web analytics
December 10, 2016 / 10 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘abortion’

Suicide as a Jewish Value

Tuesday, August 7th, 2012

http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/suicide-as-jewish-value.html

A month ago, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz sat down with the host of a Jewish television channel and could not name any reason for Jews to vote for Obama except for his support for abortion. Which is to say that the favorite muppet of the Democratic Party could not think of any reason to support B.O. except a mutual commitment that fewer Jews be born.

It is a little-known fact that Margaret Sanger, that pioneer of eugenic solutions to “racial, political, and social problems,” began by targeting Jews, opening her first center in Brownsville, Brooklyn, complete with Yiddish and Italian flyers, aiming for the two immigrant groups whose high reproduction rates were considered a social problem.

Abortion as a Liberal Jewish value has been a stunning success. In New York City, where Sanger first set up shop, 74 percent of all Jewish children are members of the traditionalist Orthodox religious group. Liberal Jews are already panicking over the prospect of a future Jewish population in New York City that is staunchly conservative and religious.

A recent survey of New York City Jews also shows a nearly even split between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. 46 percent of New York Jews are planning to vote against Obama, and a majority of New York City Jews think that Romney would be better at fixing the economy than B.O. But it is only to be expected that the group for whom abortion isn’t a Jewish value would come to outnumber the group for whom abortion is a Jewish value.

The problem with values is that you have to live with their consequences. When your values dictate that terrorists deserve all the protections of the civilian justice system, then you have to be ready to live with the explosions. If your values dictate minimal population growth, then you have to accept the consequences of extinction. Values that are contrary to survival carry their own natural cost. And when your values are at odds with your interests, then your values might as well be an open window, a loaded revolver or a dose of strychnine.

Liberal Jews like to talk about Jewish values rather than Jewish interests, because their values are incompatible with Jewish interests– even as a matter of simple survival. The usual liberal grab bag of values that are represented by the Jewish hand puppets of liberalism, like Wasserman-Schultz, aren’t just alien, they threaten the basic survival of the Jewish People.

When asked to justify what interests the Democratic Party and American Jews have in common, the Jewish liberal dives into a copy of the New York Times and comes up with illegal immigration, abortion, gay rights and support for peace in the Middle East.

That list of Liberal Jewish values not only fails to align with a single Jewish interest, but each of them threatens Jewish interests… that is if survival is to be considered a Jewish interest.

Peace in the Middle East means aborting Israel, dissecting it into small pieces and repeating the process until there is no country left. It’s another case of liberal Jews trying to do to Israel what they have already done to themselves. To believe that pressuring Israel into making a non-stop roll of concessions to Muslim terrorists is a Jewish value is to believe that suicide is a Jewish value.

Illegal immigration, a cause that virtually every major Jewish organization has signed on to, means the mass migration of Mexicans to the United States. The ADL’s own survey shows that nearly half of foreign-born Latinos rate as strongly Anti-Semitic, over three times the rate of white Americans. (Bad news for the glorious civil rights alliance; the ADL’s strongly antisemitic ratings are 12 percent for white Americans, 35 percent for African-Americans and 44 percent for foreign-born Latinos.) The only way to make sense of this is that Liberal Jewish groups believe that increasing Anti-Semitism in America is actually a Jewish value.

But liberals of all creeds need more Mexican illegal aliens and immigrants from all across the Third World to compensate for the good work of Sanger. Liberal Christians fear the reproduction rates of Conservative Christians as Liberal Jews fear the reproduction rates of Orthodox Jews. The only way out of the demographic race is to import “ringers” who will have the children that they won’t. The new eugenics is political eugenics. Birth control is no longer for the people that Sanger considered the “unfit”, they’re valued now for their reproductive rates which help the “fit” stay in power.

Daniel Greenfield

ADL Criticizes Anti-Abortion Center’s Western Wall Motif

Thursday, July 19th, 2012

The Anti-Defamation League blasted a plan by evangelical pastors in Kansas to build a replica of the Western Wall as part of an anti-abortion monument as “an outrageous affront to the Jewish people.”

The International Pro-Life Memorial and National Life Center is being planned by pro-life activists in Wichita. According to its website, http://www.prolifememorial.com, the wall will be “an exact replica of the Western Wall at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.”

The wall will be fronted with 60 white cross that “symbolize 60 million abortions…60 million little baby boys and girls have been murdered since 1973 in America alone. The International Pro-life Center will endeavor to stop this world wide genocide.”

The activists behind the initiative view the Western Wall – which is also referred to as the Wailing Wall on the website – as the symbol that commemorates Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, and want their replica to memorialize the 60 million aborted fetuses.

“The International Pro-life Center will be a national and international focal point to connect and integrate a variety of services which have the goal of promoting, bring healing, and enhancing human life,” the website says.

The ADL called the proposed center and a perversion of Judaism’s holiest site.

