“Restrictive abortion laws in Northern Ireland affect women’s health, study shows”
“Research from the LBJ School of Public Affairs finds that the country’s strict abortion laws have negative consequences for women’s health and well-being, suggesting a public-health rationale to decriminalize abortion”
“Women’s health”??? How does it affect the health of the presumed large numbers of Northern Irish women who neither seek nor have abortions? Blurring the health of a relatively small part (?) of the population to generalize it (a logical fallacy) to “women’s health” is a red flag that the researchers are grinding their axe on the issue rather than presenting a scientific view. Logical fallacies are not science!
The true scientific fact is that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws, which, the article admits, “permit the procedure only to preserve a woman’s life or prevent permanent long-term physical or mental injury,” can only have “negative consequences” for those Northern Irish women seeking accomplices in assisting infanticide!
On the other hand, the article failed to make the point that the Northern Irish law, as cited in the article at least, fails to make provision for women victims of rape or incest.
One might argue that it isn’t the infant’s fault and the infant shouldn’t suffer capital punishment as a result. Further, Scripture admonishes that children are not to be punished for the crimes of a parent. On the other hand, though, the insemination was against the woman’s will (constructively in the case of incest involving a minor) and she did nothing to deserve the punishment of nourishing and giving birth to an infant forced upon her either.
Moreover, in addition to any genetic proclivities of a rapist or incestuous father, research at UC Santa Cruz
“documents paternal transmission of epigenetic memory via sperm.”
From insemination and the first cell-division, the infant is new human life, nourished by and within, but otherwise no longer part of, the mother’s body. Killing a fetus as irresponsible recreational-collateral is infanticide, murder.
With such exceptions, women seeking abortions are intent on infanticide. The law against recreational-collateral abortions is designed to have “negative consequences” on mothers intent on infanticide de convenance.
Progressive liberal attitudes toward infants within the body has given rise to increased laxness in mothers’ attitudes toward killing inconvenient children — the “Casey Syndrome” — or abandoning them to the streets and traffickers.
Citation: how to properly cite this article; note academic Chicago Style standard italics, parentheses, commas, periods and quotation marks.
Yirmeyahu Ben-David. “Scientists’ Fake News: Abortion Stats” Israel Jews News. Editor: Yirmeyahu Ben-David. (2018.10.21, The Netzarim, http://www.netzarim.co.il). (Date you accessed this Israel Jews News article).
Israel Jews News 
“Abortion is a particularly difficult and loaded subject; with touchy issues that need to be addressed despite their inherent volatile nature.”
I dispute that the Torah or Rabi Yehoshua understood women to be property in whatever sense the word is known today. How do the daughters of Tzalafkhad inherit? Why doesn’t Rabi Yehoshua shoo away the foreign woman? He wasn’t silent at all in his treatment of women. It doesn’t resemble property.
Because some stupid nations mention women or treat them in some way as property or even drop them into some section of stupidity that they call law and then follow it and enshrine it speaks to their ways but I still am waiting for this example in Tanakh. I can see where servants were treated differently to an extent but that is all.
Maybe you would recommend the law books that you have studied so I can get up to speed.
“Equating results of a woman’s recreational sex with that of a violated rape victim is unconscionable.”
I did no such thing and for you to say such is laughable. Both babies are alive. That is the equality. They are both babies. Your equating a living human with a mere result is unconscionable. Stolen chromosomes? Only the baby possesses them. If a person chooses evil then we should have laws that they should return their chromosomes, even if the parents wanted to have the baby?
Better to make an equation for rape. It will simplify to a woman in a place alone with a rapist.
