Which One?

I know that this post might generate some comments (maybe as many as yesterday’s, maybe not), and I might take some heat for it, but I have been thinking more and more about the reasons why people want to prohibit abortions based off of Biblical principles or Christian values.  I am not trying to start a Holy War here, or put one religion above another.  Not the “why” from their perspective, but the “why” as in “why Christian-based?”  Why should our country, with its 1st Amendment commitment of both freedom of and freedom from religion, adopt Christian laws?  Why shouldn’t we adopt laws from another religion, such as Judaism.

Why did I pick Judaism?  Why not?  My picking Judaism is no more arbitrary than saying we should have Christian-based laws in our country.  But there is more to my picking Judaism, and that is that it has specific references to when life begins.

There are a number of people who believe that life begins at conception, and I appreciate and respect that view.  In Judaism, however, life begins at birth, or when the first breath is taken, more specifically when the “greater part” of the child emerges during the birthing process (it is generally accepted that the head is the “greater part”).  With that established, if our country adopted that position regarding abortion, there could hypothetically be an abortion performed minutes before birth.**

What does Judaism say about abortion?  Apparently, Jewish law not only permits abortions, but sometimes requires it (in the case of mother’s health) (source).  Judaism recognizes a “potential human life” that is not to be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value of  life already in existence (same source).

I find it interesting that people want to establish laws in our country based on one religion over another.  That, to me, is a striking example of religious discrimination.  Just like it would not be right to force our entire population to follow Jewish law or Muslim laws, nor is it right to force everyone to follow Christian laws.

**A quick note about something that was raised in a comment yesterday regarding a post-birth abortion.  Before it was brought up in a comment, I will admit to having never heard that term before.  So I did some research.  I think it is unfair to paint someone who is pro-choice as someone who also supports post-birth abortions.  It is exactly what you imagine it would be if you just take the three words at their accepted definitions.  I do not know anybody that would support such a procedure.  I certainly do not.

Yesterday’s post generated a spirited debate between myself and a friend of mine.  I respect his comments and his views and appreciate that he chose to share them with me and with other readers.  I encourage you, as a reader, to check out what he commented, and also check out what he has written on this topic by clicking here.  I think that, no matter what your position is on this topic, you will benefit from reading what he has written and continues to write.  I encourage you to form your own opinion on this topic.  If you read his posts on this topic and agree, great; if you disagree, great; if you choose to comment on his site, please be respectful of him and of other commenters.

I will close with the final comment I made on yesterday’s post, “I don’t like abortions, but I am not going to tell anybody they cannot have one.”


6 Responses to Which One?

  1. ryan85 says:

    Tommy, The President of the United States and the First Lady support Partial-Birth Abortion. Mr. President voted for it four different times. Mrs. First Lady wrote a letter to supporters in defense of it, http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/23/letter-shows-michelle-obama-backing-partial-birth-abortion/ . Mr. Obama even supports killing a child who was supposed to die in an abortion but survived. He thinks, after the baby has been delivered the child should then be killed. http://townhall.com/columnists/amandacarpenter/2008/10/14/obamas_infanticide_lie/page/full/ If someone does not believe a child has rights and it’s purely up to the mother then they cannot take issue with a partial birth abortion.

  2. TommyK says:

    Not so, according to Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/) and snopes.com, almost to the bottom of the page (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/blackwell.asp), and even thinkprogress.org (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/27/747511/gingrich-huckabee-obama-abortion/).

    Interesting that you chose a pro-life media outlet and a conservative site as your sources, instead of ones like snopes or factcheck, which are generally regarded as presenting more factual reviews of comments and stances.

    Here is what Mr. Obama actually said:
    Obama was, however, “fully in support” of a federal bill that provided the same protection viable fetuses while also including protections for Roe v Wade :

    OBAMA: I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

    His own words, “…provide assistance to any infant that was born, even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion” sort of make what you put about him inaccurate.

  3. ryan85 says:

    All three of the articles you linked state that Obama did in fact vote against partial birth abortion bans, but defend him of the issue of motivation. Perhaps his motivations were not infanticide, but he voted against the bills as I said. Mrs. Obama’s letter, which I linked to, states their position all the more clearly, that the procedure is a legitimate medical practice, etc.

    • TommyK says:

      He voted against a bill that had provisions that would have undermined Roe v. Wade, which he made clear in his own words.

      My original post brought up a post-birth abortion, which is different from a partial birth in the first place. Post-birth being a baby is delivered and then a decision is made to terminate. I said my position on that was that I do not support that, but you conveniently twisted what I wrote into something different. That’s fine. I know what I believe and stand by it. If you take issue with the President or First Lady and their position, I suggest writing them a letter. To your point about partial birth, I would categorize my position as one similar to the President’s words.

  4. ryan85 says:

    Even though the world could theoretically read these words, let me share what reading your last post did inside me. All was fine until the “you conveniently twisted my words…” part. That’s when my stomach knotted. That’s when it stopped being an exchange of ideas and turned into something else. Your statement doesn’t leave much room for explanation. I hear an accusation. I hear someone assuming they know my motivation. I think back about your accusation, from the other comment thread, that I don’t respect you or your ideas and wonder what it is you think about me. Why do you think I would twist your words? What do you assume I was trying to accomplish? Why did you think it was convenient for me, or what exactly was convenient about it? I made a mistake in recalling partial-birth abortion when you wrote post-birth abortion, which I assume is where you think the twisting came in to play. I’ve never heard the term post-birth abortion either, which is why I figured we were talking about the same thing. I know it’s out there; I’ve just never heard it called post-birth abortion, I would call it murder. I also know the bills I referenced involved a child being born and then denied medical care which I figured qualified as “post-birth.” I’m sorry for the confusion. But my misunderstanding an unfamiliar term is not quite the same as conveniently twisting your words. A big part of just wants to throw up my hands and say you win. I’m sick over this, and it’s not due to confrontation. Confrontation of ideas is good and I enjoy it, but twice now I’ve been accused of doing something unkind or even mean. However, I won’t quit having this dialogue with you, painful or not. But now I’m going to eat lunch and watch the game.

    • TommyK says:

      Ryan, I mistakenly assumed that you switched from partial to post on purpose, and I apologize. In the previous thread, on several occasions, you either referred to my view or my method for arriving at my view as “irresponsible,” and I felt that in doing so, you were disrespecting me. If that was not your intent, which knowing you it was not, it sure came across as such. I know you were not disrespecting me personally.
      To me, this has not or will not ever be about “winning” the discussion. You are right that a dialogue of conflicting ideas is a good thing, and I in no way want you to end the discussion.
      The more I thought about the part of my last comment you refer to, the more it becomes clear that it was a snarky remark, and it is not right for me to have jumped to the conclusion that I did. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: