Word is that evil Billionaire George Soros is coordinating with the Bronfman family of intermarried bootleggers a plan to set up a dovish alternative lobbying organization to AIPAC consisting of such notoriously Pro-Israel organizations as American Friends of Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Religious Action Center and the Official President Ahmedanijad Fan Club (complete with glow in the dark decoder ring.)
Now if these folks were honest (and if June happened in the middle of July) they'd just call themselves a Pro-Palestinian Lobby or merge with CAIR to form a supervillain group that sit on the top floors of skyscrapers and issue constant press releases demanding that Israel withdraw from everywhere on earth except Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.
Unaccountably though they insist on calling themselves Pro-Israel instead. Probably because like gay Republicans, they know that overall values have diminished a lot but still not to the extent that a large scale Anti-Israel lobbying organization can win widespread support in the Jewish community. Instead of honestly calling themselves a Pro-Palestinian lobby, they instead claim to be a pro-peace alternative to AIPAC which they label right wing. This is of course a shameless lie.
AIPAC is a flawed organization but it exists purely to support Israel. AIPAC doesn't represent a pro or anti peace position, its position is to support the position of the current Israeli government. Anyone setting up an alternative lobby is setting up an organization meant not to support Israel but to lobby the American government to pressure Israel. Soros' Anti-Israel lobby is meant to do exactly that, pressure Israel to make concessions to the terrorists while undermining American-Jewish support for Israel.
Calling it the President Ahmedanijad Fan Club would have been much more honest. Thank the Devil for the Pro-Israel Left.
Comments
Very troubling and no doubt this organization's misleading name will confuse many. That alone makes it suspect and you're right to question and expose its true goals. That being supporting and creating the state of "Palestine" at the expense, hardship, and destruction (G-d forbid) of Israel.
ReplyDeleteThe deceptive naming is definitely a deliberate ploy. Absolutely they're trying to keep the word Palestine and all the ugly, destructive, terrorist elements associated with it hidden under the carpet.
It's tragic. Do these duplicitious naming games work and sway public opinions? I think so.
I wonder if anyone noticed that "pro-abortionists" started getting more support among moderatte liberals once they switched from calling themselves "pro-abortion" to "pro-choice?"
Pro-choice sounds so much nicer than pro-abortion, because, well, people will actually consider what abortion really is.
Similarly, pro-Israel sounds nicer that pro-Palestinian.
re: what keliata said, the pro-life people are pro-UNBORN life and if some women die from illegal abortions they could care less
ReplyDeleteto their way of thinking any woman who would kill a second old fertilized human egg deserves to die
Keliata is right.
ReplyDeleteOnce it became pro-choice they got much more support even though they are not pro choice at all and pressure people to have abortions. No choice is offered.
Same with this. Their every move is anti-Jewish, let alone anti the state of Israel.
I think it needs to boil down to the truth that behind the hatred for the state of Israel is ultimately the blind raging hatred for Bnai Israel, the people of God.
The tanakh(bible) speaks of the children of Israel only and all other nations are mentioned only in passing or as they interact with Israel, and this the world cannot stand.
Its not that they can't be part of it, it's that they resent not being the core of it and the jealousy is white hot.
Their "love" of Israel and Jews is often suspect and most often its hatred under the guise of "love".
In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, when they were back in Israel to rebuild Jerusalem, the enemies did similar things.
1." Let us rebuild with you for we seek God as you do", they said. Ezra told them where to go!!! He knew the truth. How often do we hear this today from other religions who want to "help" Israel..esp by bringing in "immigrants" many/most of whom are not even Jews!!
2. report them to the King of Babylon with lies and deceptions
3. troubled and discouraged them from building.
4. hired people to frustrate the rebuilding.
Nothing new under the sun is there?
These organizations are filth.
And sadly Lemon, most people don't look any further than a group's name to determine if it genuinely cares about Israel.