“Over the years we have seen a number of anti-abortion groups compare abortion to the Holocaust, but this takes the misuse of Jewish symbolism and history to another level,” Abraham Foxman, ADL’s national director, said in a statement issued Monday. “The Western Wall, this monumental symbol of Jewish grief and redemption is being co-opted and distorted to promote an anti-abortion agenda and message. Members of the pro-life movement are entitled to their opinions, but we wish they would not express them at the expense of Judaism’s holiest site and the Holocaust.”

The controversy coincided with another Israel-related Christian initiative – the seventh annual gathering of “Christians United for Israel” (CUFI), which is taking place in Washington, D.C.

The conference, the theme of which was Pro-Israel activity on college campuses, drew 5,000 participants from across the U.S., including Pastor John Hagee, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who spoke via video.

“Without Jerusalem there is no real life in Israel,” Pastor Hagee told a galvanized audience. “The President of the U.S. told people of Jerusalem they can’t build additional homes there. He has no authority to tell them that! They are a democracy!”

JTA content was used in this report.

Solomon Burke

The Obama Birth Control Imbroglio

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

In many respects President Obama’s imposition of a federal mandate calling for free contraception and certain abortion procedures on demand – and the uproar it has caused – is emblematic of the problems inherent in the way he sees his role. It will be recalled that his election campaign was built around a mantra of change. Indeed, as soon as he entered office he sought to change the way the U.S. had conducted its foreign policy around the world for more than a century. He said that much of the discord in the world was a function of American arrogance and greed, and declared his intention to reach out to those nations that supposedly had received short shrift from America in an effort to bring them into the U.S. orbit. And of course he set out to redefine U.S.-Israel relations with a view toward improving America’s relations with the Muslim world.

Predictably, he fell flat on his face. Entrenched and thoroughly corrupt Third World leaders were amused by this newly elected Boy Scout confessing his country’s errors though they certainly were not interested in making nice to him just because he asked. If anything, they viewed his efforts as naïve and as signaling an opportunity to take advantage of a vulnerable, self-conscious American administration.

The point of it all was  Mr. Obama’s profound  belief in his vision and the efficacy of his ability to bring it about despite all the years of experience and tradition preceding  his arrival on the national scene that suggested otherwise. Significantly, it was not too long ago in this country that abortion was illegal and contraception frowned upon. Yet Mr. Obama plunged headlong into those issues seeking to establish the availability of birth control as a matter of right – and free of charge to boot.

That his efforts in this regard ran against religious institutions opposing abortion and contraception as a matter of religious doctrine protected by the First Amendment only served to highlight the real issue.

Typically, President Obama was overtaken with his vision largely to the exclusion of religious rights. This is of a piece with his reshaping the American health care system, of which contraception and abortion issues are only a part. He has arrogated to the federal government the right to decide whether or not Americans will have health insurance coverage as well as the nature of that coverage. The notion that the competitive market would no longer inform products offered by insurance carriers represented a profound change in American domestic affairs and a breathtaking power grab by the federal government.

As we enter the presidential election season, some issues of concern readily present themselves. It seems clear that President Obama backtracked on the  inclusion of religious institutions only because of the furious reaction from the Catholic Church. His  first inclination was to ride roughshod over the rights the church enjoyed under the First Amendment. Indeed, he showed similar single-mindedness on the overall issue of health care reform when he was not concerned about an imminent reelection campaign.

In a similar vein, with a view toward securing a breakthrough between Israel and the Palestinians that had eluded his predecessors, Mr. Obama came down disproportionately heavy on Israel regarding the settlements issue and the 1967 lines serving as the framework for negotiations – until key members of his own party revolted and expressed their fears for the 2010 midterm congressional elections.

Barack Obama seems to be someone with a revisionist vision for a broad array of public issues he is determined to pursue unless and until it turns out he cannot. One wonders what he has in store for the nation after November should he win reelection – a possibility that grows more likely by the day as the remaining Republican presidential candidates continue to underwhelm.

Editorial Board

Letter to a Progressive Friend

Thursday, January 12th, 2012

Dear _________,

I’m not sure exactly how to put this. I need to tell you that you have been taken in by an audacious and massive hoax. Please — don’t stop reading. It isn’t that you’re stupid or uncaring. Actually I think you fell for it to a great extent because of your intelligence, as well as your highly developed ability to empathize with the situations of people less fortunate than yourself — your essential humaneness.

You are a person who has always dedicated a great deal of energy to helping others, who gives to organized charities and to beggars on the street, who often supports policies that will be disadvantageous to you personally because you believe they will bring us closer to a just society. You have even placed yourself at some risk by participating in demonstrations in which someone (not you) might provoke the police to arrest participants, even handle them somewhat roughly.

I am not speaking with tongue in cheek. I admire you. The world would be a far uglier place without people with your kind of sensibility.

The hoax in question has been developed over the past 40 years or so and is calibrated to be effective on people like you. Its objective is to make you believe that in a particular context, black is white, evil is good, lies are truth and genocide is justice.

