sidebar

SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
StillwaterTownie

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
#702
Jun 18, 2010
17,475
1,917
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#702
oks10 said:
Mullen's ads certainly have a "hold my beer" vibe, that's for sure... Have you seen his one regarding transgender athletes??.... Yikes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. The Oklahoma Legislature did a good job covering conservative concerns about transgenders in schools by banning them in sports and restrooms. So, he looks pretty silly and stupid for bringing up transgenders in his ad, like it's an unaddressed issue in Oklahoma. Maybe he does, but I don't worry about it at the national level.

Does he know that transgender rights can be subject to litigation and transgenders have won before? It's just a matter of time until Oklahoma's anti transgender laws get sued.
 
Last edited:
oks10

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
#705
Sep 9, 2007
11,363
6,936
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#705
There's a guy free climbing the Devon tower right now to raise awareness against abortion... Someone should have told him before he started climbing about the laws Stitt recently signed... I'm not sure who this guy is trying to reach in the state with the nations strictest abortion laws.
 
RxCowboy

RxCowboy

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.
A/V Subscriber
#706
Nov 8, 2004
74,263
41,787
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#706
OSUPsych said:
Seems like this went a little dormant. Thought I'd inject this interesting piece. I've always heard that even in orthodox circles there are many situations where an abortion is required, this does a decent job of explaining to outsiders as to why.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2022/06/judaism-abortion-rights-religious-freedom/661264/
Click to expand...
"Two people are fighting; one accidentally pushes someone who is pregnant, causing a miscarriage. The text outlines the consequences: If only a miscarriage happens, the harm doer is obligated to pay financial damages. If, however, the pregnant person dies, the case is treated as manslaughter. The meaning is clear: The fetus is regarded as potential life, rather than actual life."

Misses the essential part, because elsewhere in Exodus...

Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.

From Deuteronomy, the consequences...

Deuteronomy 19:11 However, suppose a person hates someone else[x] and stalks him, attacks him, kills him,[y] and then flees to one of these cities. 12 The elders of his own city must send for him and remove him from there to deliver him over to the blood avenger[z] to die. 13 You must not pity him, but purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood,[aa] so that it may go well with you.
 
O

OSUPsych

Sheriff
#707
May 4, 2011
3,606
1,625
1,743
Charleston, SC
#707
RxCowboy said:
"Two people are fighting; one accidentally pushes someone who is pregnant, causing a miscarriage. The text outlines the consequences: If only a miscarriage happens, the harm doer is obligated to pay financial damages. If, however, the pregnant person dies, the case is treated as manslaughter. The meaning is clear: The fetus is regarded as potential life, rather than actual life."

Misses the essential part, because elsewhere in Exodus...

Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.

From Deuteronomy, the consequences...

Deuteronomy 19:11 However, suppose a person hates someone else[x] and stalks him, attacks him, kills him,[y] and then flees to one of these cities. 12 The elders of his own city must send for him and remove him from there to deliver him over to the blood avenger[z] to die. 13 You must not pity him, but purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood,[aa] so that it may go well with you.
Click to expand...
I don't think it does because those passages about murder are not considered to apply to fetuses. Basically every talmudic tradition I'm aware of interprets it that way. As I'm guessing you're aware, Judaism has a long tradition of viewing life as beginning at the first breath (as in, the breath of God as highlighted in the creation story). So, those passages don't apply in the same way. For it to be murder, you have to view the fetus as a life, which is basically her argument. If it were life, causing a miscarriage would be manslaughter and the punishment would be more severe than paying damages, but it's not.
 
RxCowboy

RxCowboy

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.
A/V Subscriber
#708
Nov 8, 2004
74,263
41,787
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#708
OSUPsych said:
I don't think it does because those passages about murder are not considered to apply to fetuses. Basically every talmudic tradition I'm aware of interprets it that way. As I'm guessing you're aware, Judaism has a long tradition of viewing life as beginning at the first breath (as in, the breath of God as highlighted in the creation story). So, those passages don't apply in the same way. For it to be murder, you have to view the fetus as a life, which is basically her argument. If it were life, causing a miscarriage would be manslaughter and the punishment would be more severe than paying damages, but it's not.
Click to expand...
It isn't manslaughter if it is an accident, whether it is life or potential life. She picked the wrong damn scripture as her basis.
 
StillwaterTownie

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
#709
Jun 18, 2010
17,475
1,917
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#709
oks10 said:
There's a guy free climbing the Devon tower right now to raise awareness against abortion... Someone should have told him before he started climbing about the laws Stitt recently signed... I'm not sure who this guy is trying to reach in the state with the nations strictest abortion laws.
Click to expand...
Maybe he thought the skyscraper was easier than the average skyscraper to climb.

I think he mainly raised awareness over how brave and crazy a human being can get and survive.
 
steross

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
#710
Mar 31, 2004
33,026
33,268
1,743
oklahoma city
#710
RxCowboy said:
It isn't manslaughter if it is an accident, whether it is life or potential life. She picked the wrong damn scripture as her basis.
Click to expand...
This is not accurate. There does not have to be intent for a conviction of manslaughter. The example given, pushing someone to their death in a fight even if the push was not intended to kill, could certainly be manslaughter.

In my opinion, discussing manslaughter from a fight causing death is far more on topic than picking a commandment about murder that in no way declares that it has anything to do with abortion and deciding it is against abortion. An omniscient God knowing that this would be one of the biggest controversies of human civilization conveniently left the very simple thought abortion=murder out of the commandments while also strictly determining that it is morally equivalent to murder? Gee, thanks for that passive-aggressive move to cause immense division and strife.
 
Bowers2

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
#716
Jul 31, 2006
9,790
6,449
1,743
Edmond
#716
ramases2112 said:
The battle is over but the war still rages. Its now imperative to vote in pro lifers over the next few decades to limit abortion in the states. But nevertheless, people who have fought for decades should take some time to party and rest as they have earned it and saved the lives of millions of future babies.
Click to expand...
You are so weird.
 
O

OSUPsych

Sheriff
#717
May 4, 2011
3,606
1,625
1,743
Charleston, SC
#717
RxCowboy said:
It isn't manslaughter if it is an accident, whether it is life or potential life. She picked the wrong damn scripture as her basis.
Click to expand...
I understood your point and I think your logic still doesn't work. Accidental killing of the woman is treated differently from accidental killing of the fetus based on that scripture. That part is quite clear. Your argument would have to be that once it's intentional that the distinction between mother and fetus now disappears. I'm not sure we have anything that tells us definitively. So, she takes a different direction from you. As I understand those parts of anciet Hebrew law, manslaughter of a full grown person is treated more like murder anyway. I've seen some argue that those laws were based on a limited understanding of science and in an era where miscarriages were even more common, which means your distinction matters more because it doesn't require a significant degree or recklessness to cause a miscarriage in those days. My understanding is her interpretation is the commonly accepted one in reform Judaism with more variability in orthodox circles, though both require abortions as soon as there's any risk to the mother. It's a big reason why Jewish people remain some of the most pro choice groups, where even aming conservatives, a majority want it to be legal in most or all circumstances.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...al-ideology/among/religious-tradition/jewish/
 
PF5

PF5

Deputy
#720
Jan 3, 2014
1,731
462
713
#720
6 in 10 people think abortion should be legal...https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1522692652877103104?s=20&t=JSAkRvjTwS2yYpqUgekMSQ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.