Why not make the 10 Commandments enforceable (and punishable) law?

I'm stealing this from:

http://www.jewishmag.co.il/84mag/othercommandments/othercommandments.htm

The Other Five Commandments:


When Moses descended from the heights of Mount Sinai, he held in his arms not two but three Tablets of the Covenant, with five commandments inscribed on each. At least that's how Mel Brooks tells it in his History of the World, Part I. "Hear me, o hear me! All pay heed!" the movie Moses proclaims. "The Lord, the Lord G-d, has given unto you these fifteen [One stone tablet drops and shatters. A perplexed Moses looks down and mutters "Oy!"]......ten, TEN commandments for all to obey!"

Of course, it never really happened that way. But what if it had? What if God had originally meant to give us fifteen commandments, and five got lost?

Indeed, have you ever wondered why there were only ten to begin with? According to the Talmud, the number of commandments and even their content corresponded to ten statements God had uttered during his creation of the world. A nice round number, to be sure, like the number of fingers and toes God later handed out in Eden. But, again, why the number ten?

Of course, we should note, the so-called "Ten" Commandments are just an abridged version of the Torah. The full count of mitzvot is 613. Reducing the commandments to ten thus constitutes an exercise in religious reductionism: a "Cliffs Notes" version of Judaism, if you would, with God playing the role of Cliff. But such reductionism has a long and distinguished rabbinic pedigree: when pressed, both Hillel and Akiva agreed that the whole of the Torah could be summed up in just one commandment: "Do not do to another human being what you yourself would find hateful." The rest, as Hillel said, is but commentary. Indeed, the history of Liberal Judaism itself exemplifies this reductionist tendency by eliminating ritual requirements so as to give greater prominence to Scripture's ethical demands.

But why a multiplicity of commandments to begin with, you might ask. Why not just one? Well, perhaps there's a virtue in specifics. If "the Devil is in the details," maybe God is in them too. Maybe as mere mortals we need the details spelled out. Maybe an ethics that lacks specifics is an ethics that won't work.

But getting back to Mel Brooks (Can we ever really avoid him?), the question remains: could there have been another five mitzvot? If ten is good, could fifteen have been better?

After all, the world has changed a lot since the days of Exodus. Perhaps God anticipated these changes and wanted to give humanity some extra help for the long road ahead. In fact, the Rabbis themselves believed there was more to God's message than was ever written down at Sinai. Our duty, they taught, is to study and interpret the written Torah in order to unfold its fullest truth, a truth that will inevitably illuminate our lives in whatever era we live.

So if we may be permitted to engage in an act of Chumashic chutzpah, what additional commandments might we propose to make the traditional set even more applicable to our times?

When our ancestors departed from Egypt, for instance, they left behind a land of many gods and idols: hence they were given commandments "one," "two," and "three" to keep them from spiritually regressing. But if we're no longer traversing the wilderness of Sinai, what new commandments might we need to guide us on our own moral journey?

In asking this, I don't mean to suggest that the first ten are no longer valid. As the auteur of The Ten Commandments (not God but Cecil B. DeMille) once aptly stated: "You cannot break the Ten Commandments; you can only break yourself against them." It is precisely their enduring human relevance that accounts for the Commandments durability down through the ages, for while our nation is no longer populated by images of pagan gods, ample opportunities for idolatry still exist. "You are what you own" declares the gospel of contemporary materialism, and the glib priests of advertising bid us bow down before its altar. In short, the Golden Calf is alive and well.

But how can you own things if you don't have money? Hence the abiding need for commandment number "four" (to remember the Sabbath) so we don't, in a compulsive pursuit of possessions and the means to obtain them, lose sight of our souls. Equally pertinent to materialism is commandment number "ten" that warns us of the danger of wanting things we cannot have, commandment number "eight" that forbids us from taking what is not ours to have, and commandment number "nine" that forbids us from lying to get what we want.

Also rampant in popular culture today are materialism's corollaries, selfishness and the quest for shallow pleasure, corollaries that can not only cheapen life but the respect for life as well. Hence commandments "five" (the need to honor one's parents), "six" (the prohibition against murder), and "seven" (the forbidding of adultery).

In summary, it seems God had us very much in mind in foreseeing the spiritual obstacles and temptations that would lie in our path.

