Who Does Massive Abortion Really Hurt?

ב"ה 

With the Democrat Senators lambasting and attempting to "flap" the apparently unflappable Amy Coney Barrett over her stand on abortion (and taking aim at her adopted children), I was reminded that one of the first issues that made me rethink my political positions was where I stood on the issue of abortion. I used to be a supporter of Roe vs. Wade. 

But after re-examining some things about the current laws, I remembered that the major reason I wanted abortion to remain legal (which I still do) was that the laws pertaining to abortion in Jewish law are not the same as the laws pertaining to abortion in Catholicism (and quite a chunk of conservative Christianity as a whole).  

But I also rethought the pro-choice position. And I remembered that I found out a while back that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, someone who believed in white supremacy and that blacks were inferior. She pushed an agenda -- her agenda was that the more black women who had abortions, the fewer black children there would be.

To add to this piece of information, I have been listening to prominent members of the left who are making it clear that they don't value life (especially family life). Many of them are against people having children (AOC thinks these children might destroy this planet -- my answer to her is what is the point of saving the planet (which is just a huge rock) if not to have a place to raise our children and families? Which is more important, the "rock" or people).

In any case, women who have abortions are disproportionately black. The rate of abortions in the black community is 5 times that in the white community. I wondered about that and I remembered that I had heard that government workers can get into a lot of trouble if they recommend anything but abortion to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. The workers are not permitted to tell the women they can get help if they want to keep the baby or they can put the child up for adoption. 

So what I was wondering is how can they call themselves "pro-choice" if they don't support giving women any choice whatsoever? If you went to a restaurant that only sold hamburgers, for example. would you consider that a "choice"? 

I modified my position on abortion to the following:
    1) I believe that abortion should be legal.

    2) I believe that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control (if you don't want to get pregnant, either don't have sex or use birth control, if necessary, with the advice of your clergyperson).

    3) I believe abortion should be permitted (with no limitations) if giving birth puts the mother's life in danger. I believe it should be permitted in the case of rape, though I'd prefer it if the mother puts the child up for adoption. 

    4) I do believe the ultimate decision should be the mother's however the mother needs to be  presented with all  her choices. 
    5) I do not consider abortion murder. Jewish law does not consider it so, therefore neither do I. This is the only justification I need.  

    6) I do not believe that Planned Parenthood should be government supported. 

As on Orthodox Jew, I am guided by Torah (Jewish Law from Pentateuch to Prophets and Writings, through the Talmud and the Rabbinic writings). So I have a different view of abortion than many other conservatives since I am guided by Jewish Law and therefore, it is important to me that what is permitted in Jewish Law be permitted under American law. 

I do think, though, that even though it would be difficult to justify (not to mention difficult to achieve) rolling back abortion laws, though it would be preferable if we could backtrack the most extreme permissions on abortion, for example, if the baby would be viable out of the womb and presents no danger to the mother by being born, it would be preferable to offer a caesarian birth with the child becoming a ward of the state (for purposes of finding a good home for him/her) and the mother cutting all ties. (If the mother changed her mind before the baby was adopted, she could reclaim him/her if she is deemed fit). That is a whole lot better than the gruesome way pregnancies are terminated at 7 months or later. 

If all the black women and teens who were accidentally pregnant were given other choices, perhaps the true racists would not be in a position to move the black birthrate to a lower and lower figure. And perhaps if the welfare state, which allows the true racists of the left to lull poor people into being taken care of by the government, which discourages fathers being in the home leading to one of the top issues in the black community. For the want of a nail.... 

We need to do our part. We need to make getting an abortion into a more distasteful choice. We need to change the laws so that government payments (which need to be more temporary) would be higher if there is a man in the picture. We need to encourage fathers (and even mothers) to be tested for vocational aptitude and trained to do best in a job where they will thrive. This is a change that would help. Why don't the Democrats push it? Why does the "mob" only support things that get people killed, get buildings destroyed, and cause people to lose their jobs and homes? 

It's time to start leading people on the path of success rather than the path of ruin. 

The Virus that didn't go Viral

ב"ה

I was "gone" (as in "off line") for two days for Sukkot (a Jewish holiday) I come back to find out that, despite the "Chicken Little" attitude about Covid 19, both Potus and Flotus are, thank G-d, doing fine despite testing positive for the "deadly virus". 

I am happy (but hardly surprised) that they are both doing fine -- the virus is getting weaker and the tools that are available to fight the virus are more ubiquitous, the virus is much less deadly.

What I am surprised about is that huge numbers of people believe the following:

1) Most people have the virus and can give it to anyone they see on the street if they are less than 6 feet apart 

2) Most people seem to have the notion that all it takes for someone to get Corona is to be close to someone who isn't wearing a mask (despite the fact that at any time only about 1 out of every 2000 people has it. So every person you run into only has about a 1 in 2000 chance of even having the virus

3) There is also a notion that everyone who gets the virus will die from it. So add to the fact that only about one in 2000 people might have it, only a small minority die. 

4) It seems as though most people seem to think that children are as vulnerable to the virus as people over 70.

5) Most people don't realize that the masks they are so fond of look like the Holland Tunnel for a virus. In other words, to use a quote that seems all the rage on my side of the medical "fence" -- "wearing a mask to keep out the Corona Virus is like putting up a chain link fence  to keep out mosquitoes. 

In any case, whether or not these steps do anything to protect one from the Corona virus at all, the goal was originally supposed to protect us from deaths. If there are more deaths that are caused by "following the rules", it no longer "saves lives". And, at this point, because of people losing their jobs and businesses, people being alone or those being "imprisoned" with abusive relatives -- more lives are "impacted" negatively by the lockdown than the pandemic. This is not saving lives anymore! This is costing lives, ruining lives, destroying lives. 

People are not listening to the doctors in the trenches, the doctors who are working with people who are in the hospitals. They are not listening when the doctors say that hydroxychloroquine and its adjuncts are saving lives (they have a better "track record" than masks and "social" (read: physical) distancing). People are not looking at the numbers. They are in a state of fear. 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a well respected President, said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." When we fall for the fear-mongering, we end up causing harm to people. Don't fall for the fear -- look at the evidence yourself.