You can say that we live in a different world and yet that a man can rape a woman still exists. If there is free will then that will always be a possibility as long as women venture out alone. The facts that on the average women are not as physically strong as men has always dictated that without a guardian or other equalizer a woman alone is more of a target for rape. Maybe I should take a few years of world history too to find out that I am wrong about that too. What are the facts? This new world we live in, did anyone tell the predators not to prey on women when they are alone? It’s not about patriarchal control. It’s about protecting the vulnerable. Dinah went out alone. Tamar was alone with Amnone. Tamar should have been in a safe place, no? The king made the request of her to go to Amnone. Everyone but Amnone and his creepy friend thought everything was okay. Just like in this new world we live in.
LikeLike
Thanks for your input and being part of thoughtful diverse inquiries and discussion. We value tolerance and diverse views where logic and science fall short of knowing. It’s an old joke that wherever there are two Jews there are at least three viewpoints.
[Eliyahu Konn (EK)] “I dispute that the Torah or Rabi Yehoshua understood women to be property in whatever sense the word is known today. How do the daughters of Tzalafkhad inherit? Why doesn’t Rabi Yehoshua shoo away the foreign woman? He wasn’t silent at all in his treatment of women. It doesn’t resemble property.”
{Paqid Yirmᵊyahu (PY)] You’re certainly welcome to dispute whatever you wish. Ribi Yehoshua didn’t shoo away the Lebanese Jewess because, perhaps as a result of his education in the University (ancient Library) of Alexandria and unlike his ignorant and superstitious Levantine rabbinic peers, he recognized that there were no befouling demons and evil spirits released by women during menstruation. It was because of the ordinary property law that Mosheh had to intervene on behalf of the daughters of צְלָפְחָד (Tzᵊlâphᵊkhâd), confirming that the ordinary law regarded them as property, disallowing them from inheriting. Like a pet cat that inherits a fortune, special intervention is required to handle an unprecedented situation not covered by current law.
[EK] “Because some stupid nations mention women or treat them in some way as property or even drop them into some section of stupidity that they call law and then follow it and enshrine it speaks to their ways but I still am waiting for this example in Tanakh. I can see where servants were treated differently to an extent but that is all.”
[PY] Israel derived from these ancient “stupid nations”, along with our original legal structures. These developed slightly differently in the different tribes of Israel into slightly differing tribal laws, consolidated and unified by Mosheh at Har Sinai. Except as explicitly amended, every example of laws regarding women in Ta•na"khꞋ is derived from Property Law. I sympathize that you don’t see it but I don’t know what to do about that.
[EK] “Maybe you would recommend the law books that you have studied so I can get up to speed.”
[PY] Not sure if you’re being sarcastic here. Simply browsing the law books I studied, taking a couple of law classes at Univ. of Fla. in the late ’60s, wouldn’t suffice. To get a reasonable acquaintance with the overall structure of law and it’s derivation you’d need to take a couple of law classes at a good university, under a qualified law professor, like I did!’
First thing that might help you see is to research the sources of these various laws — in terms of what seider of which tractate sets forth these laws (marriage, betrothal, geit, etc.). Then translate the names and learn how to correlate the resulting English translations of the titles to today’s types of law. Every yᵊshivah boy knows these.
[EK] ” ‘Equating results of a woman’s recreational sex with that of a violated rape victim is unconscionable.’
I did no such thing and for you to say such is laughable. Both babies are alive. That is the equality. They are both babies.”
[PY] I don’t think highlighting, italics, etc. is available in replies so please understand that I’ll use caps, not to yell as popularly interpreted, but simply to focus on certain phrases.
You wrote: “I DON’T THINK THE CASE HAS BEEN MADE THAT LIFE IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM ALL OTHER LIVES IN THE WOMB. It stands alone as life, as a baby. IF FREEWILL AND CHOICE HAS PRECEDENCE, what about the freewill of the life in the womb. SO I DISAGREE THAT THE FREEWILL OF THE CARRIER NOW IS THE ACID TEST, EVEN A FORCED CARRIER.”
You continued: “So I’m not quite understanding what the logic would be about killing a baby that was CONCEIVED BY RAPE OR INCEST? Frankly since considering what abortion is, I HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD HOW A BABY IN THE WOMB DIFFERS.”