But, to return to our original question, could He really have had more to say on the subject? Or, to put it another way, might He have wanted us to figuratively "add" to his list? After all, since the year 1789, twenty-seven amendments have been added to the U.S. Constitution, including the famous Bill of Rights, that were not originally foreseen by our nation's Founding Fathers. To be sure, they were human and God is not, but He did create us in his image, and wanted us to keep his Torah alive.
If then we are to begin a process of amendment, what commandments might we theoretically propose?

In the case of the U.S. Constitution, amendments were proposed in part to suit the evolving needs of a changing America. Perhaps that is a good place for us to start as well. Let's therefore explore the spiritual challenges of today's America, challenges that seemingly are not covered by the traditional Ten.
At least five major cultural forces can be identified that conspire to challenge our souls today: the influence of materialism, the power of technology, the impact of speed, the increase of artificiality, and the decline of historical memory.

(More)

The first of these, the influence of materialism, has already been alluded to. But why should we speak of it as something new? After all, materialism has been around for a long time, for Jews most notably in the era of the Hebrew prophets, who railed in their day against the moral obtuseness of the rich. Materialism deserves our special attention today because America's standard of living and the distribution of wealth has energized materialistic thinking as never before in history. In short, in no previous age have so many people had it so good, if by "good" we mean possessing not only the necessities of life but its luxuries as well. In fact, what most people around the globe would regard as luxuries most Americans would call simple necessities. Yet when the acquisition and use of costly objects becomes the central focus of people's existence, they become blind to those non-material things that are so desperately required if life is to have its deepest significance.

The second force that threatens our spirituality is the power of technology. Never before in history have the complexities of technology played such an intrusive role in people's private lives. Alas, when God wanted to get Moses' attention in the land of Midian, He had to resort to a low-tech burning bush instead of a pager or cell phone. Today, electronic technology has connected people as never before, but it has simultaneously robbed us of the solitude we need for peace of mind and spiritual reflection. In similar fashion, the computer has delivered an abundance of data but deluded us into thinking that information at our fingertips is as valuable as wisdom in our hearts. And so, like Biblical Esau, we have traded our spiritual birthright for a mess of instant pottage.

The third force is caused by technology. It is the impact of speed. Electronic devices operate at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. The problem physiologically and psychologically, of course, is that we do not. Yet because we must keep pace with our inventions, our culture has turned into a "hyperculture," a society pathologically addicted to speed. Ruled by a mindless surge of electrons that do not sleep, our lives are oppressed by a ceaseless urgency that demands our instantaneous response. The result is stress, stress that warps our daily existence, depriving us of patience and the time to enjoy our days under the sun. As our individual lives spin out of control, the centrifugal pull simultaneously tears at the structure of the Jewish family, fracturing the unity it once possessed.

Another product of technology is the increase of artificiality in our lives. Relying on technological surrogates, we have become less and less authentically human by substituting their presence for our own. Though we may be inclined to tell those we love "I'll be there for you," we're never really there at all, or in fact anywhere, with the wholeness of our being. Instead, we multitask and listen with half an ear, grudgingly offering only a part of our selves. Faceless avatars, we electronically interact with the avatars of others, while the TV screen amuses us with a counterfeit reality.

The fifth and last force is more subtle but no less damaging in its effects. It is the loss of historical memory, of our vital connection with a remembered past. Like the receding image in the rear-view mirror of a fast-moving car, the portrait of bygone times shrinks as our secular culture accelerates. As a consequence of rapid social change, we have lost touch with age-old traditions that could spiritually sustain us, and have become victims of "cultural amnesia," the social equivalent of Alzheimer's disease. As a result, the distant events and personalities of Jewish history fade from our minds. Mel Brooks we know; Maimonides and Micah lie forgotten, along with the guidance they could provide.

The combined effect all these forces is to erode not only our memory but our conscience. They succeed because they address not our brains but our nerve-endings, seducing us with pleasure at the price of our souls.

What moral directives, then, are there that could help us resist the combined momentum of these peculiarly modern forces? What additional "Thou shalt not"s or "Thou shalt"s could we find to lean on as Moses once leaned on his staff?
I am not presumptuous enough to play God. That role I leave to Mel Brooks. But perhaps together we can find the answers. In the light of our human predicament today, what new commandments would you propose that we add to the traditional ten to guide us to the promised land?

s2a said:

I am aware of Norma McCorvey (once employing the pseudonym of "Roe"), and familiar with her current stance regarding abortion choice. I am also aware that this fact is entirely irrelevant and moot.

