Jewish blood libel seems to be real

Author: WyIted
Jew
blood libel

Posts

Total: 17
Topic's author
#1
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,558
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I didn't realize this but when Roe vs Wade was overturned Jewish woman across America were protesting the decision as being against their religion. https://www.brandeis.edu/jewish-experience/social-justice/2022/june/abortion-judaism-joffe.html

However we know for a fact that every single time a state bans an abortion, without exception they all make exceptions for saving a mothers life. The claim by some of their scholars is Jewish laws say a woman can abort to save her own life, but every single abortion ban in America always makes an exception to save the life or health of the mother, so them claiming a ban on abortion is against their religion for that reason are lying because the law already makes exceptions for those circumstances, so the only way that thinking a ban on murdering children is against their religion is if the myth of blood libel is not a myth, but in fact an actual secretly held Jewish practice.
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 324
Posts: 9,689
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Human sacrifices were present in the Old Testament, among original Jews.

As much as they would like to hide it or ignore it, Old Testament(Jewish Bible) has one example of asked sacrifice, and another of actual completed sacrifice.

And to a great surprise, there is no actual opposition to human sacrifice in the Old Testament. There is merely a ban on sacrificing to other Gods.
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Human sacrifice in the name of religious freedom should be illegal.  If your religion says to do human sacrifice, then you should leave that religion.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,841
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
Religion is a lifetime of hedging ones bets, based upon a fantastic hypothesis.

Whereas pregnancy either is or isn't  a real time problematic situation.

Abortion is a medical or surgical solution to a problem.

Confusion tends to occur...A cynic might say deliberately.
#5
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,174
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I use to feed my jewish boss bacon bits grounded into powder.
I did this for over a year. 
Butttttt apartment,  this doesn't effect them as they are unaware. 

I think Thats fucking cheating. 
But anyway. 

Thussss, bringing us to.
LOOPHOLES.
rrrrrrrr loopholes.  
Finding loopholes in a well thought out well worded ummmm, "documemts " is more difficult.
Into the knowing offfff. 
Finding loopholes for ones self is easier then finding them for a " group " 
Well one would assume.  

Then i wannna say ( duty of care. )
having a major part in the play above. 
Butttttt its not like the cops come and force you to get a supposed lifesaving " treatment " of sorts.  
But With this " duty of care thing " comes  Lia fucken bility.
( liability ) 
Well This is before loopholes but lets say it not. 

A show of hands if you wanna be liable for anyones death.  
No.
No one. 

I ain't that fucken guy. 
I dont want nothing to do with it. 

But what about  the accolades ???.   
Accolades runs along side a " overall consensus " 

A show of hands if you want to savev anyones life. 
Yes please 


Now we are at. 
Liabilities  v.   Accolades. And or a "overall consensus"  

Thus making me unsure. 
Sooooooooooo. 
PASS. 

Good game but. 
When talking about this abortion thing , We need to be provided with stats.

What if only 4 women in 100 years have been saved by aborting a baby. 

Actually the number of women saved might i think woukd be massive buttttttt
There them  "stats"  on weather or not they might have died aint at all black and white.  
But i really want stats. 

Fuck , So again. 
Pass. 

Look I just dont know right 
I don't wanna hear about it.

Just drop it right. 
Pass. 
Pass. 
Pass. 

So  after Allll that i wouldn't think someones religious beliefs has anything to do with it. 

But it does deb.

Fuckkk. 
You are really pissing me off now 
Here we go again. 

PASS YOU MOTHER FUCKER 
PASS. 


Take note deb. 
You just put. 
( Is it right or not to have a abortion )  on a  ( religious background.  )
Don't fucking do that.,
Ok.

 


#6
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,174
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Hang on a sec.  
Is it ok with god if you have a miscarriage  ? .

INTO
The ease of 

DO ya reckon a girl can get a abortion and then simply tell others it was a miscarriage. ?

Maybe a service like that is needed. 

A sneaky abortion clinic. 
You can Call it like ( ARTS AND CRAFT SUPPLIES  ) store. 

You can see what that leads to. 
But , if we are smarter about it. 
We don't have to.

( so Records. )  
Whats recorded,  and whom gets to and can see it. 

We could also change the word ABORTION to another, thus tricking the god thing and  making it not what he means by it. 

And thus Making god a omnifool. 

 



#7
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,174
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Sooooooo
Whats The difference between having a " miscarriage " /  miscarriaging.  and " having " a abortion / aborting. ?  
Fuck that actually  has so many answers.  