You continue: “I missed something in the Tanakh concerning what happens to a baby IF A WOMEN IS IMPREGNATED AGAINST HER WILL? … ISN’T RAPE AND INCEST REALLY JUST THE SAME AS THE COAT HANGER ABORTION SCARE TACTIC?”
You show tunnel-visioned concern solely for the fetus with no comprehension of any reason to distinguish the woman carrying a baby by her choice and responsibility (whether in the context of a traditional family or recreational sex) from a woman carrying a baby forcibly imposed on her against her will. It’s crystal clear from what you wrote that you’ve “Equat[ed] results of a woman’s recreational sex [i.e. sex by choice, incurring responsibility for the choice] with that of a violated rape victim is unconscionable”.
You wrote: “Stolen chromosomes? Only the baby possesses them. If a person chooses evil then we should have laws that they should return their chromosomes, even if the parents wanted to have the baby?”
A rape or incest victim has been forced against her will to conjoin herself with her attacker to produce a combination of herself and her attacker – the fetus. It violates a woman’s personal rights to forcibly steal and use her chromosomes to project herself into a baby against her will. The product of violated rights I’d say is literal fruit of the poisoned tree whereas the widely accepted evidentiary principle is merely metaphorical.
While the baby’s rights are widely and wrongly ignored, the baby’s rights are not the only rights that must be respected; and the woman’s rights, the first violated in the case of rape and incest, should, therefore, maintain first priority while everything that follows thereafter must be considered as paralleling the fruit of the poisoned tree.
You wrote: “Better to make an equation for rape. It will simplify to a woman in a place alone with a rapist.”
I try to be careful when talking about law because I’m aware of things I could be overlooking. I recommend that to you. That statement has more holes than net.
You wrote: “You can say that we live in a different world and yet that a man can rape a woman still exists. If there is free will then that will always be a possibility as long as women venture out alone. The facts that on the average women are not as physically strong as men has always dictated that without a guardian or other equalizer a woman alone is more of a target for rape. Maybe I should take a few years of world history too to find out that I am wrong about that too. What are the facts? This new world we live in, did anyone tell the predators not to prey on women when they are alone? It’s not about patriarchal control. It’s about protecting the vulnerable. Dinah went out alone. Tamar was alone with Amnone. Tamar should have been in a safe place, no? The king made the request of her to go to Amnone. Everyone but Amnone and his creepy friend thought everything was okay. Just like in this new world we live in.”
You are confusing the issue of rape with the issue of the resulting pregnancy.
FYI, today’s world is different. Free will also means that a woman has the right (whether her local government grants it to her or not) to be trained in recognizing, avoiding and preventing that situation as well as arming herself to protect herself. Karen (my wife) HAS BEEN TRAINED AND carried a Smith stainless .357 magnum with a 2½” barrel that would blow a charging NFL running back backward. She also received training from a 5th degree black-belt PKA instructor and, finally, a graduate course from me. My daughter is similarly trained.
If all of that fails, no predator has any right whatsoever to take a part of either of their bodies by force to bear their combined child.
But these avoid and fight-back measures make it exceedingly – lethally – dangerous for any predator to take that risk.
LikeLike
So I’m not quite understanding what the logic would be about killing a baby that was conceived by rape or incest? Frankly since considering what abortion is, I have never understood how a baby in the womb differs.
Have I missed something in the Tanakh concerning what happens to a baby if a women is impregnated against her will? Maybe it’s implied and I missed it. And although a girl should never be raped the fact that a female can become pregnant may indicate that evolution doesn’t see her as a child. I can affirm that the girls in the amish/mennonite community that we lived in for a time were doing the same household chores as their mother very early before becoming teens. We also have this thing called bar mitzvah that seems to indicate a young man becomes responsible for his actions at the age of 13. We also have a witness from הליכות תימן, יוסף קפאח,
לגבי הנערה הגיל הממוצע של נישואין הוא בין אחת עשרה לחמש עשרה שנה
p.107
If a child bearing age girl is so devastated from carrying a baby to birth, history would probably blame today’s parents. Devolution of society is apparent regardless of the technological advancements.