ReplyDeleteOf late, many times I read something purportedly pro-Israel I find myself asking others if it's true, legit etc. because...they hide a lot of hatred behind these names and mission statements
you are so wrong
ReplyDeleteread this paragraph from a "right to life" guy who is arguing that the number of women who died from illegal abortions was greatly exaggerated by feminists (note- he's not saying that there weren't women who died)
http://tennesseerighttolife.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_abortion_lies_and_myths.htm
"... there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968.] The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths.
This is not to minimize the undeniable fact that such deaths were significant losses to the families and loved ones of those who died. But one must be willing to admit the equally undeniable fact that if the unborn are fully human, these abortion-related maternal deaths pale in comparison to the 1.4 million preborn humans who die (on the average) every year. And even if we grant that there were more abortion-related deaths than the low number confirmed, there is no doubt that the 5,000 to 10,000 deaths cited by the abortion rights movement is a gross exaggeration."
DO YOU GET WHAT HE'S SAYING?!!
he's saying, "what's a 120 dead women compared to millions of unborn babies?"!!! Is that pro-life?!!!
THINK about it-what if some feminist handed him proof that it WAS 10,000 women who died? Would he say, "oh the humanity" or would he say, "what's 10,000 dead women compared to millions of unborn babies?" or, "what's a million dead women compared to billions and billions of unborn babies?"
if we accept the principle that it's okay for a few women to die to save a greater number of unborn, then what exactly is the number of DEAD WOMEN that the PRO-LIFE movement considers acceptable?!!
WAKE UP!
Judaism (as opposed to xtianity)makes a clear distinction between born and unborn. IF the "greater part" of the baby is outside of the woman's body it has full human rights and every effort must be made to save both it and the mother. However if the greater part is still inside of the woman's body every effort must be taken to save HER life even if it means tearing the baby from limb to limb. The difference between born and unborn is a hairline. IF the greater part has been delivered to kill it in order to save the woman's life is infanticide if the greater part has not been delivered it is permissable to kill it to save the woman s life.
It's a Torah principle- born life takes precedence over unborn life. If we destroy this principle by believing it depends on the numbers then what do the numbers boil down to? Is it okay for ONE woman to die if it saves TWO zygotes? OR is it okay for the woman to die period because killing a zygote is EXACTLY the same as killing a baby so she's a murderer and deserves death (without a trial or jury))
If the unborn are "fully human" with an equal "right to life" what gives a woman the right to murder her innocent unborn baby just to selfishly save her own life? What kind of a mother wouldn't sacrifice her life for her baby?
If we are not morally outraged at someone saying, "what's a 120 dead women compared to millions of unborn babies?" and then having the chutzpa to call himself "pro-life", will we be outraged if they say, "what's one or two women forced to die in childbirth if that's what it takes to stop the holocaust of the unborn?"
LOOK at what he's saying
he is stating a principle- he's saying that "choose life" means choose to save the greater number of lives without distinction between a woman and a zygote. You are accepting ESAU"S definition of "choose life" read Devarim 30:15 and make teshuvah FAST
But the pro-choice or pro-abortion movement or whatever you might call it really isn't about protecting the right to a medically necessary abortion, most republicans wind up conceding on abortions necessary for the life of the mother.
ReplyDeleteThe pro-choice movement supports open access to abortion regardless of the reason for the abortion and sometimes even regardless of the trimester.
Judaism has nothing in common with either extreme, the extreme of lifestyle abortion or the demented behavior of some Christian anti-abortion activists like Terry Randal that have sunk into utterly psychotic behavior and others into downright terrorism that have robbed them of any claim to moral legitimacy.
Judaism does prioritize the life of the mother, and Halacha also recognizes there are times when the psychological damage of carrying a baby to term, e.g. rape, may be as bad as a physical health risk to the life of the mother. This basically puts the Jewish position close to the moderate position of most Americans.
However that doesn't mean that Judaism doesn't recognize abortion as an evil, let alone lifestyle abortion. Halacha is often practical. It is meant for how people actually live with all their flaws and is meant for flawed people, namely us.
By contrast the pro-abortion movement increasingly seems to be celebrating abortion, with the 'I Had An Abortion' T-Shirt which is quite sick.
