah, I'm not looking to agree or disagree. I am looking to understand. You don't want to explain, ok, your not under any obligation.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

Seriously, what am I not explaining?


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

Either way, whatever happens, the whole situation sucks and there's no good way out, for anyone. I think we can all agree on that. ALso, as much as I hate abortion and would mourn this girls baby, if these types of situations were the only abortions, I think I'd be able to sleep better at night.


----------



## Summertime Mommy (Dec 5, 2003)

Quote:

I don't think the child is more important. I think they are EQUALLY important. I don't feel that the desire of the mother has any impact. Doesn't mean it's not tragic and terrible, or that I don't hate it and wish that abortion were an okay solution. Killing one person to save another makes no sense, IMO. And I don't think I should make the choice, who lives and who dies. Letting the situation be and seeing what happens is what I feel is right. Just MO
So, if it was your 9 yr old daughter who had been raped, you would rather her risk dying than just abort the baby? I understand it isn't the baby's fault, but it isn't the child's fault either. I am extremely pro life, but if it was my 9 yr old daughter, there would be no question to me that her life would come first. I keep hearing that "God says it is wrong," but you know (general you) I think if it was my child I would risk eternal damnation to save them.


----------



## lab (Jun 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetbaby3*
As far as the pregnant 9 yr old, if she were mine, i would have her terminate the pregnancy. To me, her life, her health, is paramount and supersedes the embryo.


You got that right!


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)




----------



## flminivanmama (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
Killing one person to save another makes no sense, IMO.

well herin lies the issue. I do not consider a fetus a person. I do however consider a 9 year old girl a person.

My beliefs are the same as Beloved Bird's.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

"if it was your 9 yr old daughter who had been raped, you would rather her risk dying than just abort the baby? "

I hope I would. I might not have the strength to do such a hard thing, I can only hope I would.

"I understand it isn't the baby's fault, but it isn't the child's fault either. I am extremely pro life, but if it was my 9 yr old daughter, there would be no question to me that her life would come first"

Of course it's no one's fault but tha rapist. Completely. But fault has nothing to do with it. Just because a situation isn't your fault doesn't mean you don't have to deal with it.

I don't understand people who are pro-life until it seems too hard.


----------



## flminivanmama (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
"if it was your 9 yr old daughter who had been raped, you would rather her risk dying than just abort the baby? "

I hope I would.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
I don't understand people who are pro-life until it seems too hard.

I have to say that I don't understand how choosing the life of a fetus over the life of a child that is capable of independent life is truly pro-life at all. You're still making the choice to end one so that another can live. And in this scenario, you're choosing the life of one that might not survive anyway (because, let's face it, babies don't always live through the gestation and birth process).


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

"You're still making the choice to end one..."

And again, I am not saying the fetus is more important than my kid, I am saying they are equal, so I cannot kill one.

Well I don't see it as ending anyone's life- I am allowing God to do what he likes.

Thank you for being somewhat respectful of my views.


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
My religion sees a difference between killing and murder. Murder being wrong, and killing being okay if done in self defense (and some would argue for the death penalty, as well).
I do not see this case as self defense, because her child is not trying to kill her. It is not an active thing- it is just harming her by the fact of its existence. I see a difference. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on that?

When I say universal morals, I mean thinking that the morality of something, an act, is not dependent on the situation or the emotional effects of the act. For example, I do not think stealing is okay if the money stolen was stolen for medicine for a sick person, though it's pretty understandable and justifiable, IMO. I think certain things are just wrong and just right, and it doesn't matter how they impact people. I still think we should do everything we can to lessen people's (like that little girl) pain and keep her healthy and safe.

There's no "except." MUrder is always wrong, and I see this as murder.

I think your analogy is totally different. *A fetus does not try to hurt you. It does not have ill will towards you, and does not want you to die. It bears no guilt.*

Its much more like Siamese twins. If you know your twin will kill you by its very existence, if you do not kill him, I would not think it moral to stab the twin in hopes that they could separate you and save you.

Of course I think there should be self-preservation. Just not when doing so would require the murder of an innocent. (i use the term murder to differentiate from killing, as I think they are morally different acts, not to be inflammatory).

THIS is why you should always quote what you are relpying to. You changed that post 2 minutes after my reply to you!

In response to the bolded sentence:
Self defense has nothing to do with the motives of the would be killer in my _moral law_ (ie: beliefs) If someone was mentally challenged or temorarily insane (or permanantly) and they were trying to kill me or someone else and the only way I could see- at the time- to defend myself was to kill them then I would be (in my moral belief system) TOTALLY justified in killing the person. Even if they thought they were showing affection by "hugging" my neck really tight. Intentions have nothing to do with it. The reality is I die or they die. My MORAL obligation, according to the law, is to preserve MY life. And in the case of siamese twins where one is killing the other (unintentionally)- yes, you kill the rodef. Not by stabbing, of course, but by seperation.