I read the article on the epigenetic inheritance and it appears to me to be inconclusive to justify ending a baby’s life in the womb if it is from rape or incest.
We have the story of Lot and his daughters with their children as products of incest, yeah it was the girl(s) idea but the genetic material was still from incest and if it was compromised that was overcome by Ruth who would have been a great, great, great………grandaughter.
How logical is it to end any life in the womb? Isn’t rape and incest really just the same as the coat hanger abortion scare tactic?
LikeLike
Thanks for your input and being part of thoughtful diverse inquiries and discussion. We value tolerance and diverse views where logic and science fall short of knowing. It’s an old joke that wherever there are two Jews there are at least three viewpoints.
There are a number of issues regarding an infant forced on a woman against her will:
The woman’s right not to conceive the infant chronologically preceded the infliction of the infant imposed upon her by assault and battery rape. Thus, her rights, which were violated, take precedence in priority as in time or incest.
Whether the female is considered a child affects only whether the rape or incest is constructive or actual, which shouldn’t affect the outcome.
There is no justification for placing the rights of the infant over the rights of the woman. They conflict only because a third party imposed the situation on both of them. The situation, and the infant, are then the collateral result of the violation of the woman’s rights. Death of the infant is then attributable to the rapist or incest perp, not the woman.
Epigenetic memory within the child is a remnant of the rapist or incest perp father, which is likely to affect the child’s perspective and surface some way in the child — something no victim of that rape or incest can morally be forced to nourish and bring to fruition.
Regarding the Tanakh view on rape, we must distinguish between 1 of the 3 accepted methods of ni•sū•inꞋ, i.e. mutually consensual, sexual coupling constructive marriage, versus rape.
The most conspicuous account of rape was that of DinꞋâh by the Arab ShᵊkhëmꞋ, and that resulted in wiping out the entire Arab town (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 34). This harsh response provides ancient perspective on how serious rape was regarded – even when the goal of the rapist was to effect marriage.
Many of the accounts that modern interpreters, usually ignorant of Torah, presume to be rape, are simple misinterpretations without merit.
Regarding your reference to incest by the female’s choice, the female’s choice in that case makes all the difference in the world and is the core basis for resulting judgments. When the female makes such a free-will choice (including modern recreational sex) then she is responsible for the outcome of her choice. That is clearly not the case when the outcome is opposite to her choice and free will. This is the acid test.
Further, as noted in the glossary entry for ni•sū•inꞋ and related entries, ancient Middle-Eastern societies viewed women as female human livestock — property to be owned, bought and sold. Thus, in ancient Yisraeil, the status and rights of women derived from Property Law!!!
Consequently, while Torah – the Principle(s) – is Immutably correct, the ancient human interpreters were no less fallible than today’s interpreters. There’s more truth than commonly recognized in Hileil’s pointing to the core Principle of Torah, from which all other law derives. While society has, indeed, devolved in many ways, in other ways – beside tech per se – society is more advanced.
However, הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus; the world has changed). Today’s civilizations recognize that a female human being is a full human being who should enjoy full human rights — not property, and not derived from Property Law.
All judgments regarding rape, incest, and women’s rights and women’s status, including various aspects of childbirth, must be re-derived – from the same Immutable Torah Principles as male human beings.
LikeLike
In the spirit of friendly debate I want to respond to your reply. If we can’t debate about important issues, what’s the use. I think we agree that it is evil, the spilling of the innocent preborn blood all over the world. This is a big part of why I think society or civilization, whatever you call it, is melting down. I also agree that a proper understanding and adherence of Torah/Tanakh with advances in scientific archeology would alleviate so much suffering.
But we differ on some things here.
