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 Arndt
rak1@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 *** ***
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (02/14/86)
In article <1340@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >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 what is the orthodox JEWISH opinion about the "personhood" of a fetus? What is the traditional rabbinical stand on abortion? Though individual Jews may disagree on what secular laws are best, can there be any _official_ Jewish attitude, other than the Halachic writings? >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. For reasons I won't state here, I believe the analogy between the holocaust and abortion is weak. Nevertheless, I suspect that Ken's "close-minded dogma" is much closer to classic rabbinical thinking than your own "modernism." Frank Silbermann
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 *** ***
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (02/17/86)
-- > For reasons I won't state here, I believe the analogy between the > holocaust and abortion is weak. Nevertheless, I suspect that Ken's > "close-minded dogma" is much closer to classic rabbinical thinking > than your own "modernism." > > Frank Silbermann I doubt it, and refer to the discussion of nefesh that has been going on. Abortion is certainly a bad thing in the Halachic tradition, but I don't think it is ever classified as murder. And the mother's life figures prominently in the consideration (viz: it may be bad because the mother might be putting her own life in danger in some abortions). There are certainly many factors to weigh. The distinction may not be significant, though. I think the larger distinction between Arndt and Halacha is the context. If Arndt would preface his arguments with a note that behaviors he disapproves of are un-*Christian*, instead of generic monstrous evil, your point would be better taken. When I stated that Ken's behavior was inappropriate for n.r.j, it was because Jews discuss what is appropriate for Jews. We do not proselytize a morality (or worse, secular legislation) to which everybody must submit. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 16 Feb 86 [28 Pluviose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***