In Judaism abortion is not a 'choice' but an inevitability, it can only legitimately happen when the alternative is far worse.
The root of the halacha is that you are not required to die to save someone's life. If there are two people stranded in the desert and you have only have enough food for yourself, you are not required to give it up and starve to death.
That is the law and it's awful but it's also realistic. The outcome of that is nothing to celebrate. It's not a heroic choice but a flawed human one. The outcome is not a choice to be celebrated but a tragedy to be mourned because it ends with one life lost and the other marked by it.
I don't know much about Judaism and abortion, but the point I was trying to make is that organizations creatively and deceptively choose names to hide what they really are about.
ReplyDeleteYou could have an organization claiming to be "pro-israel" only to research further and find out that they favor palestine as a state and the ethnic cleansing of all jews from gaza or the west bank in order to bring "peace."
When someone says they're pro-israel or pro-zionist, you have to ask more questions, dig deeper.
Conversely, an organization could be set up stating that it is pro-palestine, and mean it is for the best interests of palestinian people and against the state of palestine and the terrorist government (HAMAS) they elected.
Pro-Palestinian in that context would cause a negative knee-jerk reaction.
And pro-israel? who wouldn't be pro-israel? but it depends on what a person means when they say they are pro-israel.
How many people would be proud or willing join the aryan nation? but mislead them and call it something like post war german heritage preservation or something along those lines and it would attract some borderline as well as rapid anti-semites.
What's in a name? A LOT.
Everything George Orwell warned about is coming true. He might not have used the word political correctness (newspeak? is that what he called it?) but he sure knew what it meant and the dangers of it.
Sultan is right.
ReplyDeleteMost abortions should be mourned and not celebrated as if they are milestones in ever woman's life. And the vast majority are performed in the early trimester and often because the pregnancy disrupts the woman's life. It's an inconvenience, not a result of rape, emotional anguish, or health.
Abortion, especially medical abortion versus surgical, makes it clear that abortion is becoming more and more a method of birth control. Quick and easy.
And there are the two extremes--the James Kopp types who murdered doctor Barnett Slepian and NARL type that imply that abortion is the most enpowering thing a woman can do.
Lost in all of these debates and arguments is the sacredness of sex within marriage and the creation of human life.
When you begin to say "everyone" in pro-life or whatever, you've already made your statement to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI've never met a pro-lifer who ever could have cared less that someone died from an illegal abortion, etc. That's after nearly 30 years of being involved in pro-life activities and a counselor in a crisis pregnancy center.
Not saying there probably aren't a few morons out there, but I've thankfully never met them.
Life begins at conception, no matter what error judaism persists in teaching.
ReplyDeleteGod is in charge, lives are in his hands and the faithful know this and rely on him .
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly." Teh.(psalm) 22:10.
"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb." Tehillim(psalm) 139:13.
"And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength." Isaiah 49:5.
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward." tehillim 127:3.
What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.
Even one celled creatures are alive.
What is growing in the woman is more than a one celled creature.
The nature of the life is human.
It is the product of human DNA, therefore it's nature is human.
Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a human baby.
Humans are humans not because they have a feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. They are humans because of their nature.
A person born without arms and legs is still human.
A person who cannot speak is still human.
A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is human.
What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature.
To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.
Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.
Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her.
Many will argue that the life in the womb is really part of the woman and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
If it is part of the woman then does the woman has four arms, four legs, and 2 heads? Is that what a human is?
It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life.
The life growing in the womb can even have a different blood type than the mother. It is, therefore, an independent life with human DNA.
Not so. The Law says the woman (and man) do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
The reason is that it supports illegal drug trafficking and...
It harms others who the user seeks to support his/her habit as well as the harm that can come to another because of the actions of the one under the influence of drugs.
Others will say that In abortion, no one is hurt since the fetus is not a person.
This is simply begging the question. You assume it isn't human, even though it is alive and has human DNA, and then pass judgment that it is not a person.
