Shalom

[Dan Ben Noah]

Shalom

[angryChineseKahanist]

Is it too late to after-birth-abort these experts?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The famous "ethicist" Peter Singer made this argument years ago.  Rabbi meir Triebitz told a story of when he witnessed this speech in person (it might have been at Princeton University).  Actually it was a debate between Singer who was arguing for euthanasia of the disabled vs. , you guessed it, a disabled woman who argued against him (and whom as a newborn would have been a victim of the evil promoted by singer). 

Rabbi Triebitz warned it was only a matter of time before this type of thinking became more mainstream and it is a direct consequence of an attempt to establish an ethical system based on purely logic or human rationale with God excluded.  He also expressed his feelings about Singer that he was a very sick individual in his opinion.   Anyway, this discussion came up when the Rabbi was teaching about the subject of abortion in Jewish law. (There are some very interesting Rambams there!)

[muman613]

Heck, even murder is OK... Without Hashems law there is no 'morality' only mans wicked desires...

[Maimonides]

This is just a reversion to the pagan days when disabled children where abandoned.
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Greece_and_Rome

In Greece the decision to expose a child was typically the father's, although in Sparta the decision was made by a group of elders.........After a woman had a baby, she would show it to her husband. If the husband accepted it, it would live, but if he refused it, it would die. Babies would often be rejected if they were illegitimate, unhealthy or deformed, the wrong sex (female for example), or too great a burden on the family...

[briann]

It makes no difference to the baby if he/she  is inside or outside of the womb.  Either way its murder.

[Rubystars]

The thing is, none of this is even logical or rational.  They are just trying to find excuses to push evil behavior into society using terminology that makes it sound "informed", but the fact is that they don't get to make a new definition of what constitutes an "actual person" or the "moral right to live".  I'm sure they would be much more careful when dealing with animals and their rights.

Ironically enough, Peter Singer does promote vegetarianism and animal rights.

At the same time, the eugenicists often make the claim that fetuses and infants have the same level of perception and sentience, or less, as many animals do, and since we kill relatively intelligent animals like pigs and cattle with no qualms, that we should be able to "reduce suffering" by killing disabled infants or fetuses.

They see nothing inherently different about the fetus or infant being a human being. They think of people as just another animal on the same moral level.

This is why PETA posted up pictures of chickens in a slaughterhouse and called it another Holocaust. To them, it's exactly the same and just as morally repugnant.

Singer and Dawkins appeared in a series of youtube videos where they discussed both vegetarianism and cannibalism. They said cannibalism is just the same morally as eating other kinds of meat.

Even though I accept that evolution was a method that G-d used to create, I don't believe that animals and people are morally or spiritually equivalent. Unfortunately evolution as a concept has been used for evil purposes such as promoting eugenics or trying to morally equate humans and animals, and I think it would probably be better if most people didn't accept it or believe in it simply for the fact that they wouldn't be as subject to these types of arguments, and traditional creationism automatically puts people as separate and apart from the rest of life.

This is also to a large part a result of government-provided health care. Society will look at parents with disabled children with hate and resentment wondering why they didn't "do something about the problem" before it cost the society money. Of course they don't say things like that when it comes to third worlders who leach off of Western systems but that would be much more politically incorrect than advocating infanticide, sadly enough.

[Rubystars]

Also, notice how they always use the pronoun "she" or "her" in place of "he", "him" or "his".  Someone needs to tell these wackos that the default human being is the male, and the female is a variation on the male.

So why are there more females? 

I agree with he, him, or his being the default gender-neutral language though. When I was in college they told me that it's changed in the official standards now. Back when I was in high school, I was taught that using "his or her" or "he or she" or "him or her" was only to be done rarely because it was unecessarily wordy and awkward. Using those phrases would have gotten points counted off. Now using those phrases is considered to be preferable to he, his, or him as gender-neutral language. I don't agree with that whatsoever but that's what the colleges are teaching now.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The thing is, none of this is even logical or rational.  They are just trying to find excuses to push evil behavior into society using terminology that makes it sound "informed", but the fact is that they don't get to make a new definition of what constitutes an "actual person" or the "moral right to live".  I'm sure they would be much more careful when dealing with animals and their rights.

But the point is, with God out of the picture, what makes it "evil?"  Its just the logical consequence of abortion and the secular view of "rights."

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I think I heard of someone who stood up for things like killing newborns who also advocated apes' right to have an attorney.  It might have been Peter Singer, I'm not sure.

Lol not sure who said that but that's hilarious

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

G-d is still in the picture, they are just finding ways to make rejection of G-d sound palatable to the feeble-minded.  If there were really no G-d or morality insisting that human life is sacred, there would still be no logical reason for any group to advocate the murder of babies.  These "logical"/"rational" objections to common sense are a cleverly disguised rebellion against what their conscience tells them inside.

Of course G-d is in the picture.  But not according to them!  (And their thinking).  And when people think along those lines, they come to very perverse conclusions.

[muman613]

I think I heard of someone who stood up for things like killing newborns who also advocated apes' right to have an attorney.  It might have been Peter Singer, I'm not sure.

Some people even work the gender switch into religion and refer to G-d as "her".  I've even heard people replacing words of the Bible saying things like "She makes me lie down in green pastures, She leads me beside still waters".  If I am around those type of people I make sure to address G-d as Mr. Lord, Sir (even though G-d has no actual gender).