And what you did not answer was my request for your sources, the WORDS that you believe tell you what you are saying G-d says.

Again, this has nothing to do with anything "seeming to hard" or being beyond our comprehension this is the moral law as I understand it, according to the sources that I and other jews learn.


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

You said this:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
Killing is not okay. No matter what the situation (except direct self defense).

To which I responded:

Quote:

What religion or system do you use? As I said above... Are you vegan? How do you define "direct self defense" (situational examples please). Where is it written that G-d says all killing is *no* ok? Why is "direct self defense" ok if G-d says that all killing is wrong? What words did G-d use to differentiate between plain self defense and "direct" s.d.

Then you said (in response tou your morals thing)

Quote:

....something is ALWAYS wrong.
So I asked

Quote:

What do you believe is ALWAYS wrong? Killing? but killing is not ok EXCEPT in cases of "direct" self defense- how does that differ from the other kind?
In my mind if there is an except it isn't ALWAYS.
Then you said

Quote:

There's no "except."
PLEASE read your 2nd post on this thread (post #13) which I quoted above, where YOU said there was an except - "except direct self defense".


----------



## Summertime Mommy (Dec 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*

Of course it's no one's fault but tha rapist. Completely. But fault has nothing to do with it. Just because a situation isn't your fault doesn't mean you don't have to deal with it.

Why sentance your child to possible death for something she did not bring on herself? She should not have to "deal with it" if it means riskinbg her life, she is 9 years old. If she was 14, I would say have the baby and give it up for adoption, but this child in 9, her bosy is not capable of having a baby.

Quote:

I don't understand people who are pro-life until it seems too hard.
I think it is not that things "seem to hard" it is that sometimes you have to choose which life is more important. In this case, I think it is the 9 yr old's life.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

You're right, BB. I should have said that murder is always wrong. Killing is not always wrong and self-defense is not murder, IMO.

I completely understand your position, and I think it makes sense. I used to be fervently pro-choice and I get it, really.

This isn't about Judaism. I don't think that Judaism lacks moral law or ethical teachings. I think your morals are perfectly valid. I just don't agree on this one point.

Obviously the Bible does not talk about this situation specifically. But it does say that one cannot take a life of an innocent, and I believe the fetus in this case to be innocent. The only time the Bible allows killing is in self defense or capital punishment (debatable, another thread). Using my own logic and my own morals, which are gleaned on the whole from the Bible, I believe that killing an innocent fetus, who has a chance at life, is not self-defense. I just don't agree. I understand that you feel it is, and you are perfectly entitled to that belief. I'm not sure how else you think I shold justify this belief.

Quote:

Again, this has nothing to do with anything "seeming to hard" or being beyond our comprehension this is the moral law as I understand it, according to the sources that I and other jews learn.
Again, I don't know what this has to do with Judaism. I know many pro-life Jews as well as plenty of pro-choice Jews as well. I feel like you think I am attacking Judaism's laws or morals, and I am not. I am simply stating that many women I have met (IRL) will go on and on about abortion being murder. They will talk about how women shouldn't have abortions because it is killing a child. And then when a tough call comes, like this one, or like myraid other situations (because abortion is rarely an easy or palatable decision) they suddenly feel that it's okay. I think that's hypocrisy.

*when I say Bible I mean the Christian bible, of the NT and OT. Just to clarify, because Bible means different things to different people.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

I don't think you all are reading anymore, are you?

"Why sentance your child to possible death for something she did not bring on herself? She should not have to "deal with it" if it means riskinbg her life, she is 9 years old. If she was 14, I would say have the baby and give it up for adoption, but this child in 9, her bosy is not capable of having a baby. "?

As I said in my very last post, I do not believe I am sentencing anyone to anything. If my daughter died, I would want him tried for murder, as his act killed her, not mine. And no, you are completely right, she should not have to deal with, but she does. I did not make that decision (to rape her) and I would stop it if I could.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

Thanks BB and Sarah for your lucid and articulate posts. It's been interesting to read this discussion.


----------



## Summertime Mommy (Dec 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
I don't think you all are reading anymore, are you?

I am sorry, but I don't feel this statement is necessary. I guess t hat I just don't understand your POV.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
As I said in my very last post, I do not believe I am sentencing anyone to anything. If my daughter died, I would want him tried for murder, as his act killed her, not mine.

I guess this is where our opinions are so different. IMO, if the girl died, I would think it was because of the baby. Yes, the rapist committed an awful crime against her, but he did not murder her. Carrying the baby to term is what could kill her.

I am stepping out of this thread for now, my emotions are getting too high.