The fetus is alive and death injures it.
The fetus has the nature of a human and is injured by killing it by scraping, ripping, and/or sucking its brains out as late term abortions are sometimes done.
Then that means the mother has no feelings about the life that has been removed from her womb, that wonderful place that only a woman in her nature has.
Does this really leave the woman uninjured? Countless women are psychologically harmed when they kill the child in their womb.
Still others will come back saying rape is a condition that justifies abortion.
Rape is horrible. But why should the child pay for the sins (wrong doing) of another? The baby is innocent of the offense and his life need not be taken because of the act of another.
If what is in the womb is human, then killing it because of the act of another would be wrong.
People who hate children of rape or incest are evil. Even if you harbor such a thought in your mind you are evil.
I have a question:
Is it okay, to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog?
If you say no, then why? If it is not human then it doesn't matter, right?
If you say no because it will become a human then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it.
If you say it is alright, why is okay?
Women need to begin to rely on God for healing and to save them in childbirth and not doctors or the god of Ekron.
If a million people want you dead, but God wants you alive, a million will not kill you.
But, if a million wish you alive and God wishes you dead, a million will not save you.
Abortion is murder
Didnt mean to hijack the comments to wander off on abortion.
ReplyDeleteno worries a discussion goes where it goes and thank you for your comments
ReplyDeleteto: Keli, it's indeed a serious problem when organizations misrepresent their agenda, it's a particularly severe problem among Jewish groups who are more to the left than the community and posture as being jewish or pro-israel when they're neither.
it demonstrates their willingness to decieve because they know their agenda as it is would never be accepted
AIPAC is a flawed organization but it exists purely to support Israel. AIPAC doesn't represent a pro or anti peace position, its position is to support the position of the current Israeli government.
ReplyDeleteSome of AIPAC's behavior during the Oslo period seems to disprove this suggestion of AIPAC being an apolitical "advocacy" group.
http://theamericanprospect.com/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11647
At a particularly sensitive moment in the peace negotiations and with the 1996 presidential and congressional elections approaching, a number of AIPAC and Republican leaders moved to throw a wrench in the works -- the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. The act required the U.S. Embassy in Israel to move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in a given time frame. It inflamed Arab opinion and cornered both the Clinton and Rabin governments. It had been tried before (and again since), but never had it been used as so blunt a political instrument in U.S. and Israeli domestic politics. Israel cannot publicly oppose it but has never prioritized it. Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole announced the initiative at the 1995 AIPAC Annual Conference. The Likud cheered, using it to attack Rabin precisely as the incitement that ultimately led to his assassination was reaching its peak.
...As Goldberg concluded in his book back in 1996, “the most feared and respected pro-Israel lobbying organization can no longer be relied on to support the views of Israel, much less the views of American Jews.” In the following years, Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu, and in many ways the pro-Israel lobby, became neoconservative half a decade before the U.S. government.
Working much harder to advance some governments and not others (or outright sabotaging them) hardly sounds very evenhanded.
To its credit, we did not see a repetition of this 'selective-advocacy' behavior during the Disengagement- despite it being a very controversial policy. On the other hand, that was a descision made and carried out by a Likud administration. I have to wonder what AIPAC would have done if Mitzna had led the withdrawl.
If a million people want you dead, but God wants you alive, a million will not kill you.
ReplyDeleteThe millions of successful abortions a year would seem to disprove this. Unless I'm missing something.
Correction: The Jerusalem Embassy Act caught the Clinton Administration flatfooted, mainly because the Clinton Administration were big fans of carving up Jerusalem into a lot of slices and the rest of Israel too.
ReplyDelete"Shortly after the passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and at a ceremony honoring its passage in Washington DC, prime minister Yitzhak Rabin stated, "In Israel we all agree on one issue: the wholeness of Jerusalem, the continuation of its existence as the capital of the State of Israel. There is only one Jerusalem."
