Pro Choice or Not

[Maleficent13]

*snerk*

I miss MHopkins.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

You could have your child adopted by someone who could later turn out to be one of the above...not a risk I, personally, want to take.

Wow.

If you are that risk-averse, how do you manage to walk out your front door every morning?

While what you say is always possible, you do realize the chances are very, very, slim, don't you?

 

[Ariel Mae]

If you are that risk-averse, how do you manage to walk out your front door every morning?

I'm always very aware. There's never not a time my eyes and ears aren't open and listening/hearing.

While what you say is always possible, you do realize the chances are very, very, slim, don't you?

So? I would rather not see these slim chances, than to have it happen. It could happen, and that's not a risk I'm willing to take.

Just like with sex. Right now, I'm sorry, but the B.C. is only 97% effective. I'm not taking any chances, mostly because I don't have the finances/time for a child. Same boat.

So every three years of so when you would see these Jewish family members you would get into heavy discussions about Jewish law?

Again, I never said, "I know all about Judaism." What I said was, "In what I know, I haven't heard of this, before...".

Hmm, words, perhaps, being placed in, again?

 

[punkin]

I'm always very aware. There's never not a time my eyes and ears aren't open and listening/hearing.



So? I would rather not see these slim chances, than to have it happen. It could happen, and that's not a risk I'm willing to take.

Just like with sex. Right now, I'm sorry, but the B.C. is only 97% effective. I'm not taking any chances, mostly because I don't have the finances/time for a child. Same boat.



Again, I never said, "I know all about Judaism." What I said was, "In what I know, I haven't heard of this, before...".

Hmm, words, perhaps, being placed in, again?

Some people just like to argue for argument's sake.

 

[MomNeedsVacay]

So every three years of so when you would see these Jewish family members you would get into heavy discussions about Jewish law?

Geesh...why is everyone attacking Ariel Mae????

 

[Ariel Mae]

Some people just like to argue for argument's sake.

*pulls out a mirror*




(If that's not clear enough, that was a joke, mmk?)

Geesh...why is everyone attacking Ariel Mae????

Because I dare to have, oh, shudder gasp, a varying viewpoint? I dunno. *shrugs*

Where's 'dat popcorn smiley? I can't find it!

 

[JennyMominRI]

*pulls out a mirror*





No, I'm not arguing. And, in fact, I even went and google searched that information, and found nothing, hence the asking. I didn't just, "Hey, Jenny, I don't believe that!". I, "Hey, Jenny. Mind explaining that a little?". There's a huge difference.

Just type in Abortion and jewish law or abortion and Halacha and you will get tons of hits.

 

[Ariel Mae]

Just type in Abortion and jewish law or abortion and Halacha and you will get tons of hits.

See, I typed in, "Abortion and Judaism" and got, first link, "Hitler and Judaism". I then typed, "Jewish peoples and abortion" and got, "The Holocaust"...*blink*

Halacha? Is that the formal name of Jewish abortion?

Okay, off topic, further, but I'm thinking of creating a thread for Jewish peoples to place their information, because I'd like to hear more on it.

 

[JennyMominRI]

See, I typed in, "Abortion and Judaism" and got, first link, "Hitler and Judaism". I then typed, "Jewish peoples and abortion" and got, "The Holocaust"...*blink*

Halacha? Is that the formal name of Jewish abortion?

Okay, off topic, further, but I'm thinking of creating a thread for Jewish peoples to place their information, because I'd like to hear more on it.

Halacha means "Way" or "Path". Halacha is the application of the Law
(Torah) to everyday living

 

[Ariel Mae]

Halacha means "Way" or "Path". Halacha is the application of the Law
(Torah) to everyday living

Okay, that makes sense. Gratzie!

 

[Mrs.Toad]

I'm always very aware. There's never not a time my eyes and ears aren't open and listening/hearing.

So? I would rather not see these slim chances, than to have it happen. It could happen, and that's not a risk I'm willing to take.

Just like with sex. Right now, I'm sorry, but the B.C. is only 97% effective. I'm not taking any chances, mostly because I don't have the finances/time for a child. Same boat.

Nothing wrong with being risk-aware, or risk-averse. This is just the first time I've heard anyone say they'd rather abort than take the tiny chance that the child may someday be harmed by an adoptive family. As pro-choice as I am, that one really threw me for a loop.

As far as "everyone attacking Ariel Mae", I don't think it's the varying viewpoint, it's the delivery.