Yisrael is a Middle East country but that doesn’t mean the Torah/Tanakh ever condoned oppression or cruelty of women or even that they were only property. I have never heard anyone interpret Sarah to be remotely Avraham’s property. Hagar, on the other hand was a servant, and yet it was Avraham that followed Sarah’s demand to get rid of her and Yishmael. I don’t see the Torah/Tanakh verifying ancient Yisraeli law that all women were property any more than men. Both could be purchased. That women were not free to leave after a term of service like men does not equate to cruel slavery or equate to being “just” property. Sending them away free on their own would be cruel. The average muscle build of men compared to women dictate that women be protected. There is safety in numbers.
If an owner struck his man servant or maid servant and he dies, the dead is to be avenged. Who avenges property?
I find no examples of interactions of women with רבי ישוע that give me any indication that his understanding of Tanakh was that women were property. He would be the authority in Yisraeli law.
I don’t think the case has been made that life is any different from all other lives in the womb. It stands alone as life, as a baby. If freewill and choice has precedence, what about the freewill of the life in the womb. So I disagree that the freewill of the carrier now is the acid test, even a forced carrier. The act of conception was forced but the life now exists. Data at this stage on zebra fish and worms do not indicate a negative effect but a positive one for epigenetic markings as the paper says without a certain epigenetic mark the majority of offspring became sterile.
One could posit before abortion on demand that there were many pregnancies carried to term. One could study the lives of the mother post delivery and the child(ren). How many happy lives of either would it take? How close is a women not wanting a pregnancy she willingly made happen to a pregnancy that was forced upon her. This is the main reason I think abortion on demand has any footing at all. It is not about the life in the womb at all in either case but what the woman feels she wants to do.
One more thought. Where the physical life of the woman is really threatened, like a tubal pregnancy or some known real threat, ending the babies life would end one, not two lives.
LikeLike
Abortion is a particularly difficult and loaded subject; with touchy issues that need to be addressed despite their inherent volatile nature.
That women were defined as property is not disputed. If you’ll check where all of the Torah laws related to women’s status and rights are defined you’ll discover that it is all found in Property Law. That’s the fact. So are the laws regarding indentured servants, etc. That is not where laws regulating men are found. Without treating your arguments individually, your conflicting opinions don’t change that fact at all. You need to take a couple of semesters in law to get a basic handle on this issue.
Regarding Ribi Yᵊhoshua, the lack of conflicting evidence (no criticism of the accepted core derivation of laws governing the status and rights of women) indicate acceptance of the basic ancient notion of women as property of a man. Society in his day hadn’t advanced their thinking beyond that. In fact, this insight is quite recent even in modern times. This lack of evidence corroborates the status quo of that time. You cannot cite his silence as an endorsement of 20th century CE advancements simply because it comports with today’s thinking.
None of my arguments were based upon life in the womb being any different. There are situations in which rights intractably conflict; the rights of one person end where they infringe on the rights of another. In such case, the violated rights of the initial wronged person cannot be abridged. The chromosomes of the woman are also stolen from her against her will. There is no all-good outcome. We do know that the ancient interpretation of Torah regarded a child as not viable until born and named. That may be outdated science-wise, but that — not your modern cursory questioning — is the ancient guide from which we advance.
Post-rape &age of resulting lives can never equate to justice. That is not how justice is determined.
It’s a most grave lack of understanding even the most basic principles of law that you cannot discern that women responsible for their pregnancy are the diametric opposite of a rape victim. Feelings of the former concerning her resulting pregnancy are not at all relevant to determining justice. Responsible means responsible, not feelings. Equating results of a woman’s recreational sex with that of a violated rape victim is unconscionable.
As concerning the what the woman pregnant as a result of her choice wants to do, she is responsible for the pregnancy. That is the salient point. She should not be allowed to inflict her change of mind at the expense of the rights of her fetus.
Regarding instances in which the life of the mother is at risk, that is one of the exigencies for which the abortion law of Northern Ireland already permits abortion — as I think I mentioned in my original article.
LikeLike