If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MLive.com)   Despite the ability to "shut that whole thing down," Republicans propose women buy rape insurance   (mlive.com) divider line 374
    More: Sick, Republicans, Whitmer, Michigan Legislature, Rick Snyder, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

4874 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2013 at 10:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



374 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-04 09:22:28 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃

Because God says so.
Any other questions?


Not only can't I read that, I can't even make a guess to what language it is.   But I would like to know.   Would you please give the best guess English translation and the verse in the Bible for it?  (I say best guess because I know stuff is always lost in translation.  I regret I can't read it in it's original format.)

I have never heard the breath stance presented before and would love to know more about it.  This is as exciting as the time I found out 'thou shall not kill' is more closely translated to 'thou shall not murder' which is a huge difference.
 
2013-12-04 09:40:55 AM  

bk3k: I see my responses have basically been taken care of for me and there is not much I need to say then(but I am going to blab because I can).  I will just say yes I am fine with abortion up until birth....Stop conceding that there is anything wrong with abortion, because there is not.


Have you ever seen a newborn baby?  An hour before that newborn baby is born, you're okay with aborting it?  That's completely and totally farking disgusting dude.

There's something wrong with you.
 
2013-12-04 10:21:35 AM  

lennavan: bk3k: I see my responses have basically been taken care of for me and there is not much I need to say then(but I am going to blab because I can).  I will just say yes I am fine with abortion up until birth....Stop conceding that there is anything wrong with abortion, because there is not.

Have you ever seen a newborn baby?  An hour before that newborn baby is born, you're okay with aborting it?  That's completely and totally farking disgusting dude.

There's something wrong with you.


It hasn't breathed yet, it's just a clump of cells.

I'm pro choice all the way but let's call it what it is--killing babies. We need to stop trying to sugarcoat this shiat. People need to see that it is ugly.
 
2013-12-04 10:33:10 AM  

rdalton: demaL-demaL-yeH: pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃

Because God says so.
Any other questions?

Not only can't I read that, I can't even make a guess to what language it is.   But I would like to know.   Would you please give the best guess English translation and the verse in the Bible for it?  (I say best guess because I know stuff is always lost in translation.  I regret I can't read it in it's original format.)

I have never heard the breath stance presented before and would love to know more about it.  This is as exciting as the time I found out 'thou shall not kill' is more closely translated to 'thou shall not murder' which is a huge difference.


Favorited, for several reasons.
 
2013-12-04 11:44:45 AM  

rdalton: demaL-demaL-yeH: pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃


 I'll give google translate a barely passing grade on this.     

Because God says so.
Any other questions?

Not only can't I read that, I can't even make a guess to what language it is.   But I would like to know.   Would you please give the best guess English translation and the verse in the Bible for it?  (I say best guess because I know stuff is always lost in translation.  I regret I can't read it in it's original format.)

I have never heard the breath stance presented before and would love to know more about it.  This is as exciting as the time I found out 'thou shall not kill' is more closely translated to 'thou shall not murder' which is a huge difference.



Hebrew. Personhood begins at birth, when you draw the breath of life. Until then, a fetus is lav nefesh hu - not a person, but part of a woman's body.
If a fetus were a person, we wouldn't see the clear delineation in Exodus 21:22-25 between the status of a miscarriage and that of the woman. In the case of causing a miscarriage, the penalty is monetary compensation to the family, parallel to compensation for the loss of a farm animal. In the case of the woman's death, injury, or dismemberment, you see the familiar life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc...
This distinction, by the way, extends to case law concerning judicial executions: A fetus is part of her body.

This personhood of a fetus concept is recent. It is dangerous from a legal, moral, and civic standpoint. Miscarriages become criminal investigations. Maternal behavior during pregnancy becomes subject to government monitoring and criminal sanction. It becomes a pathway to returning women to chattel status. The Handmaid's Tale is not a how-to book, for crying out loud.

We have a simple, clear and bright line with historical, legal and biblical justification: Personhood begins at birth. There's no reason to fark with it.
 
2013-12-04 11:53:16 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: rdalton: demaL-demaL-yeH: pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃

 I'll give google translate a barely passing grade on this.     

Because God says so.
Any other questions?

Not only can't I read that, I can't even make a guess to what language it is.   But I would like to know.   Would you please give the best guess English translation and the verse in the Bible for it?  (I say best guess because I know stuff is always lost in translation.  I regret I can't read it in it's original format.)

I have never heard the breath stance presented before and would love to know more about it.  This is as exciting as the time I found out 'thou shall not kill' is more closely translated to 'thou shall not murder' which is a huge difference.


