Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,123 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts
 
 
 

Thewritertwo

 

Blog Traffic: 205483

Posts: 559

My Comments: 4796

User Comments: 7650

Photos: 39

Friends: 27

Following: 15

Followers: 11

Points: 12496

Last Online: 6 hours ago


 
 

Visitors

Irish-39 us2nomads katskorner wicklowmick ellie1142545 AMODPOVW 1derlander Imperatrix jjohnson1957
 

The War On Sex, Women, Men And Babies - Welcome To The Wild Wild West

Added: Wednesday, May 15th 2019 at 9:37am by Thewritertwo
 
 
 

Should women have bodily autonomy? Should men have sex dolls? Should women have sex dolls? Should women be forced to have babies they don't want? Should men father their babies born out of rape while serving time in prison? Should we ban birth control?

So many questions as the war on sex heats up. It is a war that seeks to control what or what we can do with our bodies. But is this war focused on the wrong target?

I think individuals have a right to do what they want with their bodies. But I do have a problem with institutions that build a business to profit out of abortion. I don't think such instutions morally have the interest of the mother at hand. Business are focused on profitability and in the quest for profits they set no boundaries. Some say if we get rid of abortion clinics then women will conduct their own abortions in back alleys. So we have to weigh in between unlimited abortions or the risk of mothers taking matters into their own hands. 

Ohio just past a law that prevents a child who has been raped from having an abortion. That to me is a stretch. I have heard stories from children were born from rape and such stories are inspiring, but the mother should have been given the opportunity to abort the baby even that baby would have grown up to be the president of the USA. That's just my opinion. 

Life is a circle and what is meant for good can be taken too far and end up serving bad. Meaning protecting unborn babies, while on the otherhand forcing raped victims to carry a pregnancy that was forced upon them.

So how did we get here and where are we going? 

One thing that stands out is that women are really powerful. They get carry babies in their stomach. They get bent out of shape and many don't recover their beautiful bikini fitting bodies.

So Alyssa Milano came up with this idea of a Sex Strike. Sounds crazy does it? Can you imagine women and men are at war with each other in a full blown sex strike? You thought Trump's trade war with China was bad? Well, a Sex Strike will be even worst. How long will it last? What's going to happen with all those babies waiting to be born? Will there be a boom in masturbation? Will companies capitalize on the ban and usher in new styles of sex dolls? Can it replace women effectively? Has the world gone mad? Will the law give in to women and allow them to have unimited abortions? Will the government pamper women giving them tools necessary to live and survive with so that they can have stress-free pregnancies? 

Twenty years ago, I spoke to a friend who was single and living in London. She wanted to have a baby. She didn't want a husband, she just wanted a baby. Why? I asked. She said that with a baby, the government provided her with an apartment and other things. 

Is this going to be the final talking point in the abortion issue? Meaning, we force you to have babies and we take care of you and your babies. It will all belong to the state. Is that a compromise?

Something to think about. 

 

User Comments

Keep asking questions. There are so many more...

 

I know. Such are the complications of life.

I will say this Writer, Abortion is murder. So women should not murder what is in their womb. Because even before the six week period at times you can hear the babies heartbeat. So is is murder when you kill a living thing, whether in the womb or outside of it. Bro. Doc

It is a form of murder, but are some murders justified?  

It is murder plain and simple my friend. And in this case it is not justified. Those that get the gas chamber in prsion that is justified. Bro. Doc

I was referring to the case of an 11 year old who was raped being given an abortion. It seems justified to me.

Q: Is this a chicken?

Image result for an egg If you answered "No," then you're well on your way to understanding that abortion doesn't "kill kids" or "kill babies."

Isn't the egg the equivalent of an unfertilized ovary? It won't be abortion in that case. 

no, it isn't. 

This is very different. In the womb, as early as 4 weeks a heartbeat can be heart. Just because you can't see it, or feel it, is it not a human life? Scripture tells us there is life in the womb. Bro. Doc

What's an egg. Have I been eating baby chickens all this time? I like the photo. It gives me a sentimental feeling of reading my ABC book as a child.

Is too, skip.  An unfertilized chicken egg is the aviary equivalent of a human females ova. (eggs)  BOTH need male sperm to become a separate creature.

well, I like eggs, and fry the little bastards with bacon! :-)

And they're tasty, too!

Some cultures allow the fertilized eggs develop a full blown chick and then bury 'em underground for a lonnnnng time to ferment.  Then they eat the entire thing, gaaak.

Women are not FORCED to have a baby! Prevention is easy; take an aspirin....and hold it firmly between the knees! Of course  there are different ways. Rape or incest? In a court.A mother's life? A doctor's decision.. But abort a healthy baby?  Murder! Indict, Convict, and Imprison!  Roe vs. Wade was a manufactured deal where the lib justices had to find a way to ok abortion. They  even had to go to the commerce clause to find a way to ok it! It is a state level decision. The 10th Amendment prevents the feds from having any authority over health problems and the  SCOTUS is part of the government.That will be rectified soon.

So are ok with abortion in the case of rape or incest?

I will answer for me. Rape or Incest, is not even a license to murder. You give the baby away. Scripture tells us Thou shalt not kill. So we can't. Bro. Doc

I see. I will leave that case up to the victim.

Any way you say abortion it is murder my friend. Bro. Doc

Bro. Doc are you against all murders?