Having Jerusalem recognized as Israel's capital was always Israel's policy and that was the case under Rabin. AIPAC did not deport from Israeli policy. Tensions arose occasionally when AIPAC initiated proposals without going through the Israeli government, but since AIPAC is an American organization rather than a foreign agency, that was the only way it could be. Rabin simply didn't understand that.
this stuff is scary and dangerous and not a joke...jew-hating jews have never been my favourite folk...shame on them...great post keep em coming...shabbat shalom...stay safe
ReplyDeletethank you maralynn and thanks for the link, I've linked back to you as well
ReplyDeleteWe really need to be careful with getting too close to the pro life groups. They are radical Xians whose position does not agree with halacha.
ReplyDeleteAs for Soros, I am working on an expose of him for next week's Outrage of the Week on Frumspace. I firmly believe that he is an intelligence agent who is disrupting currency markets on behalf of some government or other interest. The Saudis come to mind.
I heard the board of the new organization will include:
ReplyDeleteGeorge Soros
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Hassan Nasrkaka (writing his real name is not a good idea because it means victory of/to a murderous idol)
Tony Judt
Noam Chomsky
His Honor Moshe Hirsch, Minister of Jewish Affairs of the Palestinian Disarray
and Moshe Aryeh Friedman of K'hal Sonei Yisroel, Vienna as mascot and spokesperson.
My understanding is that the Bronfmans, who indeed are no longer Jewish in this generation, are not going along with this.
could be... whatever else he is... he was a nazi collaborator... I've got a piece on that for next week
ReplyDeletere: what keliata said
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about deceptive names my point was that it is the term "pro-life" that is deceptive-since from the very start feminists never said, "yippee lets have abortions" they said, "make abortion legal so women don't die from back alley abortions"
"pro-choice" is the more truthful term-and that doesn't mean they think the choice is a good one -people do make bad choices
G-d has given us freedom to choose and it is a vital part of what makes us human
one example of how choice is vital to our basic humanity is pru uruvu-
on another blog I heard a Jewish person praising the muslim's for their "pru uruvu"- well, forcing women to bear children against their will is not pru uruvu (not that all muslim's do this)but many women in the world ARE forced
forcing a woman against her will to bear children is the exact OPPOSITE of pru uruvu!!-it is evil- it is breeding a woman like an animal against her WILL and if women are treated like animals to be "bred" that affects all of humanity
childbirth HAS to be the woman's choice it is essential to her humanity
choice is the truthful term-just look how feminists focus on rape-what's the difference between sex and rape? CHOICE! -forcing someone against their will to have sex is RAPE
however the term choice is not a perfect one-and feminists are not totally and utterly pro-choice
they would agree that a woman shouldn't be free to choose to abort at eight months because she just "feels like it"
but the way things are now ANY limit's on abortion is just for pro-life extremists to set a legal precedent to make even the EARLIEST of abortions illegal
re: what lemon lime said- it's "murder" even at one second pregnant- same as shooting someone in the head? So the punishment would be just the same? because "life is life"? Look words can be "murder" but I wouldn't put someone in jail for lashon hara not would I cut their tongue out.
so if we view a second old fertilized egg as a "life" just the same as any born life then- if I see a toddler whose life is in danger and a zygote in a petri dish on it's way to being implanted and I opt to save the life of the zygote that's an acceptable moral choice? Because life is life right? No difference between a toddler and a zygote. But if I see one toddler about to be shot and a building with a million zygotes about to go up in flames -the correct moral decision is to save the zygotes because then I'd be stopping a "holocaust"? " life begins at conception" is the pro-life motto so one toddler's life is nothing compared to a million zygotes?
is it a "holocaust" just like the Jews? - are six million zygotes aborted at one second pregnant is THE SAME as six million murdered Jews? six to one half a dozen to the other? Mother Therasa said abortion is the WORST evil because it preys on the "innocent"-so to her six million dead zygotes is WORSE than six million murder Jews-hmmm sounds like Holocaust minimization to me!