Of course there is a logical reason why Hashem is called He in our prayers. It has nothing to do with the gender of Hashem and more to do with Hashems action toward us. In Judaism we actually believe that there are traits which are masculine and traits which are feminine. I firmly believe this to be true, yet the psychologists of today are trying to tell everyone that men and women have the same traits. But basically it comes down to when Hashem is bestowing benefit onto man, exhibiting his kindness and his blessing, he is acting in a masculine sense. This is because in the sexual dynamic of procreation the man is the one who 'GIVES' the seed to the womans egg. The feminine aspect is one of taking and nurturing till maturity, and there is an aspect of Hashem which we refer to as the Shechina which is the feminine 'aspect' of Hashem.


http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/G-d.htm

G-d is Neither Male nor Female

This followed directly from the idea that G-d has no physical form.  G-d has, of course, no body; therefore, the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd.  We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience's sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is.

Although we usually speak of G-d in masculine terms, there are times when we refer to G-d using feminine terms.  The Shechinah, the manifestation of G-d's presence that fills the universe, is conceived of in feminine terms, and the word Shechinah is a feminine word.

http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48964511.html

http://www.aish.com/atr/Gender_of_God.html?catid=909539
Gender of G-d

Why is G-d referred to as "He"? If G-d is complete, then He should have both male and female characteristics.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

You are absolutely correct that G-d is neither male nor female.

Kabbalah, the Jewish mysticism, says that G-d is the ultimate mixture. He contains everything. In Hebrew, there is no gender-neutral term, so that's why in Hebrew, G-d is neither masculine nor feminine. He's both.

For example, consider the word "Shechina," which describes G-d's presence in our world - the feeling we have when standing on a mountaintop under the expanse of stars, in total awe. "Shechina" is a feminine word.

Other words used to describe aspects of G-d are masculine. The Kuzari explains that the male genital organs are external, which makes masculine reference appropriate for times when G-d's presence is in a revealed, "external" state.

The feminine genitals are internal and unexposed to the external eye, which is why the feminine word "Shechina" describes G-d's presence which is hidden, internal, and at times silent.

http://www.613.org/hasidism/intro.htm

A Chassidic term that befuddles many students is “bechina.”  In Chassidic texts many items are described as being a bechina of something else, and multiple bechinos may be ascribed to a single item.  It is hard to translate the term bechina.[12] It denotes an analogy or a relative value.  For example, male is to female as giver is to receiver, for to create life male gives seed that female receives.  The sun gives light that the moon receives, thus the sun is bechinas zachar, relatively it is masculine, while the moon is bechinas nekeiva, analogous to the feminine. Personalities are thus a bechina of certain times or places.  Some Rabbis are a bechina of Shabbos (Sabbath)[13] while others are a bechina of Yom Tov (holidays).  Shabbos is the day of complete rest and during the six days of work all of Shabbos’s needs are prepared.  Holidays are times of partial rest, when some forms of work, food preparation in particular, are allowed.  Shabbos individuals are at rest with their faith, they do not engage the material world at all; others end up doing the work to help them.  Holiday sages resemble Yom Tov, for they expend minimal effort in the material realm.[14]

Relativity allows for many different bechinos within an item, for an item can be contrasted by many disparate phenomena.  If we look at the relationship between sun and moon, the sun is male while the moon is female.  But if we look at the relationship between the Creator and His creations, the sun is female and G-d represents the male concept.  This leads to items symbolizing many different concepts, some of them contradictory, such as the sun being the symbol of both the masculine and the feminine.

[Rubystars]

I think I heard of someone who stood up for things like killing newborns who also advocated apes' right to have an attorney.  It might have been Peter Singer, I'm not sure.

Some people even work the gender switch into religion and refer to G-d as "her".  I've even heard people replacing words of the Bible saying things like "She makes me lie down in green pastures, She leads me beside still waters".  If I am around those type of people I make sure to address G-d as Mr. Lord, Sir (even though G-d has no actual gender).

I think those people are worshipping a completely different "Lord". Old-style pagan beliefs often include a male and female deity. Also a lot of Luciferians have secretly infiltrated the Christian community and they often portray their deity as being a mix of male and female such as the Baphomet image. Some radical feminists also want to turn God into a female deity so they always refer to Him as "her, she, etc."

It's true that God is a spirit and doesn't have a gender per se, but I believe in general anyone referring to God as a her or she is almost always doing so for very wrong reasons.

[Rubystars]

I always thought  of male and female as being a physical difference, and with God having no physical body, with no associated male or female parts, male or female physical brain, or male or female hormonal differences, then saying that G-d is male or female seems kind of a moot point. Many of G-d's creations are neither male nor female, such as animals that produce both sperm and eggs, a lot of plants that have both male and female parts (like the parts of a flower, the male and female pine cones, etc.) I think referring to G-d as "she or her" is a sign that the speaker is either a radical feminist or a neopagan. I feel more comfortable with Him or He not only because it's more traditional but because I think it shows respect rather than being rebellious and different for the sake of being rebellious and different.

When I talked about gender-neutral language, I meant things like "Every student must remember to bring his own number two pencil to the test." There might be female students, but that sentence does not imply that there aren't. It's neutral. A lot of people don't understand this concept and that's why a lot of guides are changing to prefer "his or her".

[Debbie Shafer]

I am so sickened by these people...In an ultrasound you can see the babies eyes, nose, mouth, hear the beating heart, and see the fetus move.  It is a living breathing life, and it is demonic to destroy these tiny souls once they are born...Anne Coulter is Right, they are Demonic.