The only murders I am not against would be if someone had killed someone, then Scripture says an eye for an eye. So if you murder someone, then you should receive just punishment. Bro. Doc

But scriptures also said to turn the other cheek. Didn't it?

I'm against aborting for those reasons, as harsh as it sounds.  I think a LOT of innocent men would be charged with rapes and/or molestations they did not perpetrate if a pregnant woman has only those justifications for aborting available to her.

Actually, the Old Testament puts a price on an aborted baby...I'd have to dig for the passage but it's there because many people have shown it to me before.

The New Testament tells us not to judge, and to forgive.  BroD likes to take unrelated verses out of context to prop up his views.  A  lot of people do that, and it's why I asked that no scripture quoting be done on my post about abortion.

An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person (Heb. nefesh, lit. “soul”) until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth). In fact, until forty days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.” These facts form the basis for the Jewish legal view on abortion. Biblical, ic, and rabbinic support for these statements will now be presented.

Intentional abortion is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but a case of accidental abortion is discussed in Exodus 21:22‑23 , where Scripture states: “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.”

The famous medieval biblical commentator Solomon ben Isaac, known as Rashi, interprets “no other misfortune” to mean no fatal injury to the woman following her miscarriage. In that case, the attacker pays only financial compensation for having unintentionally caused the miscarriage, no differently than if he had accidentally injured the woman elsewhere on her body. Most other Jewish Bible commentators, including Moses Nachmanides (Ramban), Abraham Ibn Ezra, Meir Leib ben Yechiel Michael (Malbim), Baruch Malawi Epstein (Torah Temimah), Samson Raphael Hirsch, Joseph Hertz, and others, agree with Rashi’s interpretation. We can thus conclude that when the mother is otherwise unharmed following trauma to her abdomen during which the fetus is lost, the only rabbinic concern is to have the one responsible pay damages to the woman and her husband for the loss of the fetus. None of the rabbis raise the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being involved because the unborn fetus is not legally a person and, therefore, there is no question of murder involved when a fetus is aborted.

Based upon this biblical statement. Moses Maimonides asserts as follows: “If one assaults a woman, even unintentionally, and her child is born prematurely, he must pay the value of the child to the husband and the compensation for injury and pain to the woman.” Maimonides continues with statements regarding how these compensations are computed. A similar declaration is found in Joseph Karo’s legal code Shulkhan Aruch. No concern is expressed by either Maimonides or Karo regarding the status of the miscarried fetus. It is part of the mother and belongs jointly to her and her husband, and thus damages must be paid for its premature death. However, the one who was responsible is not culpable for murder, since the unborn fetus is not considered a person.

Murder in Jewish law is based upon Exodus 21:12 , where it is written: “He that smiteth a man so that he dieth shall surely be put to death.” The word “man” is interpreted by the sages to mean a man but not a fetus. Thus, the destruction of an unborn fetus is not considered murder.

Another pertinent scriptural passage is Leviticus 24:17 , where it states: “And he that smiteth any person mortally shall surely be put to death.” However, an unborn fetus is not considered a person or nefesh and, therefore, its destruction does not incur the death penalty.

Turning to talmudic sources, the

asserts the following: “If a woman is having difficulty in giving birth [and her life is in danger], one cuts up the fetus within her womb and extracts it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over that of the fetus. But if the greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.”

Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman Heller, known as Tosafot Yom Tov, in his commentary on this passage in the Mishnah, explains that the fetus is not considered a nefesh until it has egressed into the air of the world and, therefore, one is permitted to destroy it to save the mother’s life. Similar reasoning is found in Rashi’s commentary on the talmudic discussion of this mishnaic passage, where Rashi states that as long as the child has not come out into the world, it is not called a living being, i.e., nefesh . Once the head of the child has come out, the child may not be harmed because it is considered as fully born, and one life may not be taken to save another.

The Mishnah elsewhere states: “If a pregnant woman is taken out to be executed, one does not wait for her to give birth; but if her pains of parturition have already begun [lit. she has already sat on the birth stool], one waits for her until she gives birth.” One does not delay the execution of the mother in order to save the life of the fetus because the fetus is not yet a person (Heb. nefesh ), and judgments in Judaism must be promptly implemented. The Talmud also explains that the embryo is part of the mother’s body and has no identity of its own, since it is dependent for its life upon the body of the woman. However, as soon as it starts to move from the womb, it is considered an autonomous being (nefesh ) and thus unaffected by the mother’s state. This concept of the embryo being considered part of the mother and not a separate being recurs throughout the Talmud and rabbinic writings.

Reprinted with permission from Biomedical Ethics and Jewish Law , published by KTAV .

I see your point. I hadn't thought of that.

Thanks for that research. Who knew such things existed? I didn't.

If you read the Bible, it's all there.  Aint it funny how the people who quote it the most understand it the least?

I would have never known. I haven't read it in a long time. It will be interesting to see the response from those who read it.

If one can't define life when it starts other then conception when does life begin? Its scientific fact that when you add a zygote with sprem you got a human being? if its not human what is it? And if aboration is okay when is it not okay? Why does a piece of paper have to redefine life for people? Fact is a baby comes out a woman. Moms don't say "oh my little sack of cells is growing." 

Lot's of good questions you ask.

Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.