that doesn't mean I don't agree that life is profound and preciouse at the very moment of conception-it just means that I would never put unborn life ahead of born life-I would choose to save the life of ONE born person over the lives of even a billion unborn persons
when it comes to the term "pro-life" you know what the difference is between truth and lie ? ONE DEAD WOMAN if you think it's okay for ONE woman to die you are not pro-life PERIOD and you will never arrive at true sanctity of life by ignoring the corpse of even one woman.
re: knish
it IS about protecting the woman's life-the thing is people only think about the "woman's life" when it's on a one to one situation-ie one pregnant woman, her life is in danger, is abortion permitted
they do not think about "women's lives" in the plural-i.e. the pro-life guy in the article I quoted conceded that 120 women died from illegal abortions that year-the maral question is-would we allow EARLY abortions if it would save the lives of those 120 women ?
Or would we rather allow 120 women to die in order to save the unborn?
like the exaample of the toddler and the zygotes-is the correct moral choice let a 120 women die in order to save a million zygotes? IF not, then why would we not allow EARLY abortions? Yet there are pro-lifers who are not only protesting early abortions (because life begins at conception) they are even protesting the "morning after pill" which does not cause an abortion but only prevens pregnancy
you yourself admit that Judaism allows abortion in cases of psychological trauma such as rape
well, the xtians aren't clear on this and here's why-any woman can SAY she was raped. It's a hard crime to PROVE- and it creates a big loophole for women to lie about being raped in order to get an abortion-
so is it better to force a few rape victims to choose forced pregnancy or illegal abortions rather than allow early abortions because some women will lie about rape?
it's a matter of numbers- lets say a million women lie about being raped and one is telling the truth-what do we focus on? What do we care about?
which do we care more about -the raped woman or the zygote?
do we allow millions of zygotes to be aborted to save ONE woman's life OR do we let ONE woman die in order to save millions of zygotes?
if we choose to save unborn lives and consider one womans death acceptable-think about what this does to that ONE woman
- if she dies from an illegal abortion she doesn't just die physically she dies believing that her life matters less than the zygote she is carrying
that G-d thinks she should die because she is worse than a nazi she's a hitler nazi murderer of the innocent unborn even if she was only one second pregnant -she a murder and deserves to die in the Eyes of G-D and it's just too bad they couldn't save the preciouse life of the innocent little fertilized human egg
and it's not the woman who dies with this belief-it's how many women are living with this belief
the words "except to save the woman's life" are thrown out like a footnote to yet another pontification on how abortion is evil and the zygote is precious. If we REALLY care about women's lives we might elaborate on " save the woman's life" why aren't 120 dead women included in this catchphrase? Are there other dead women that don't count?
people hate the feminists so much-but feminists LOOK at the suffering of women on this planet IT MATTERS to them-WOMAN's death and suffering matters and takes precedence over a zygote
in the usa abortion was "legal" before Roe v Wade -it was permitted to save the womans life as well as in cases where the woman might endanger her life if forced to continue the pregnancy
I don't have a problem with the LAW - I'd be perfectly fine with such a law -but here is the thing WHO are the people that decide the law? Are they the kind of people who say a zygote's life is exactly the same as a born person's life? Are they the kind of people that minimize the death of 120 women? See I don't think such people are fit to judge when abortion should be permitted because these people have more empathy and compassion for the suffering of a single zygote than they have EVER had for women.
These are the kind of people who ignore genital mutilation, sex slavery,hundreds of thousands of women in undeveloped countries dying from complications of childbirth every year,rape, murder, deaths from unsafe abortion- because these people care more about ONE zygote .