Hebrew. Personhood begins at birth, when you draw the breath of life. Until then, a fetus is lav nefesh hu - not a person, but part of a woman's body.
If a fetus were a person, we wouldn't see the clear delineation in Exodus 21:22-25 between the status of a miscarriage and that of the woman. In the case of causing a miscarriage, the penalty is monetary compensation to the family, parallel to compensation for the loss of a farm animal. In the case of the woman's death, injury, or dismemberment, you see the familiar life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc...
This distinction, by the way, extends to case law concerning judicial executions: A fetus is part of her body.

This personhood of a fetus concept is recent. It is dangerous from a legal, moral, and civic standpoint. Miscarriages become criminal investigations. Maternal behavior during pregnancy becomes subject to government monitoring and criminal sanction. It becomes a pathway to returning women to chattel status. The Handmaid's Tale is n ...


Favorited, for several reasons.
 
2013-12-04 12:02:24 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: If a fetus were a person, we wouldn't see the clear delineation in Exodus 21:22-25 between the status of a miscarriage and that of the woman


IIRC there's also verses in Proverbs that point to the breath=life and abortion=/murder.

/hell, God barely stopped Abraham from performing a post-partum abortion.
 
2013-12-04 12:05:07 PM  

rdalton: I have never heard the breath stance presented before and would love to know more about it.  This is as exciting as the time I found out 'thou shall not kill' is more closely translated to 'thou shall not murder' which is a huge difference.


Since this sort of thing is new to you, are you also aware that Sodom and Gomorrah are about hospitality and not homosexuality?

See: Genesis 19-21
Judges 19-21
Ezekiel 16:49 (which does the awesome job of  explicitly stating what Sodom's sin was and never mentions homosexuality)
 
2013-12-04 12:21:16 PM  

Peki: God barely stopped Abraham from performing a post-partum abortion.


The Akedah (the Binding) is my least favorite part of my favorite parsha, Vayera, with its lessons in hospitality, negotiation, and keeping promises. It's very disturbing, and Isaac is so farked up by it that God is often referred to as the "Fear of Isaac" later on.
 
2013-12-04 12:32:56 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Isaac


You know, that makes sense that his would be the story to get glossed over. I don't think I've ever heard a reading or interpretation from his side of the story (very little Jewish background, so I don't know the Torah or Talmud at all).

/may have to write a book now along the lines of  The Red Tent
//having a bit of a PTSD flashback just imagining it. . .
 
2013-12-04 02:09:51 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: rdalton: demaL-demaL-yeH: pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃

 I'll give google translate a barely passing grade on this.


So that's the part where God creates Adam and then "breathes life into him"?
I'm not sure we really want to consider that the official process for all life.  Women don't even exist unless they're crafted out of a man's surgically removed rib, if we follow that logic.
 
2013-12-04 02:20:32 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: If a fetus were a person, we wouldn't see the clear delineation in Exodus 21:22-25 between the status of a miscarriage and that of the woman


Which translation are you reading that distinguishes?
New International Version says:
22 "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Doesn't specify injury to woman vs. fetus.

The original Klingon has a surprising number of English words in it.
 
2013-12-04 02:28:54 PM  

serial_crusher: So that's the part where God creates Adam and then "breathes life into him"?


and the man became nefesh haya - a living being.

/Way to ignore more than two millennia of thought and discussion, stop before the important part, and introduce a digression.
//I see you're still living down to your farkie.
///Mazal bueno.
 
2013-12-04 02:33:47 PM  

serial_crusher: Which translation are you reading that distinguishes?


O.o

Translation? I read the Torah in Hebrew, as usual.
Look upthread. See?

/Not the Seputagint. Not the Latin Vulgate. Not Tyndall.
//None of their derivatives, cousins, or siblings.
///Hebrew.
 
2013-12-04 02:35:14 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: So that's the part where God creates Adam and then "breathes life into him"?

and the man became nefesh haya - a living being.

/Way to ignore more than two millennia of thought and discussion, stop before the important part, and introduce a digression.
//I see you're still living down to your farkie.
///Mazal bueno.


yeah, I guess I should do 2000 years worth of research before posting on a fark thread, like everybody else.

Your quote there doesn't refute my argument though.  Still just says that's how that one special case guy  became a living being, not that that's how people today become living beings.  Seems like with those 2000 years of thought and discussions, you'd be able to come up with a better counter-argument.
 
2013-12-04 02:45:46 PM  

Peki: You know, that makes sense that his would be the story to get glossed over.