I would gladly weigh the personal regrets of Ms. McCorvey against the gratitude and relief of millions of women that (having determined for their own distinctly personal reasons) a safe, medical provided, legal abortion was available as an option to a state-imposed full-term delivery of an unwanted pregnancy.

You cite "one clinic" in parentheses for what qualifying purpose? Would you have preferred the term "abortion provider" instead, or do you doubt the assertion itself?

I will not be baited by anti-abortion advocacy rhetoric akin to "'birth control' abortions". Such rash generalizations and purposed mischaracterizations are inflammatory, unhelpful, inaccurate, and profoundly stupid.

If you like, you can read my lent commentaries within the topical thread:
"Why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort?"
Both here, and here.

Coincidentally, this very thread topic addresses the concept of challenging or changing law, or amending the Constitution, to make The Ten Commandments the law(s) of the land. Would you care to comment on that?

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or miscarries] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."

An unspecified fine for "murdering" a fetus? A fine demanded by the aggrieved husband, and thusly mitigated by a court? The passage continues, and suggests that only in the case of the mother being killed (not the "unborn"), has any "murder" actually taken place - with suitable "eye for an eye" dispensational justice in kind to be enforced.

I also note the words of Jesus, who said (Luke 23:29 NIV):
"For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!'"

Click to expand...

My my... where to begin :devil: .... first of all here's a few questions of my own.... first... why did you bring the issue up to begin with? Secondly... exactly what is "state enforced pregnancy"? Did the state make her lay down unprotected and have sex?.... I'm thinking no. How is the woman who fought to change the law to be able to have an abortion changing her mind after she realized how horrible it is a moot point? Ever had one? Ever known anyone who did? Ever really sat down and discussed the aftereffects on their psyche after having one?

And since you're a guy... no matter what you may have read you have never had to worry about the issue, you will never experience pregnancy or the loss of one or exercise the "right" to abort one...

I cited that "one clinic" in parentheses because you made it seem to be a big issue to you that they ONLY have one now. Tough.

As to those "rash generalizations and purposed mischaracterizations" that you pointed out.... I personally know a woman who aborted a child because she, and I quote, "didn't like him enough to let him be a dad to one of her children". How is that rash or generalized to say women use abortion for birth control? And as for stupid.... ever had one?... Since you haven't, then I could easily say any comment you voice on the subject is ignorant. But I'm not as rude as some

I really don't want to read your commentaries, thank you... I've seen enough already.

And I have already replied to the original thread.... since you failed to notice that one.

When referring to it being murder to kill a fetus in womb I was referring to the LAW not the bible, and I'm atheist to boot, so quoting scripture at me gets you nowhere when you chose to debate the law in your reply... maybe YOU should do some reading before discussing an issue that means nothing to you as a person.

Being barren is not the same thing as killing a viable fetus... so don't go there. That is not what that quote of scripture meant anyway. And you call me stupid? *hands him a mirror* :curtsy:

Oh good Gad! Being as rabid as I am about abortion and the right to choose, I don't see how this slipped by me.

But honestly, I don't see how any of the Ten Commandments floating around have anything at all to do with the issue of abortion or the right to choose in a direct way.

One could be Jesuitical and argue one's way from a particular set of the Ten Commandments to the issue of abortion, but, gad! how wearying.

DakotaGypsy said:

But honestly, I don't see how any of the Ten Commandments floating around have anything at all to do with the issue of abortion or the right to choose in a direct way.

Click to expand...

Here is how.... Thou shalt not kill

The Ten Commandments, or some version, perhaps several versions, were offered up in the Old Testament, Exodus Chapter 20 has one version.

The Book of Exodus goes on to expound on the child in the womb:

Exodus 21:22-23:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow; he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.

Click to expand...

In other words, if the woman dies, a murder has occurred and a more severe penalty exacted, a life for a life.

However, in the case of an unfaithful woman, abortion is demanded:

Numbers 5:12-22, 24:

. . . . If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,

And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled. . . . .

And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he is jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: of if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she not be defiled:

Then shall the man bring his wife unto to the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her . . . .

And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord:

And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel: and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:

And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of the memorial in her hand, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causes the curse:

And the priest shall charge her by an oath and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to aother instead of thy husband and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thine husband:

Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of ucrsing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, and when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and they belly to swell:

And this water that causeth the curse shall go into they bowels, to make thy belly to swell and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, Amen. . . .

And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the wwater that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. . . .

Click to expand...