No Butttttt. 
What im trying to say is. 
God wouldn't be at all impressed with a person thats had a miscarriage. 
Thats just SO GROSS .   
A yukky miscarriage.  
Having a miscarriage has to be a sin right ? 
Definitely.  

If you think about it, gods the dude who knows allllllllllll about women in the ( twenty first cent ) 
Im sure he knows about allllll the trials and tribs Rebecca faces. 
And he knows whats best for Samantha.
But then there Tracy. 
Oh And that other one . Whats her name again ?  
Erika.
Yeah Erika.

Pic God doing his little book book thing with the future Erika at the fucking forefront of his fucking fort process. 

Buttttt.
Read the bible and you'll become a womanizer.  
As The bible is practically a book on how to get z bitches. 
Ya know.  
It dives reallll deap into vast areas of ye avrage female sycki. ( spell check ) 
It explains their likes their wants and needs. 
It just Soooooo fucking deep right ? 

What im saying is. 
Its just a bloody good read if ya wanna know anything chick related.
Am i fucken right ? 
Oh you are So fucking right deb. 
Thankyou.
Thanks.   

As We got like.
Us.
Thats.        ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆         THE  MEN.         ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
' crowd cheers ' 
Turns into. 
' crowd roars '

and then there is also the gals. 
Right ? 
A big Thumbs up . 

So um yeah.  
' kicks dirt ' 
Cool then . 
' uncomfortable silence ' 
 Have a good day. 
 
 
#8
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 805
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
You are wrong on many levels. I'll get to the bottom line -- the standard for "risk to the mother" that is used by Jewish law and one used by secular law are not in agreement in every case. Therefore, to impose the state definition would impinge upon a Jewish women's obligations to her religion and would then be prohibiting the free exercise of that religion.

Topic's author
#9
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,558
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
Okay give me the jewish definition of risk to the mother
Topic's author
#10
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,558
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
We define it in our abortion laws as any legitimate potential risk to the health or safety of the mother

#11
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 805
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
The issue is two fold -- first, up til when can the mother's safety be a deciding factor. If the secular law say 6 weeks, but Jewish law says 3 months, there will be a conflict. Second, what is considered a threat to the mother? What about a case of financial impact where the mother's economic future is ruined? Or where there is an issue of mental trauma to worry about? Jewish law has loads of cases but what matters is that Jewish law assesses each one on a case by case basis, applying different subtle interpretations of the law based on investigating specifics of each case. No secular legal policy-line can accommodate that.
Topic's author
#12
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,558
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
If the secular law say 6 weeks, but Jewish law says 3 months,
In states that ban abortions it is up until the point of birth

Second, what is considered a threat to the mother?
If avoiding the abortion could cause death or serious health issues as determined between her and her doctor

What about a case of financial impact where the mother's economic future is ruined?

No we don't allow mothers to kill children just because they need foodstamps and welfare to support them

Or where there is an issue of mental trauma to worry about?

I guess it depends on what you mean. If you mean the mother experiences the normal stress everyone does from giving birth than no we won't allow them to murder a child due to that LOL

Jewish law has loads of cases but what matters is that Jewish law assesses each one on a case by case basis, applying different subtle interpretations of the law based on investigating specifics of each case. No secular legal policy-line can accommodate that.
It sounds like bullshit. You have the law of Moses as well and it says though shalt not murder. You know that murdering babies is wrong unless there is a serious health consequence and giving birth being a bit stressful is not the type of health consequence we are discussing. 

Either there is a secret blood libel thing that means you need to do your pilpul to legalize murdering babies here or you actually believe in the God of Abraham and know murder is bad. 

Why not explain to me a case that could potentially fall outside of abortion bans that allow for exceptions due to health complications for the mother or baby as determined by them or their doctor (by the way they can choose a Jewish doctor if they need a more lenient definition of health).

I don't really get all the pilpul to justify murder
#13
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 805
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
you should probably review the variations in the exclusions and laws, state by state, and read why the application of the secular laws is medically difficult


It sounds like bullshit. You have the law of Moses as well and it says though shalt not murder. You know that murdering babies is wrong unless there is a serious health consequence and giving birth being a bit stressful is not the type of health consequence we are discussing. 
You don't know the law if that's what you think it says. It is better to accept that you don't know the law and ask questions than to decide that, based on your ignorance, you have an opinion.

Either there is a secret blood libel thing that means you need to do your pilpul to legalize murdering babies here or you actually believe in the God of Abraham and know murder is bad. 
No, it isn't a secret. It is a set of laws that is different from the secular ones. You keep trying to load the word "murder" in this to try and make one side look more "good" but that's wrong.