It isn't glossed over. Akeda is a Rosh HaShana text. We follow it with parsha  Chukat - the death of Moses, where he's allowed to see the land before his death, but not enter it - on Simchat Torah just a few weeks later. Both of these texts are discomfiting for me.
 
2013-12-04 02:53:22 PM  

serial_crusher: yeah, I guess I should do 2000 years worth of research before posting on a fark thread, like everybody else.

Your quote there doesn't refute my argument though.  Still just says that's how that one special case guy  became a living being, not that that's how people today become living beings.  Seems like with those 2000 years of thought and discussions, you'd be able to come up with a better counter-argument.


Counter-argument to what? You digressed and asked irrelevant questions.
If you have some alternative for when personhood begins, trot it on out.

/Doubt anybody will be surrendering a birth certificate for your proposed substitute anytime soon.
//It wouldn't hurt you to go over the old arguments and discussions, or to learn another language.
///That way, you could ask informed questions.
 
2013-12-04 03:01:32 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: yeah, I guess I should do 2000 years worth of research before posting on a fark thread, like everybody else.

Your quote there doesn't refute my argument though. Still just says that's how that one special case guy became a living being, not that that's how people today become living beings. Seems like with those 2000 years of thought and discussions, you'd be able to come up with a better counter-argument.

Counter-argument to what? You digressed and asked irrelevant questions.


claim: the bible says life begins at first breath because that's when Adam became alive.
argument: Adam was a special case, not relevant to normal human reproduction.
counter-argument: repeat claim about Adam.

I'm agnostic, so all this bible stuff is kind of silly to me.  It's not even like reading it in the "original Hebrew" is somehow a definitive interpretation of a story that was repeated orally for thousands of years before somebody got the bright idea to write it down using whatever verbiage they thought was good enough at the time.
 
2013-12-04 03:31:16 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Peki: You know, that makes sense that his would be the story to get glossed over.

It isn't glossed over. Akeda is a Rosh HaShana text. We follow it with parsha  Chukat - the death of Moses, where he's allowed to see the land before his death, but not enter it - on Simchat Torah just a few weeks later. Both of these texts are discomfiting for me.


Thanks for the info. I meant glossed over in Christianity (I am SO not entering a debate with you over Jewish theology; I will have my ass handed to me fifteen ways from Friday sundown). . .

/maybe have to study Judaism seriously for a few years. . . such rich texts!
 
2013-12-04 03:51:56 PM  

serial_crusher: claim: the bible says life begins at first breath because that's when Adam became alive.
argument: Adam was a special case, not relevant to normal human reproduction.
counter-argument: repeat claim about Adam.



Want to know how everybody knows you didn't read what I wrote upthread?  demaL-demaL-yeH:

Sanhedrin 72b, Ohalot 7:6,have more detailed discussion, but it really boils down to the woman's life and well-being take priority over that of a fetus. Once the head has been delivered, though, this is no longer the case: Each has an equal claim to personhood. Rashi and Maimonides - the spokesmen for the two schools of thought on abortion - both agree on this point: The existing life and personhood of a woman takes precedence over the potential life of a fetus.


I'm agnostic, so all this bible stuff is kind of silly to me.  It's not even like reading it in the "original Hebrew" is somehow a definitive interpretation of a story that was repeated orally for thousands of years before somebody got the bright idea to write it down using whatever verbiage they thought was good enough at the time.

Then, with all due respect, you've excluded yourself from the discussion. Why the fark are you commenting?
 
2013-12-04 05:04:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: claim: the bible says life begins at first breath because that's when Adam became alive.
argument: Adam was a special case, not relevant to normal human reproduction.
counter-argument: repeat claim about Adam.

Want to know how everybody knows you didn't read what I wrote upthread?  demaL-demaL-yeH:


The post you linked to there doesn't have anything to do with the one you're replying to...

Sorry, I guess I'm just applying too much engineering logic to a politics debate.  I like to attack different arguments individually on their own merits.
You've made two claims here and I've addressed them both in separate posts (yes, I did read them before replying).  Let me put them next to each other if that helps:
 1 - God breathed life into Adam, therefore breathing is how everybody gains life. - Easily dispelled by pointing out that God's method for bringing the first human to life doesn't specify how subsequent humans come to life.  Just because this argument is junk doesn't mean your whole conclusion is, but you should avoid arguing it.

2 - Exodus treats miscarriages differently from injuries to the mother - I didn't necessarily disagree with this, just asked for more clarification as to the source.  A lot of English versions use the words "give birth prematurely" instead of "miscarry", which are totally different things here.  For better or worse, most people in the Christian Right care more about English versions than Hebrew ones.