There's a bit more rigamorole and cursing to occur, magic rituals, etc., but the intent of all this is to have the woman become deathly sick if she has been unfaithful and abort the seed of her lover, but if she carries the seed of her husband, not having been unfaithful, her pregnancy shall continue and she shall flourish and not get sick.

Now, it happens, St. Augustine held an opposite view. He believed that a woman could have an early term abortion--before quickening, when the fetus was ensouled--if the fetus had been lawfully conceived--with her husband--but if she'd been unfaithful, she should be forced to bear the child and be ostracised, she and the child. He did not approve of abortion, but he did not consider it murder before the "quickening."

The problem with the premise is that little mess of Moses killing the Egyptian (Ex 2:12), all the "eye for an eye" thing, and Paul (or Saul's) little indescretions make the whole idea laughable.

Hello bunny1ohio,

You said:

My my... where to begin .... first of all here's a few questions of my own.... first... why did you bring the issue up to begin with?

Click to expand...

I was illustrating a point. It was you that (regrettably) made an "issue" of it.

Secondly... exactly what is "state enforced pregnancy"?

Click to expand...

Is it your assertion that I have used that specific terminology? Reference please...

Did the state make her lay down unprotected and have sex?.... I'm thinking no.

Click to expand...

It's none of the state's business (or concern) how, or under what circumstances, or with whom, a woman chooses to have any sort of sex.

Can you account/detail how many married women, responsibly practicing available contraceptive methods, encounter unintended pregnancies every year? Even "the pill" has (only) a 99% efficacy. How big a number is 1% of one million? Ten million? Should these erstwile entrothed harlots and whores, willing to lay down with their husbands be compelled to full-term pregnancy and delivery? Should married couples that skip "the rubber" for a night's passion be compelled to same? Why? Who are you to dictate their available (and legally protected) choices? Will you share/bear the burden of another unwanted/unintended person in the world? Is full-term delivery (under penalty of prosecution and subsequent conviction confinement) the proper and only course of available "punishment" for such impromptu lasciviousness? Does the "punishment" really fit the "crime"? Is conceptual (yes, simile intended) sex to be relegated as a "crime of passion"? Is that justice, or is that stupid?

{I'll grant to anyone that seeks some validating concession, that unprotected sex is itself at best unwise; and at worst, irresponsible. But whom suffers most as a prospectively unloved, unwanted, and prospectively abused/ignored/reviled progeny of such momentary meldings of lust-laden couplings? Are aids-infected, crack addicted, dumpster babies a desirable, or just result of a night's indiscretion? In third-world nations, women cry out for available contraceptive measures within an ingrained culture of male domination and dogmatic/doctrinal/legal supremacy. In many cultures, women have neither rights nor claims to either reserved chastity or individualized personhood. Shall we consequentially condemn these women to their "cultural" destinies? Is imposed motherhood to be the impositional righteous justice upon every unintended/unwanted pregnancy? Why in the world would anyone choose to defer to your personal sense of morality/ethics in any decision that retains life-altering consequences solely for themselves? I don't care if a woman's rationale is that her one-night-stand, redneck f*ck-buddy in the back seat of his Camaro is an "unworthy" dad; or that a married mother of three children, practicing the most efficacious methods of birth-control available, inadvertently and undesirably "makes a baby" while gettin' her groove on with her hubby. In either circumstance, it's the woman that bears the burden of choice and consequential circumstance. Husband, boyfriend, or some dude of "moment's convenience" be damned. Intentional, or unintentional. There is no compelling contemporary argument you can offer that would persuade me to accept that a replicating zygote retains equal - much less superior - rights; or any cognizant choice in evaluation of consequence, over any female that is pregnant - regardless of the initial circumstances surrounding any "ill-conceived" conception.

Unless you are personally willing, able, and capable of caring, feeding, and nurturing every unwanted child borne of unintended consequences (and I mean EVERY one) - then spare me your protestations and allegations of "murder". Will you accept personal parental responsibility for any and every unloved and unwanted black crack-baby...born with aids, congenital defects, and emotional/learning difficulties? I sure hope so. There's more than a few thousand of such babies that need a good home right now. Adoption is the "grand alternative" to abortion. So where are the grand "parents"? How much easier it is to chastise and vilify, than to evince compassion and reason...

How is the woman who fought to change the law to be able to have an abortion changing her mind after she realized how horrible it is a moot point?

Click to expand...

Hunh? Am I to be befuddled by non-linear, non-sequiter, nonsensical comments?

Ever had one?

Click to expand...

