arndt@squirt.DEC (02/06/86)
Bob Brown (hi Bob) equated the Holocaust with the current putting to
death of the life in the womb. With particular note of that life carried
by Jewish women as a point of contact between the two events. Mr. Reed
then posted a slander against Jews by way of his silly attempt to express
an objection. That is, his reply - if taken as a Jewish person's response -
makes Jews look stupid. And, with the possible exception of Rich Rosen, the
Jews I know (of) are anything but. By the way, a young Jewish woman friend
of mine is trying to convince me I may be Jewish!! Aside from my beautiful
nose, unmarked except for a scar and a bump (but that's another war story),
my uncertain past may have Jewish roots. Ahhh, a child of Abraham in fact
as well as in spirit.
Reed says:
As a son of survivors, Mr. Brown, I find your attempt to trivialize the
Holocaust, in which my older brother, all my grandparents and
great-grandparents, and too many other relatives to count, were murdered
by militant bigots, offensive and uncalled for. I am disgusted by your
practice of posting your bigotry to net.religion.jewish.
**** Wellllll, how could Mr. Reed have missed the point of
Bob Brown and those who are Pro-Life that abortion is NOT TRIVIAL!!! That
WAS Bob's point! If you don't accept that abortion is the taking of human
life than making the above comparison IS trivial. Bob's point is EXACTLY
the opposite. Mr. Reed's comment assumes Bob Brown thinks abortion is not
the taking of human life and therefore Bob is "attempt(ing) to trivialize
the Holocaust". It is indeed sad that he lost loved ones (we'll stand
shoulder to shoulder and shoot the bastards down next time, eh Alan? You
DO have your gun ready, don't you?) but this has NOTHING to do with the
statements made. Mr. Reed would better employ his time addressing the
issue of what Bob Brown REALLY said rather than to assume 'everyone' knows
abortion is trivial and therefore Bob is insulting the memory of the
Holocaust.
As for posting to Net.rel.Jewish, well, I am disgusted
by Mr. Reed's nonsense anywhere!
And a good many more people than Bob Brown (and I) have
made just that point of comparison between the events. When human life
is 'made', by fiat or philosophy, non-human then the moral course is open
to do what you will (or can) with that life that is now less than 'human'.
Just so those killed in the Holocaust - they were not fully 'human'. The
killers did not see themselves as murderers or bad people, rather they
did what they did IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY (as they defined it). Are what
were formerly considered people a problem?? (Jews, insane, old mom, infirm,
brain damaged - to the level of a lack of 'quality of life' of course -
homosexuals, Republicans, Supply Siders, NRA members, etc., etc.) Wellll,
wait a minute. Here's a medical ethics professor, churchman, politician,
etc. who says they're really not 'fully human'. Into the hopper with them!
Mr. Reed says:
For your information, the Holocaust has to do with the murder of a living
Jewish *soul or mind (nefesh)*. In the Jewish tradition, a newborn is
not considered a nefesh until he or she has lived the prescribed number
of days on earth. As Jews, we do not mourn fully for a spent sperm, an
unfertilized egg, an embryo, or even a newborn who has not lived long
enough to acquire a mind.
**** Ahhhhhh, which tradition Adam? What is the exact
number of days according to which reb, eh? What I mean is that 'Jewish
Tradition', like Catholic Dogma, is not as clear as you would lead us to
believe. Not only do 'Jewish Traditions' disagree over what constitutes
a threat to the mother's life (see below) but over when a man becomes a
living soul. Worthy of protection. You simply do not know what you are
talking about. Besides, medical science is making even more untenable the
position that the fetus is just a 'blob of cells' during the time most
abortions are performed. They're not laughing at President Reagan's
statement about the fetus feeling pain any longer. And they're finding
out the fetus is a lot more complex and advanced than held to be the case
at the time of Roe vs. Wade. It becomes clearer and clearer that there
are only wanted and unwanted children - just like Jews. The 'final solution'
is the same in both cases. And the moral grounds to resist such facile
reasoning is the same in both cases. Bob Brown's point.
And of course those little babies thrown into the fires,
buried alive with their parents, etc. were not really 'murdered', right Adam??
I mean 'Jewish Tradition' says they weren't, eh? Those who had not passed the
'magic' number of days required by 'Jewish Tradition' I mean. Hmmmm, what about
those who only had a few hours to go, or minutes? Let's ask the Rabbi. "When
does God (?) throw the switch and presto! the non-human becomes a human." Silly
enough for you yet??
Mr. Reed says:
If a Jewish woman's life is endangered by a pregnancy, she has not
merely a right but a positive religious obligation to undergo an
abortion. Rabbinical interpretations of what constitutes relevant
danger to a woman's life differ in different Jewish traditions, so the
woman should ask her own Rabbi for his judgement about the specific
case. However, the suggestion that a non-Jewish political majority
should determine under what conditions a Jewish woman can (or cannot)
fulfill her obligations is pure bigotry. Please keep it out of
net.religion.jewish.
Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)
****** Silly in the extreme and again an attack against Jews
as thinking people. Ever heard of one person giving his life for another???
Where is the "positive religious obligation to undergo an abortion"????? Again,
you assume Bob Brown thinks abortion is like having a infected leg. So that
it is like an obligation to have the leg off to survive.
Better you had tried to convince Mr. Brown that abortion
is cosmetic surgery than to assume he agreed with you and was just being
naughty.
As for your claiming that "a non-Jewish political
majority should (not) determine under what conditions a Jewish woman can
or cannot fulfill her obligations", well, ever heard of SOCIETY Adam? No
religious group has TOTAL religious freedom in a pluralistic society. Where
the religious beliefs touch upon the prevailing moral beliefs in a contrary
fashion (ritural child murder, stealing, etc.) then the society DOES step in
and say no with laws, etc. It is up to the beleiver to bow or continue and
accept the consequences.
So I claim you Mr. Reed are an anti-semtic bigot! But
your points are too silly to be successful. Your attack on Jews has failed.
Keep chargin'
Ken Arndtrak1@magic.UUCP (Billy the Kid) (02/08/86)
KEN ARNDT writes > Bob Brown (hi Bob) equated the Holocaust with the current putting to > death of the life in the womb. With particular note of that life carried AND a lot of other drivel. Sound the guard! Man the defenses! Fortify the city! Every man take his spear! DON BLACK is back! As KEN ARNDT! Ken, we know who you are! Where is your alter ego? No cheers this time. Billy the Kid -- "I like a good, honest fight." -Billy the Kid
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (02/13/86)
-- > Bob Brown (hi Bob) equated the Holocaust with the current putting to > death of the life in the womb... > Reed says: > > As a son of survivors, Mr. Brown, I find your attempt to trivialize the > Holocaust, in which my older brother, all my grandparents and > great-grandparents, and too many other relatives to count, were murdered > by militant bigots, offensive and uncalled for. I am disgusted by your > practice of posting your bigotry to net.religion.jewish. > > **** Wellllll, how could Mr. Reed have missed the point of > Bob Brown and those who are Pro-Life that abortion is NOT TRIVIAL!!! ... > So I claim you Mr. Reed are an anti-semtic bigot! But > your points are too silly to be successful. Your attack on Jews has failed. > > Ken Arndt I guess that makes me an anti-semitic bigot, too, Ken. God, I admire your chutzpah. As you know, Ken, the whole debate revolves not around whether the fetus is human (what the hell else could it be?), but whether it is a person. What, indeed, is a person? I submit that people can have honest albeit heated disagreement over the definition of "person". Mr. Reed was alluding to Jewish writings on just that subject. And not all persons have a "right" to life anyway. The best you can state, Ken, is that a fetus may have some *claim* to life, just as Princess Margaret has some *claim* to the English throne. Claims are not rights, and are not absolute. Someone else may have a better one, and these circumstances change. But you don't really care, Ken. All you want to do is proselytize for your close-minded dogma which may not be questioned. It is not in the Jewish tradition to behave this way. Thus, your obnoxious though exuberant dreck does not belong in net.religion.jewish. You clearly don't have the saychel to leave; I hope you at least have the manners. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 12 Feb 86 [24 Pluviose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (02/15/86)
-- > Bob Brown (hi Bob) equated the Holocaust with the current putting to > death of the life in the womb... > Reed says: > > As a son of survivors, Mr. Brown, I find your attempt to trivialize the > Holocaust, in which my older brother, all my grandparents and > great-grandparents, and too many other relatives to count, were murdered > by militant bigots, offensive and uncalled for. I am disgusted by your > practice of posting your bigotry to net.religion.jewish. > > **** Wellllll, how could Mr. Reed have missed the point of > Bob Brown and those who are Pro-Life that abortion is NOT TRIVIAL!!! ... > So I claim you Mr. Reed are an anti-semtic bigot! But > your points are too silly to be successful. Your attack on Jews has failed. > > Ken Arndt I guess that makes me an anti-semitic bigot, too, Ken. God, I admire your chutzpah. As you know, Ken, the whole debate revolves not around whether the fetus is human (what the hell else could it be?), but whether it is a person. What, indeed, is a person? I submit that people can have honest albeit heated disagreement over the definition of "person". Mr. Reed was alluding to Jewish writings on just that subject. And not all persons have a "right" to life anyway. The best you can state, Ken, is that a fetus may have some *claim* to life, just as Princess Margaret has some *claim* to the English throne. Claims are not rights, and are not absolute. Someone else may have a better one, and these circumstances change. But you don't really care, Ken. All you want to do is proselytize for your close-minded dogma which may not be questioned. It is not in the Jewish tradition to behave this way. Thus, your obnoxious though exuberant dreck does not belong in net.religion.jewish. You clearly don't have the saychel to leave; I hope you at least have the manners. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 14 Feb 86 [26 Pluviose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***