They are so holy and they care about life soooo much-far be it from then to let a 120 dead women distract them from their profound respect for the "sactity of life" they are LIARS!!!!
and they are dangerouse to the Jewish people/ If Judaism values the woman's life LET ME HEAR IT! tell me that it's NOT OKAY for women to die from illegal abortions or for raped women to be forced to give birth against their will or else seek out illegal abortions
instead of only seeing the bad in feminism take your eyes off the zygote for a miilisecond and LOOK at how woman suffers in this world and TELL ME IT MATTERS
and you have to MEAN IT not like those stinkin "pro-life" liars that ACT like they CARE about women's lives in order to cover up their evil bile spewing woman hatred
they are just like the people who say things like- oh we are pro-israel and we love the Jews that's why we have to evacuate Gush Katif-it's to save Jewish lives because we care -that's why we want a palestine because we loooove the Jewish people so veery much kiss kiss kiss
whatever, if you give more thought to the suffering of a zygote than you do to the suffering of women well that's you choice-and I am pro-choice
but when it comes to "choose life" remember this-that doesn't necessarly mean physical life
Jews are required to die rather than convert to Islam-why because it's better to die physically than spiritually
ONE woman believeing she matters less than a zygote in the eyes of G-d is a spiritual death
but if you choose to care more about zygotes than women-well hey
that's your choice and
I am pro-choice
Shabbat Shalom!
he was a nazi collaborator...
ReplyDelete-----------------------
Chronology does not make sense. His father, Tivadar Soros (born Theodore Schwartz) helped get people out of Hungary. George Soros himself was a teen or young adult after the war.
There is enough real dirt on him. Be careful with some of the stuff circulating around the Net!
Not shilta..doenst disprove anything.
ReplyDeleteGod allows stupidity and he allows murder. He is in charge and people have freewill, but when he says NO, its no and when he says Yes..it is yes.
One doenst cancel out the other.
He was a young teenager at the time, he worked with a top Hungarian fascist while he seized Jewish homes and helped him trade the currency from his gains.
ReplyDeleteIt's not conspiracy theories, it's based on his own statements.
Of course you are pro choice, did we have a doubt?
ReplyDeletere: lemom lime's question
ReplyDeletewell, people seem to think that "pro-choice" means "pro-abortion", like any pro-choice person I am against forced abortions, forced sterilizations forced sex, as well as forced pregnancy
I am against woman hatred
my position is this-Do everything you can to stop abortion EXCEPT sacrifice even ONE woman's life
do everything you can to stop abortion- but do not ignore even ONE woman's ANGUISH-do not torture even ONE rape victim or any other woman in the name of being "pro-life"
the pro-life movement is to women what the peace movement is to Jews
the pro "life" movement says a woman who uses an IUD is a nazi
the "peace" movement says a Jew who uses an uzi is a nazi
the "peace" people insist that they don't hate Jews they hate zionists (zionazis) -and the fact that Israel just happens to be the ONLY Jewish state on the planet is irrelevent, they are pro-peace, so what if a few Jews die
the "life" people insist that they don't hate women, they hate feminism (feminazis)
and the fact that fertilized human eggs just happen to appear exclusively in women is irrelevent, they are pro-life, so what if a few women die
one group focuses obsessively on tiny little Israel
the other group focuses obsessively
on the tiny zygote
both groups need to take a look at the bigger picture
the "peace" movement is associated with islam/Ishmael
the pro "life" movement is associated with xtianity/Esau
it's a spiritual battle
(and by the lemon your losing it so far)
http://www.sorosmonitor.com/absolutenm/templates/news.aspx?articleid=33&zoneid=1 - I see you are correct about his past which he did admit to on 60 Minutes, and he did not say he was under duress. He could have posed as an Xian as he did and just stayed away from the war entirely. He should have been captured and tried as Eichmann was as his actions were crimes against humanity.
ReplyDeleteThe pro life movement does NOT represent Jewish values. (Of course, neither does the Planned Parenthood/pro choice movement).
ReplyDeleteSometimes, an abortion is sadly necessary in order to save the life of the mother. And until someone really does research into, comments upon and clarifies the 7 Mitzvos Bnei Noach (and it would be best if that were done by a Noachide), we cannot say for sure that non-Jews are 100% forbidden to abort and when there are extenuating circumstances.
We cannot join forces with the pro-life movement because their extreme views are against halacha. They also are not above murder - Barnett Slepian HYD was in fact enjoying a Shabbos meal when a bullet pierced his window.