Nope. Biology has seen to that.

Ever known anyone who did?

Click to expand...

Yep. Sadly, more than a few. My wife had one as the result of an imposed adolescent rape. She was battered, humiliated, and emotionally scarred by the experience. In fact, the rape ultimately rendered her biologically sterile (didn't keep me from loving and marrying her tho'). Would you care to challenge/impugn my first-hand understanding further? I have loads of anecdotal testimony to share. I'll wager that you do not...

Ever really sat down and discussed the aftereffects on their psyche after having one?

Click to expand...

Yes. Hours upon hours. Day after day. Have you? No doubt your erudition and understanding iin the matter is rooted in voluminous personal experience of your own.

And since you're a guy... no matter what you may have read you have never had to worry about the issue, you will never experience pregnancy or the loss of one or exercise the "right" to abort one...

Click to expand...

I will forgive your abject ignorance in lending faulty assumption and spurious allegation. But I caution you not to test my patience, or my charity in this regard. I do not tolerate fools gladly, nor for extended periods of time.

I cited that "one clinic" in parentheses because you made it seem to be a big issue to you that they ONLY have one now. Tough.

Click to expand...

It was an illustration of fact presented in support of an argument. You may want to consider employing facts in defense of your own proffered rationales and opinions. You find that provided facts are tough? My counsel is that you chew harder.

As to those "rash generalizations and purposed mischaracterizations" that you pointed out.... I personally know a woman who aborted a child because she, and I quote, "didn't like him enough to let him be a dad to one of her children". How is that rash or generalized to say women use abortion for birth control?

Click to expand...

Because anecdotal evidence and accountings are neither compelling nor persuasive...and present purely emotional, not empirical evidence. To employ anecdotal testimonies in substantiation of broad and sweeping conclusions is to engage in both "rash generalizations and purposed mischaracterizations". You most generously and succinctly illustrate such a point. Thank you.

And as for stupid.... ever had one?... Since you haven't, then I could easily say any comment you voice on the subject is ignorant. But I'm not as rude as some...

Click to expand...

Nor as erudite or circumspect, I would surmise. If you care to re-evaluate my commentary, you'll note that I said, verbatim:
"I will not be baited by anti-abortion advocacy rhetoric akin to "'birth control' abortions". Such rash generalizations and purposed mischaracterizations are inflammatory, unhelpful, inaccurate, and profoundly stupid."

To be deemed ignorant, one must be considered uninformed. There are a great many things in/of which it might be fairly observed that I am indeed ignorant. Abortion is not one of those things. Pure stupidity is evinced in denying/avoiding/evading salient points and facts as presented, and then choosing to misrepresent/obfuscate/mischaracterize said substantiations with fallacious rationale and deflection.

Even "smart" people can resort to such disingenuous tactics to further their agendas. I retain the right to withhold my estimations of your capacities in this regard.

I really don't want to read your commentaries, thank you... I've seen enough already.

Click to expand...

Unfortunate. I have extended you the courtesy of ingesting and replying to your every directed (to me) commentary within this thread. I retain no expectation of any "quid pro quo", but it might have aided you in gaining some useful (and more insightful) perspective, had you actually bothered to expend the minimal effort in actually reading and reflecting upon my previously lent commentaries. Like I tell my tailor, "Suit yourself. But in so doing, if you find the suit ill-fitting, you have no one to blame but yourself."

And I have already replied to the original thread.... since you failed to notice that one.

Click to expand...

No, I noticed your initial contribution here.

I simply considered it...unremarkable.

When referring to it being murder to kill a fetus in womb I was referring to the LAW not the bible, and I'm atheist to boot, so quoting scripture at me gets you nowhere when you chose to debate the law in your reply... maybe YOU should do some reading before discussing an issue that means nothing to you as a person.

Click to expand...

As you might say...wow.

That there's a hunk of inflammatory and useless rhetoric.

Tell me, o' layperson of legal expertise and understanding...which States (specifically) consider (either as unintended or manifested) fetal death as murder under any, every, and all circumstances? Are any of these legal precedents a matter of jurisprudent federal LAW (applied equally in all 50 States)? If you care to challenge my understanding of legal issues, I once more invite you to participate and contribute your considerable expertise within an appropriate topical thread, or at least within the one I previously referenced and suggested.