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'm agnostic, so all this bible stuff is kind of silly to me. It's not even like reading it in the "original Hebrew" is somehow a definitive interpretation of a story that was repeated orally for thousands of years before somebody got the bright idea to write it down using whatever verbiage they thought was good enough at the time.

Then, with all due respect, you've excluded yourself from the discussion. Why the fark are you commenting?


Trying to show how and why it's silly, hoping for the off chance other farkers will clue in that misinterpreted folklore isn't the best source of moral guidance; then we can get to having arguments about actual issues instead of sideshows.

I'll get on reading those Sanhedrin and Ohalot references sometime this evening though.  Always good to know where people are coming from and I really don't know that much about the Jewish perspective.
 
2013-12-04 07:06:09 PM  

serial_crusher: The post you linked to there doesn't have anything to do with the one you're replying to...
Sorry, I guess I'm just applying too much engineering logic to a politics debate.  I like to attack different arguments individually on their own merits.


This isn't politics. It's a discussion of a religious text and the ethical consequences, as seen by the people who have struggled with it longest.


You've made two claims here and I've addressed them both in separate posts (yes, I did read them before replying).  Let me put them next to each other if that helps:
 1 - God breathed life into Adam, therefore breathing is how everybody gains life. - Easily dispelled by pointing out that God's method for bringing the first human to life doesn't specify how subsequent humans come to life.  Just because this argument is junk doesn't mean your whole conclusion is, but you should avoid arguing it.


1 is deliberately obtuse:  Ha-adam means man.
There are no counterexamples because the text supports none: Woman is brought to man fully formed.
And no, the text says breathing the breath of life is how man became a living being.


serial_crusher: 2 - Exodus treats miscarriages differently from injuries to the mother - I didn't necessarily disagree with this, just asked for more clarification as to the source.  A lot of English versions use the words "give birth prematurely" instead of "miscarry", which are totally different things here.  For better or worse, most people in the Christian Right care more about English versions than Hebrew ones.


It means miscarry. The Septuagint has a glaring mistranslation: The Hebrew grammar is very clear that "no further mischief" refers to what happens to the woman, then goes on with the classic "life for life, eye for eye,.." if she is harmed.


serial_crusher: Trying to show how and why it's silly, hoping for the off chance other farkers will clue in that misinterpreted folklore isn't the best source of moral guidance; then we can get to having arguments about actual issues instead of sideshows.


You're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to find inspiration and moral guidance wherever you wish. In this particular instance, though, a religious misinterpretation of my people's text is what's driving this overly emotional shiatstorm of a clusterfark around other people's medical decisions. If you don't deal with that particular reality, you aren't addressing the issue and you aren't adding anything of value to the discussion.

/Care to guess how annoying it is when somebody talks about our Book and claims that we don't really understand it.
 
2013-12-04 07:11:06 PM  

serial_crusher: "give birth prematurely" instead of "miscarry"


Maybe to  us that have medical knowledge of the difference, but keep in mind ancient Hebrews probably wouldn't have had such knowledge. Regardless of mechanism, the result is a dead fetus, which was treated equivalent to animal property, not a live human (I think even slaves get a higher price for their death than a fetus does, but I'm a bit lazy to google that one, demaL can probably speak to that better than I can).

serial_crusher: 1 - God breathed life into Adam,


Humans. God did the same to Eve (and there's more than just Eve if you Genesis closely--there are actually two creation stories and two sets of humans created).  And see points about Proverbs regarding other supporting verses. This is easily googled if you really cared, and even if Adam wasn't born of "normal reproduction," breath is how God gave him life, and even today we have a special significance to a baby's first breath (how many fricking parents talk about "And I waited for the first cry," no matter if the baby was born live or not?).

serial_crusher: Trying to show how and why it's silly, hoping for the off chance other farkers will clue in that misinterpreted folklore isn't the best source of moral guidance; then we can get to having arguments about actual issues instead of sideshows.


We aren't arguing over silliness, but even if it is silly, when a majority of the US subscribes to the beliefs and bases cultural morality on it, it helps to know what it actually says when you're trying to change things.

/a white person had to free a black slave first. A man had to give a woman the right to vote. If you want to take power from someone, generally you have to convince them to give it to you
 
2013-12-04 07:14:19 PM  

Peki: you Genesis


Heh. I accidentally the whole thing.

/word there is supposed to be read
//I even previewed that crap (which is why I hate proofreading on a computer)
 
Displayed 24 of 374 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report