We have more pressing problems at this point than abortions outside of Israel (where the law should follow halacha and where any unwanted babies can easily find homes among Jews both in Israel and abroad who want desperately to adopt Jewish children).
itzhak-
ReplyDeletere: the Noahides it's a question of what degree of autonomy do they have
Noahides are under the jurisdiction of Torah and therefore the Sanhedren has authority over them
however, the Noahides are commanded to set up their own system of justice -they do not have to go to the Jewish people for every detail, they don't have to ask the Jewish people what the punishment should be for running a red light
BUT if the Noahides start giving the death sentence for running red lights at that point the Jewish court would step in
well, when in comes to abortion the Noahide court and government has NO SAY on that matter-it is for the Jewish court to decide-
because non-Jews are incapable of making a distinction between born life an unborn life
this can lead to TWO extremes
it can get to the point where they think a woman should be put to death for killing a zygote
OR
it can get to the point where they think it's okay for a woman to "abort" even 1 year old infants
non-Jews cannot decide when abortions are permissable because they are INSANE on this issue
the Noahides have NO SAY -abortion is for the Jewish court to decide
re: Jewish values-it is a mitzvah to judge you fellow man righteously
do you think a woman who kills a zygote is the same as someone who shoots a baby in a cradle? Would you give them the same death sentence? Is that judgement "just"?
Are women who have abortions being judged righteously?
you can speak out against the "pro-lifers" who call women baby killers and nazi's
that doesn't mean you condone abortion, you can stand up against the injustice being leveled at women and still believe that abortion is a tragedy that is sadly neccessary sometimes
but if you are silent in the face of injustice-your silence is complicity
oh-and by the way, this does not mean that if a woman is in the midst of childbirth and her life is in immanent danger that a Noahide would have to seek out permission from the Jewish court
ReplyDeleteany Noahide that would risk the woman dying in order to seek out permission for a lifesaving abortion would be subject to whatever the penalty is for such a thing
but the Noahides should not get the idea that it was their autonomous judgement
it is a standing halacha
women are not required to die in childbirth-that includes Noahide women
I'm sorry Sultan. I shouldn't have used the pro-choice thing to make a point and derail the convo from your very important issue in this thread,
ReplyDeletek.a., you have nothing to apologize for, you didn't do anything wrong. a discussion goes where it goes
ReplyDeletedon't worry about it :)
Lemon-
ReplyDeleteGod allows stupidity and he allows murder. He is in charge and people have freewill, but when he says NO, its no and when he says Yes..it is yes.
One doenst cancel out the other.
Except that in this case, it sort of does. You are presenting an unsolvable dilemma and contradiction- you say that if God cares enough and wants something to happen or not happen, he does something about it. You also suggest God has an issue with abortion. How then, can you explain the millions of abortions that happen each year?
You said, "If a million people want you dead, but God wants you alive, a million will not kill you." Does this mean that God wants all the aborted fetuses to die? (Wow, what a fantastic coincidence!)
Either this stuff doesn't have anything to do with God, or God's letting it happen for some reason (or perhaps, as you suggest, doesn't really care about those pesky fetuses).
Such is the problem with theodicy.
Not really, Friar
ReplyDeleteYour argument amounts to saying that if G-d really wanted the world to be a good place, he'd eliminate free will entirely.
But of course that would eliminate the entire purpose of the world as an arena that lets us make mistakes and thus gives us a choice.
You might as well argue that if I come up to you on the street and shoot you on the head, it means that G-d wants you dead, since he let it happen. You're in fact confusing 'permitting' with 'desiring.' One sometimes permits things that one doesn't desire in order to maintain freedom of will.
The US government opposes drug use. It could end all drug use permanently by moving everyone in labor camps and enslaving them. Your proposal that if G-d really wanted the babies to be born, he'd just eliminate all abortion for good is in that same category.
The world is a place where people can choose rightly or wrongly
keliata: you didn't derail the thread, your comment just opened up the possibility of questioning whether we should be thanking the devil for the "pro-Israel right" as well
ReplyDeletekol tuv
Post a Comment