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

This isn't about Judaism.....Again, I don't know what this has to do with Judaism.
I think you've mentioned judaism more in this thread than I have







and to point out that that is not what this thread is "about". This thread (speaking as the OP of it) is about ME trying to understand a view that I do not presently understand, because it is so different from MY beliefs system. I mention basics of MY belief system to lend perspective to you,and whever else wants to answer my questions and attempt to explain their view to me. I don't think you are attacking anything. But, your repeated statements that this is some random cutoff in the system of morals or in personal belief ("They will talk about how women shouldn't have abortions because it is killing a child. And then when a tough call comes, like this one .....they suddenly feel that it's okay. I think that's hypocrisy.") is puzzling and the reason I have brought up my beliefs, specifically. There is no hypocricy. I have never seen or heard anyone say, ecspecialy on this thread. "Well, yeah abortion is wrong, but this situation is too hard, its too complicated, so yeah, let her have one." No, I and other people who have a highly developed codified moral system that DOES address complicated issues (the only two I know of are Islam and Judaism and judaism is the one I know inside) are not hypocrits they see all the possibilities and all the laws and come out with a different answer for each situation. The basic principles (in the jewish system, what my beliefs coinside (sp?) with) are as I stated- life is sacred, a fetus is a potential life, therefore has sacredness and there is a requirement for one to guard there life, which may mean killing something or someone that could end their life (the principle of rodef). And yes, to me my religion is part of EVERYTHING in my life.

I still have not seen sources from you as to where G-d says what you are claiming is written.

Quote:

But it does say that one cannot take a life of an innocent
You keep stating that "it says" and when I ask, what? where?, I am ignored.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

"No, I and other people who have a highly developed codified moral system that DOES address complicated issues (the only two I know of are Islam and Judaism and judaism is the one I know inside) are not hypocrits"

No, I'm not saying anyone who agrees with you, or you yourself are a hypocrite, I am saying that many people I have known IRL are hypocrites, IMO, because 99% of the time they march in front of abortion clinics, fight against Roe vWade, etc, and they believe (or say they do) that abortion is cold blooded murder. But when it is their DD or a tough decision, they waiver. What I mean is that I am not refering to anyone specifically, like Jews who share your belief, or to any religion, just to those who CLAIM to be completely and totally pro-life, and then start making exceptions. Is that clearer?

Obviously, I understand that coming from your belief system, a fetus is a potential life, not a child, so I understand why my position is so abhorrent.

I believe murder is wrong because of Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not murder." Murder is taking the life of someone who does not deserve death.

The only reason I keep saying this is not about Judaism is that I feel as though you keep saying that I have disrespected your faith or said that your religion lacks morals, neither of which is true.

I am, however, insulted by this comment, "...who have a highly developed codified moral system that DOES address complicated issues (the only two I know of are Islam and Judaism..." Judaism and Islam do have those things, as does Christianity. Just because I believe that this one situation is one in which abortion is wrong does not mean that Christianity does not have a "highly developed codified moral system" which addresses complicated issues.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

Oh, BelovedBird, when you ask me for quotations, do you mean a quotation for the idea that murder is wrong, or the idea that self-defense is okay, or that abortion of a fetus cannot be self-defense? Just figuring out what to quote.


----------



## sntm (Jan 1, 2004)

Just for the record, what Missin NYC is calling "universalist morality" is also known as Kantian ethics. If I remember from philosophy, Kant argued that the only true ethics involved universal principles from which one can never morally diverge. Basically, he argued against the common practice of saying "X is immoral, except when it isn't."









One thing I find interesting here relating to the discussion of the 9 year old (actually several things I find interesting) are 1) we are supposing that her risk of death is high, when that is not definitely so, 2) we are supposing that an abortion would be less traumatic to her than a pregnancy, when that is not definitely so, 3) when arguing that intent to harm is not relevant to the decision to act in self-defense, do we not usually require that threat to be immediate rather than merely potential sometime in the future? For example, I don't think many religions or ethical codes would condone my shooting a registered sex offender that moves on to my street because he might molest my child (though I can certainly see the motivation to want to, as it would raise my mother bear hackles faster than you can say Smith&Wesson!)

Intent is a tricky issue.


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

Miss- What is the name of the book (or books) in which Christianity's moral system is codified?


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
Oh, BelovedBird, when you ask me for quotations, do you mean a quotation for the idea that murder is wrong, or the idea that self-defense is okay, or that abortion of a fetus cannot be self-defense? Just figuring out what to quote.









All of it would be nice.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

BB- the book is the Bible.









Just kidding, kind of. I am confused when you say our moral system is less complex than yours, as (from what I understand, which of course may be wrong) Judaism seems to have a lot of commentary and writings which spell out specific situations and what you should and should not do, etc. In Christianity, we are given some basic rules but we generally have to use the ethical teachings of Jesus and other NT writers to figure it out ourselves. I see ours (perhaps, there's no point in figuring out who is more complex or why) as maybe more complex, because we have to pray and figure it all out ourselves, and Judaism has explicit laws for many specific situations (but probably still requires prayer and understanding and interpretation to some extent).


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

"Yes, the rapist committed an awful crime against her, but he did not murder her. Carrying the baby to term is what could kill her."

If carrying the baby to term did kill her (which it may not, but if it does) then he is the one who killed her because he got her pregnant.


----------