 

[LuvDuke]

*pulls out a mirror*




(If that's not clear enough, that was a joke, mmk?)



Because I dare to have, oh, shudder gasp, a varying viewpoint? I dunno. *shrugs*

Where's 'dat popcorn smiley? I can't find it!

It has nothing to do with "varying" viewpoints. That goes on every single hour of every single day here. So, it must be ................. something else.

 

[Laura]

Because I dare to have, oh, shudder gasp, a varying viewpoint? I dunno. *shrugs*

Varying means your viewpoint is changing. I think you mean differing.

Seriously, though, you post like a bull in a china shop. It may be unintentional from your end, but you repeatedly offend people--for example, you saw how your "new" Jewish law comment was taken. I know it's easy to be misunderstood while using the written word alone; we've all had that happen. Sometimes it helps to read what you write aloud (even mentally) to see how it might come across. Especially when posting about such emotionally charged and personal issues like abortion and religion.

Just a thought.

 

[Ariel Mae]

Especially when posting about such emotionally charged and personal issues like abortion and religion.

Well, quite honestly, it seems, only the people here have misread anything of mine (here being the DIS, not this thread), whereas, people offline, and not just people I know personally, have understood my humor and have been able to pick it apart from the more 'serious' topics. They were also able to tell when I asked, "Is that a new Jewish...", they knew I meant it as was. New Jewish Law, New Pagan Law...new laws in old religions. I've seen it many times. That's where that question stemmed from.

It's like...say someone says something that can be taken crudely in life. What do you do? Do you:

A: Calmly discuss with them why you're offended

B: Yell at them, saying, "How dare you say such?!"

C: Let it along, because you're only one person, or you're only one group

D: Ask for clarification

(Say the topic is homosexuality. You've got a group of Catholics and Atheists talking about it. Someone says, "I don't believe homosexuality exists." Now, that could be taken two ways. "I don't believe homosexuality exists." or "I don't agree with homosexuality", depending on how it was said. (How is easier to clarify offline than on...) Apply to the above situation. Me, personally, I would apply to D, first, and if it 'offends', then I would apply C. If we watched everything we said because it might offend one or a few, we'd have nothing to say.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Here is part of my post and then your response.

jewish law REQUIRES abortion if the life of the mother is at stake..


Your reply

Is that some kind of 'new' Jewish law? Because I've never heard of it before, and most of my family is Jewish...perhaps it's just never been spoken of in my family.





I think people can judge for themselves, especially if they look back at the posts preceding it

 

[Ariel Mae]

"Is that some kind of new Jewish law?"

How is that offensive?

No, seriously.

I don't understand it.

It's like asking, "Is that a new dress?" All you're inquiring is to whether it is new or not b/c you haven't seen it/heard of it/read about it/etc.

 

[Ariel Mae]

I think people can judge for themselves, especially if they look back at the posts preceding it

I was always taught not to judge a book by it's cover...nor to judge a book by three lines. Nor to judge a book by two or three chapters.

I was also taught instead of judging people's words, the best thing was to ask what they meant, no to assume.

But maybe I was raised wrong?

(Clarification: SARCASM)

 

[chobie]

"Is that some kind of new Jewish law?"

How is that offensive?

No, seriously.

I don't understand it.

It's like asking, "Is that a new dress?" All you're inquiring is to whether it is new or not b/c you haven't seen it/heard of it/read about it/etc.

Um no is not like asking is that a new dress. The Jewish religion is 5,000 years old; its safe to assume if you had not heard about a particular Jewish law is because you know little about the religion. So, instead you should have said, "I have never heard of that before, you could tell me a little more about this Jewish law."

 

[Ariel Mae]

Um no is not like asking is that a new dress.

Okay, then.

The Jewish religion is 5,000 years old; its safe to assume if you had not heard about a particular Jewish law is because you know little about the religion.

Or, ya know, it could be new. What, new tenets/things aren't being found in religion? Oh, my mistake. Religions have never changed/been altered by new factors of evidence.

So, instead you should have said, "I have never heard of that before, you could tell me a little more about this Jewish law."

I asked just that. Maybe I didn't word it that way, but what I asked was clear. "Is that new to the Jewish Faith?". "Is that new a dress?" Same thing. Asking if something is new.

 

[Ariel Mae]

And, might I ask, why I'm being told how to speak/what to say? I'm not a barbie doll, and I don't have buttons where you can input something and expect an exact output..."You, you're speaking wrong. You're not saying it right. Say it how it should be (according to me)"