By the way that is where Jewish scholars draw the distinction as well. Judaism does not allow you to cut off your own arm or leg just because you want to either, so even if the unborn is part of the mother it doesn’t me it is permitted. The view is he body belongs to god and you are required to take care of it. There is a great deal of theological study on this issue and it is far from a settled debateiin Judaism (which is typical of most areas of jewish law).

JMJ

Parrothead, I’m NOT “speaking for Jews.” I was simply refuting the untruth that Jews are theologically “Pro-Life.” Conservative Judaism is a relatively modern and very small movement. The vast majority of Temples agree that abortion is NOT murder as long as it is performed humanely before the fetus developes sentience.

JMJ

First of all Jersey I love how you get into the discussion of religious leaders of views of aborition to obscure the original point. Which is one issue (specifically abortion) is NOT determinative of whether somebody is a feminist. In fact it wasn’t even one of the issues which spawned the feminist movement, but a later issue whch the movement adopted.

As far as your comment “Now, you can be a Feminist and presonally be pro-life, that is to say that you yourself would never get an abortion. But if one believes that should be imposed on all the other women and girls in the world, then one is not a Feminist, but in fact a misgynist pseudo-religious fascist”. The real debate over abortion has to do with when people believe life begins and whose rigths should prevail. So a “pro-life feminist” legitimately could believe that the unborn female also has a right to control over her body. I am not saying I share this belief but they are not mutually exclusive.

Secondly, you ar ein no position to speak for Jews. First of all the overwhelming majority of jews are neither orhtodox nor reformed but conservative. Coservative Judaism is split on this issue. Orthodox Jews believe Halacha (jewish law) prohibits abortion, especially in the later months. Reform Jews tend to be much more accepting of abortion. None of this is really all that relevant to th ecentral point that abortion is NOT a litmus test for feminism.

Glad the young man is ok.

Oh, by the way, the doctors kid is okay. He’s just going to need a little r&r and he’ll be good as new. Thanks for helping me out with your kind advice.

JMJ

The term “with child” is mentioned in the Bible 26 times. The Bible does not recognize “fetus”…but Obama supporters use the term regularly, as in “feed us”…
In Luke chapter one, verses 36 and 41, we are told that Elisabeth conceived a “son” and that the “babe” leaped in her womb. God does not say that a “fetus” leaped in her womb!. He says THE BABE leaped. This is the exact same word that God uses to describe Christ in the manger AFTER He is born (Luke 2:12, 16). According to the Bible, an unborn babe and a newborn babe are the same. They are both living human beings.
The Bible is clear about babies, whether they are in the womb or out. Examples: Job 3:16: “Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.”
Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
Psalm 139:13-16: “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” The speaker is David, who was a person IN THE WOMB, not a blob of tissue.
In Jeremiah 1:5 the Bible says that God knows Jeremiah before, during, and after he was in the womb:”Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
Exodus 21:22-23: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,”
If the woman has a premature birth and the child lives (”no mischief follows”), then there’s no death penalty. However, if the child dies (or the woman dies) God says the death penalty applies: “thou shalt give life for life.” Why would God require the death penalty if He didn’t consider the unborn child to be a human being?
Science also declares that an unborn child is just as much an independent human being as you. The original human cell consists of 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. At no point during pregnancy does the mother contribute any new cells to the child. The original cell divides itself and multiplies to provide development and growth for the child. Scientifically speaking, the child is just as independent at six months before birth as he will be six months after birth. Yes, the mother does provide nourishment to the unborn child, but she also provides nourishment to the newborn child!
At two weeks pregnancy, the “fetus” can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.
All of the above Bible verses suggest we are human before we are born. Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception. There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception. Since blood is flowing at this point, it is likely that blood formation begins well before day 21. From a purely scientific viewpoint, there is an argument that a baby blob isn’t a human until 21-24 days after conception, because that is when the heart beats, and shedding of man’s blood is considered murder. God gave the law and penalty for murder (described as the shedding of “man’s blood”). Therefore, God considers blood to be the basis for life and the shedding of human blood, which results in death, to be murder.

In your case its not an ignorance of political history that stands in your way. Whats stands in your way is your ignorance of the medias history and that you’ve joined the gang in America that actually believe that shes suffered no worse than anyone else. Sure, there are those that suffered worse, but were talking about someone who didnt deserve it. GET IT ?
I like to call them the “American idolized usefull idiots” who’ve made Sarah Palin bashing a sport.

I read and research as much if not more than the average guy and have been at and listening to this crap way longer than you my friend. So please, lighten up on the insults to the intelligence of those of use who actually have functioning memories.

This is just another example of why it’ll be a long time before I engage you again. You call people ignorant and living under rocks because they see things for what they really are.
What would be more logical is discusss why the level of brutality and not act a fool and deny it exists while calling those who differ names

Of those that did talk about Palin’s background, the clear majority were conservative columnists complaining about Democratic snobbery in relation to Palin (although it is interesting that none of them provided examples). The only articles that I could find denigrating Palin’s family background were a few letters to the editor in local newspapers and an article in the Boston Herald on the eve of the election that said Palin “appealed to the inbred Republican base”.

Similarly, few newspapers (with the exception of the Anchorage Daily News) pushed the conspiracy theory regarding the maternity of Trig Palin, so the MSM can’t be blamed on that account. Of course this doesn’t excuse the behaviour of bloggers like Andrew Sullivan or Arianna Huffington, but many politicians have had to deal with individuals pushing their own private vendettas - for instance the Arizona Republic and John McCain, the American Spectator and Bill Clinton etc.

Ultimately, it is undeniable that the media have been biased towards Obama ever since he emerged onto the public stage. However, if Obama had selected a running mate with similar experience and family problems to Palin, then the media would have had a field day. Additionally, Palin could have closed down much the coverage by not putting her daughter centre stage during the convention and asking the media to respect her family’s privacy – after all McCain kept quiet about the heroism of his two brave sons.