Pssst. I case you haven't noticed, I'm an atheist too. But neither your, nor my own, self-professed status' or assignations as "unbeliever", has any bearing on the merits of our own arguments. In matters of reason, religious affiliation is immaterial. If I wrongly perceived you as some religious zealot, then my bad. Unwavering loyalty to entrenched opinion just seems to correrlate to similar manifestations/examples of faith-based zealotry.

Being barren is not the same thing as killing a viable fetus... so don't go there. That is not what that quote of scripture meant anyway.

Click to expand...

I await your elaboration/clarification/elucidation of just what (exactly) the previously proffered contentious Scripture "really means".

And you call me stupid? *hands him a mirror*

Click to expand...

Nice try. I claim no perspicacious knowledge nor intimately informed insight as to the heights or depths of your intellect, nor any specified measure of your capacities in presentation of ideas and opinions. I am only left to treat with what you offer and say, within this most diverse forum of eclectic personalities and perspectives.

Within the mirror you pass along, I can reflect upon a most familiar visage that claims neither superior intellect, wisdom, nor inerrant accuracy. I am enabled within REF only to exercise critical thinking, skepticism, and deference to compelling argumentation/substantiation of alternative ideas. Cheap rhetoric at the hands of vapid ideologues will receive short shrift and minimal indulgence of my patience or cherished time lent to profitless rebuttals.

Play nice.

I tender no greater indulgence/deference towards self-professed atheists, than I might for those of faith-based beliefs/opinions. It would be unwise for you to underestimate either my capacities or motivations for participation here in REF. Ask around if you doubt my resolve.

Let's get to the crux of matters, where and whence appropriate to do so. I mean to be cordial and pleasant. Do not heedlessly invite the whirlwind to voraciously reap what you may carelessly sow.

s2a... instead of going over all of your long-winded and rather patronizing remarks and answering each and every one let me say this. Women in this country are educated about sex and its consequences. They know that they take a risk of becoming pregnant using protection or not. I would not be monetarily capable of caring for all of the children you mentioned.... but if I were, I would at least give them a fighting chance rather than kill them outright.

In my state, it is completely legal to walk into any fire station or hospital or police station and hand over an infant within three days of its birth with no questions asked. They would rather women do that than to abort or to drop them in a dumpster somewhere. Regardless of what the law allows... responsibility for that life is on the parents... not the judicial system or the medical community.

What about a father's rights regarding his child? A married woman can abort a child without his consent no matter what he wishes. Why... because she wants to. And that is all the reason she needs.

If a woman doesn't want to have a child there are many other options available besides waiting until she becomes pregnant and then killing it. I can't afford more than the two children I already have and got my tubes tied to prevent future instances or "accidents" as you call them.

I have personally had 2 miscarraiges as well... and the emotional impact of losing a child, as you appear to be aware, is devastating. Would I ever abort a child for any reason? Probably not, even if it killed me to carry to a deliverable term. Do I look down my nose at women who have had abortions? No, because it is not my place to judge or justify their actions. Do I think abortion should be as readily available as it is now? Absolutely not. The availability of the procedure is what I have a problem with. It allows the use of such a procedure for a means that it was never intended to be used for... Birth control. And no matter how much you argue the issue, that doesn't change the fact that it IS used that way by a majority of the women who receive them.

In any event... You have your opinions and I have my own... let us agree to disagree on the issue and leave it alone because neither you nor I will change the other's mind on the topic, and it is a highly emotional topic with me that I can't even handle discussing for long periods of time without going into emotional distress of a sort... I'm sick of people who try to rationalize and minimalize the responsibility of people's actions by making it a legal issue and leaving it to a court to decide. It is murder, it is wrong, and nothing will convince me otherwise. I never said that all abortion cases are not valid ones... but that I disagree with abortion in general as a form of birth control. I won't be posting any further replies to you on this topic, but thanks for your time.

Hello bunny1ohio,

You said:

s2a... instead of going over all of your long-winded and rather patronizing remarks and answering each and every one let me say this....

Click to expand...

That you'd rather stick to an entrenched opinion and unsupported spurious claims, than provide substantiative facts in defense of your immutable position? Typical, and hardly unexpected. I tire of anti-abortion ideologues that insist that they wish to engage a valid debate on the issue, then invoke defensive ad hominem characterizations of arguments for which they no valid rebuttal, beyond their own factual misrepresentations and appeals to emotion.

Women in this country are educated about sex and its consequences.

Click to expand...

Is that why "conservatives" consistently oppose virtually all sex education in public schools? Because women already know everything they need to know about human sexuality and sexual relations?