Why not explain to me a case that could potentially fall outside of abortion bans that allow for exceptions due to health complications for the mother or baby as determined by them or their doctor (by the way they can choose a Jewish doctor if they need a more lenient definition of health).
Choosing a Jewish doctor won't make a difference if the doctor has to make judgments based on his professional status. If you don't understand that then that's sad. Read some of the arguments and sources

I don't really get all the pilpul to justify murder
who cares what you get?


Topic's author
#14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,558
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
The site you listed for exceptions seems like it is liars. For example they state a health of the mother exception does not list health of the mother but a reading of the bill shows the following phrase

"reasonable medical judgment,"

So a reasonable medical judgement that the mothers life or health is in danger or that the baby will be retarded or something will allow the doctor to abort. No jury in the world is convicting a doctor based on some bullshit weird interpretation of the law that a prosecutor states. The site also mentions that ban exceptions often not able to be implemented in the real world, but literally gave zero examples

You don't know the law if that's what you think it says. It is better to accept that you don't know the law and ask questions than to decide that, based on your ignorance, you have an opinion.
I do know it because somebody tried to tell me that abortion bans would prevent life saving treatments and pointed me to an article with abortions banned without exception and then I would click on the link and read the wording of the bills and they would literally list exceptions.

No, it isn't a secret. It is a set of laws that is different from the secular ones. You keep trying to load the word "murder" in this to try and make one side look more "good" but that's wrong.
I feel like it would be unethical to call it anything other than murder. It literally is murder, how would you feel if I called the holocaust "jewish reductionism act" instead of using the most straightforward language of genocide?

I read through your link and all of that is consistent with abortion bans that make exceptions for health and life. I haven't found any of those writings to contradict them

#15
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 805
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
The site you listed for exceptions seems like it is liars. For example they state a health of the mother exception does not list health of the mother but a reading of the bill shows the following phrase
Then you should contact them as you are clearly more expert than they.

I do know it because somebody tried to tell me that abortion bans would prevent life saving treatments and pointed me to an article with abortions banned without exception and then I would click on the link and read the wording of the bills and they would literally list exceptions.
None of that would show that you have any understanding of Jewish law.

I feel like it would be unethical to call it anything other than murder. 
Because you are starting with your conclusion. That's a logical error. 
If you haven't found anything contradicting, then, no, you didn't read them. 
Topic's author
#16
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,558
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
Because you are starting with your conclusion. That's a logical error. 
If you haven't found anything contradicting, then, no, you didn't read them.
I read the Jewish laws you pointed me to and here is the understanding I came away with

1. Abortion to save a mothers life is okay

2. Abortion to prevent health consequences to the mother like blindness or any serious health consequence really is fine

3. abortion because the baby will end up very unhealthy is fine, though there was a bit of pilpul of somebody claiming a doctor cannot be 100% accurate at analyzing that, but it was silly because nobody can expect perfection.

Other things that I came across in those writings seem to differentiate between a fetus and a human life, but ultimately it doesn't matter because the abortion bans make the same exact exceptions as the Jewish law you showed me.

There was various punishments listed for abortion, but this has nothing to do with the act of banning only the punishments associated with the bans. Some punishments included fines for killing a fetus without harming the mother and other punishments called for death. The laws I read seem to make sense, it includes fines for lesser offenses and capital punishment in situations that make sense.

As far as American law is concerned I also believe women should get slaps on the wrist if they violate abortion bans. So me and Judaism agree, probably because I am spiritually Jewish. I wouldn't punish women much if at all for abortion despite being for banning it, and I think most law makers agree. The bulk of the punishment should be towards doctors, but only when they clearly flaunt the law and not with edge cases or cases that fall in a legal grey area. We don't want to punish people for doing their job to the best of their ability

56 days later

#17
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@WyIted
I didn't realize this but when Roe vs Wade was overturned Jewish woman across America were protesting the decision as being against their religion. https://www.brandeis.edu/jewish-experience/social-justice/2022/june/abortion-judaism-joffe.html

However we know for a fact that every single time a state bans an abortion, without exception they all make exceptions for saving a mother’s life. The claim by some of their scholars is Jewish laws say a woman can abort to save her own life, but every single abortion ban in America always makes an exception to save the life or health of the mother, so them claiming a ban on abortion is against their religion for that reason are lying because the law already makes exceptions for those circumstances, so the only way that thinking a ban on murdering children is against their religion is if the myth of blood libel is not a myth, but in fact an actual secretly held Jewish practice.
The only reason there are 14 million Jews and 2 billion Muslims is because Jews are famous for abortions and circumcision. If the circumcision doesn’t stop pregnancies abortion is their next option. There is no mention of contraceptives in the Bible as a viable option.