They know that they take a risk of becoming pregnant using protection or not.

Click to expand...

Yes, but using proven contraceptive methods, and using them correctly (and under all circumstances) significantly reduces the risk to 1% (of unintended conception) or less, versus all unprotected sex. The associate "risks" are NOT equal - not by a long shot.

I would not be monetarily capable of caring for all of the children you mentioned.... but if I were, I would at least give them a fighting chance rather than kill them outright.

Click to expand...

Tell you what. If you can manage to purge the backlog of unwanted/unadopted children from state-supported homes and foster families (of which, the majority are either "troubled" teens; learning/emotional/physical stunted/disabled; of mixed race or color; or genetically/hereditarily predispositioned to a shorted life span of constant and expensive long-term medical care; or a combination of any of the aforementioned conditions), then...and maybe then, I'll consider arguments that favor lending especial legal favor and precedence upon fetal "rights...over and above a living, breathing, female citizen's rights.

In my state, it is completely legal to walk into any fire station or hospital or police station and hand over an infant within three days of its birth with no questions asked.

Click to expand...

Mine too.

They would rather women do that than to abort or to drop them in a dumpster somewhere.

Click to expand...

Ahem. Such laws do not curb legally available abortions; they seek to prevent criminalizing unwilling/incapable prospective mothers. It's the lack of readily available abortion choices (or the social/cultural/familial stigma attached) that create (or manifest) "dumpster babies".

Regardless of what the law allows... responsibility for that life is on the parents... not the judicial system or the medical community.

Click to expand...

NO.

If you impose a mandated system, and set of laws that insist that all unintended/unwanted pregnancies MUST be brought to full-term, then it's the State (you and I) that must assume the burden and responsibility of providing for each and every delivered child; regardless of the fitness, age, maturity, or fiscal soundness of the "parents" that conceived the child, or their interest/desire to actually love their child unconditionally.

Should it be the responsibility of the State to insist that a 12 year old girl (in sixth or seventh grade, mind you) deliver her most unfortunate and unintended fetus to full term (under penalty of criminal prosecution)? What child support should we demand/expect of a 14 year old "dad" in this case? Should these kids get married? What if both kids are foster children themselves? Whom shall we FORCE (by law) to assume ultimate accountability/responsibility for such earnest and priceless care? What lacking aspect of insufficient monetary prowess that you confess you don't possess, should be shouldered and borne by others that retain neither interest nor concern for a child, unwanted by even it's own "parents"?

How ethically moral of you to presume that others than yourself should (and MUST) bear the financial (not to mention the emotional) burdens of giving EVERY unwanted and unintended byproduct of sexual experimentation and ignorance a "fighting chance". Such is the moral argumentation of chickenhawks that insist upon military interventions and war - when they are both childless, and to old to serve themselves.

What about a father's rights regarding his child? A married woman can abort a child without his consent no matter what he wishes. Why... because she wants to. And that is all the reason she needs.

Click to expand...

Because a man can't die of pregnancy/delivery complications. Even a husband can't override his wife's desire to seek medical attention for health-related issues. A woman is no man's property, and neither is a developing fetus within that woman. Can a wife assert or prevent a husband from seeking a medical vasectomy? What about her "rights" to potentially become pregnant at some point in her marriage? Should her "concerns" and "interests" trump her husband's? Does she have a "right" to expect her husband to be fertile, even against his wishes?

If a woman doesn't want to have a child there are many other options available besides waiting until she becomes pregnant and then killing it. I can't afford more than the two children I already have and got my tubes tied to prevent future instances or "accidents" as you call them.

Click to expand...

Bully for you. How much did getting your tubes tied cost you? Did your insurance cover that cost? Would you allow a minor child to make that same choice on their own? Would you be willing to provide taxpayer-funded and free medical services to any woman that chose elective medical sterilization, regardless of age or marital status (even if it were against the wishes of her boyfriend/husband)?

I have personally had 2 miscarraiges as well... and the emotional impact of losing a child, as you appear to be aware, is devastating. Would I ever abort a child for any reason? Probably not, even if it killed me to carry to a deliverable term. Do I look down my nose at women who have had abortions? No, because it is not my place to judge or justify their actions. Do I think abortion should be as readily available as it is now? Absolutely not. The availability of the procedure is what I have a problem with. It allows the use of such a procedure for a means that it was never intended to be used for... Birth control.

Click to expand...

You opinion is noted. But your opinion is not especially valid justification for legislating universally applicable law. Current law allows you the choice NOT to have an abortion; upon whatever moral/ethical/financial rationalizations you may hold most dear. In China, the State mandates that no family may have more than one child. State-imposed abortion is the law. How is that aspect of tyrannical State imposition significantly different from one where the State allows NO abortions? Are absolutes (in either form) conducive to a democratic society, and a pluralistically representative republic?

And no matter how much you argue the issue, that doesn't change the fact that it IS used that way by a majority of the women who receive them.

Click to expand...

Ordinarily, I would demand that you provide factual data to support that spurious conclusion, but since you have already declared that you have no interest in tendering further reply...I will merely say that your claim is unsubstantiated bunk.

In any event... You have your opinions and I have my own... let us agree to disagree on the issue and leave it alone because neither you nor I will change the other's mind on the topic, and it is a highly emotional topic with me that I can't even handle discussing for long periods of time without going into emotional distress of a sort... I'm sick of people who try to rationalize and minimalize the responsibility of people's actions by making it a legal issue and leaving it to a court to decide. It is murder, it is wrong, and nothing will convince me otherwise. I never said that all abortion cases are not valid ones... but that I disagree with abortion in general as a form of birth control. I won't be posting any further replies to you on this topic, but thanks for your time.

Click to expand...

Thank you for summarizing why I don't bother engaging substantiative debate regarding issues of abortion. Your "side" appeals to emotion and "feelings"; my "side" appeals to facts and reality. This why I may amicably concede to "agree to disagree", content in the knowledge that I'm right, and you're wrong.

I would never seek to legally prohibit you from expressing or exercising your opinions in your own personal affairs, though it would seem that you would seek to impose your opinions upon us all as a matter of enforceable, criminal law.

And ain't that the beauty of a secularly pluralistic form of self-government?

You're constitutionally entitled, and thusly protectively guaranteed, to peaceably express your opinions for all to forebear; and I am likewise entitled and protected to eviscerate and illustrate the failings of your rationale, and ridicule your opinions to my own heart's pleasure and leisure.

[PS. You really should have read the provided referenced links I previously provided for your personal consideration. If you had, your commentary might have provided greater substance, and my rebuttal might have been more forgiving. Such is the consequence of chosen willful ignorance...]

of the blatantly unconstitutional SD law

Click to expand...

Correction, I believe this should read the falaciously determined unconstitutional SD law.

kevmicsmi said:

Correction, I believe this should read the falaciously determined unconstitutional SD law.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, your faith-based suggested "correction" is readily disabused by fact.

There is no employed fallacious argument/rationale in stating that the SD law is unconstitutional.

However, you are invited to present whatever critical foundation in counter-commentary as to the exacting logical fallacies employed in making such a catergorical statement.

Call, raise, or fold.

I'm not even going to discuss the abortion issue any further with you s2a... but I do have couple questions for you. You can decide whether you wish to answer or not.

Are you this condescending to everyone who disagrees with your opinions? And do you always talk to people like some kind of a professor correcting a poor student? Or is it just me? :areyoucra

I've just got this fabulous mental picture of a line of children standing before a teacher who turns and says "Alright, which one of you nasty creatures has been coveting my ox?"
And then waits for a hand to go up.

Sanguine said:

I've just got this fabulous mental picture of a line of children standing before a teacher who turns and says "Alright, which one of you nasty creatures has been coveting my ox?"
And then waits for a hand to go up.

Click to expand...

ROFLMFAO :biglaugh: :flower2: Much frubals Sanguine... too funny lol..

Or is it just me?

Click to expand...

How classy.

mr.guy said:

How classy.

Click to expand...

It wasn't meant to be classy... it's an honest question as I haven't read enough replies from s2a to know if this is how he treats everybody or if it is only that he got irritated with me or had a bad day or what have you. I'm actually quite a classy lady... but I really don't care if I impress anybody on the board as such or not... that's not what I'm here for... I'm here to debate Knockout

only jews are subject to the ten commandments and the laws of god. gentiles only have to obey the 7 noahide (sp?) laws.

I've always gotten the impression that it's simply the way s2a expresses himself. Some people try to use less words to explain a point... s2a does the opposite. I think his title even translates (unless I'm mistaken) to 'wordy backslider'.

I don't think he's trying to be condescending, but just that that's his way of expressing himself. He phrases things in a certain way, whether he's agreeing or disagreeing with one on a debate. (But again, that's just what I see it as.)