Of course you know what I’m talking about. “Here he comes again with his obsession about Jews and Israel,” you think. But today I am not going to try your patience with all of the usual arguments — the appeals to the real history of the Middle East, the discussion of who is and isn’t ‘indigenous’, the analyses of international law, the exposure of this or that anti-Israel lie, the revelations of the true intentions of some of the players, the predictions of the possible consequences of various courses of action. I do that in my blog every day, and there are many others who do it better.

No, I just want to try to plant a seed of doubt in the elaborate garden of falsehood — of deliberate falsehood with the most evil of aims — that has flourished around good people like you, nourished by those who are, shall we say, not such good people.

The source of this garden is a Big Lie. It’s complicated, but the main part of it is that Israel a powerful Western colonialist power doing the kind of evil things colonialists do, and being resisted by the people it exploits.

The truth is that Israel is a small nation surrounded by enemies who, for religious, racial and ideological reasons, have been trying to snuff it out since the beginning.

So what do I have to do to make this apparent?

More than 40 years ago I met a woman who would have described herself as a radical leftist. She occupied public buildings (they did that back then, too) and was registered to vote on the Peace and Freedom ticket. One day — I don’t know how the subject came up — she mentioned  that she was strongly opposed to legalized abortion.

I was surprised. Naturally, she was a strong feminist, and abortion rights (I don’t think they had invented the euphemism “pro-choice” yet) was part of the left-wing and feminist catechism (so to speak!). I had always favored legal abortion myself. Almost everyone I knew — except Catholics whom I believed were brainwashed by their Church — thought that “a woman has a right to control her body.”

My friend wasn’t a Catholic, wasn’t brainwashed by anybody, and she explained her position logically. It was obvious to me that she was right and I was wrong. I had simply never entertained such ideas before.

I think this is how it is with progressives and Israel.

Back in the 1960′s, Israel’s enemies had lined up with the Soviet Union, and the conflict was a proxy for the Cold War. At that time, Arab leaders were fond of saying things like “the sands of the desert will be drenched with Jewish blood” and this didn’t endear them to most Westerners. But Yasser Arafat took the advice of those who understood us a bit better, and who had developed propaganda to a fine art. Instead of a struggle to cleanse Arab land of the Jewish presence, it was recast as a War of Liberation. The ‘Palestinian people’ — an entity that some Arabs had recently insisted did not exist — was presented as an oppressed indigenous people and Israel as a colonial power.

Click. Suddenly the Jews, who had shortly before had been the very paradigm case of an oppressed minority, were the oppressors. It was just like Vietnam!

Actual history was forgotten as whole structures of myth were built. These myths developed primarily in academic environments, where a neo-Marxist point of view constituted the political conventional wisdom. For psychological reasons, a whole generation of Jewish and Israeli scholars embraced and adumbrated this position. Some, like Ilan Pappé, were astonishingly dishonest; others, like Tom Segev, were more subtle and simply placed more emphasis on certain facts than others.

Vic Rosenthal

In A Language Of Lies, Don’t Lose To Wordplay

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

Americans understand the power of wordplay. When pro-abortion activists were fighting an uphill battle in the ’90s, trying to gain public support for their cause, a very shrewd marketing company insightfully changed the language of their debate. The debate was no longer about abortion; now it was about “choice.” The contentious question, “Are you pro-abortion?” had a new compelling answer: “No, I’m pro-choice.” Language effectively changed the abortion issue, successfully focusing on the mother while disregarding the plight of the child. There is another roiling debate, this time concerning Israel, and you can help reframe it.

 

“Hakol kol Yaakov – Our voice is the voice of Jacob.” This power of the voice that was granted to us, that defines us, and that we as a people are known to use, is a real and powerful tool. It is far more effective than the sword, more potent that Esau’s hands. Reality is created by the words we use. This is our tool, and the Arabs are using it to their advantage. And what is even more distressing is that we are using it to their advantage too. It’s time we reclaim our voice, our power – and effectively the debate.

 

Jordanians had smoothly adopted a label and nationality that comes from biblical times, which was used universally for Jew or Arab living in Palestine before 1948. Their jargon is so cunning that it continues to make the liberal and unassuming layman believe that these Jordanians are the same people who lived in Israel proper some 3,000 years ago, and are thus entitled to a country called Palestine.

In 1967, Jordan attacked Israel and lost the war. Accordingly, under all international pretenses, Judea and Samaria were now officially back under Jewish control, as they had biblically been for 3,000 years. So what to do now with all these ex-Jordan Arab residents of Judea and Samaria? Not a single Arab country was about to absorb their Arab brethren, so a different idea had to be implemented. Not interested in being responsible for their own refugees, Jordan decided that any Arab living in Judea and Samaria was a separate people – not of Jordan or Israel, but of Palestine. Though Judea and Samaria were under Israeli, and not Jordanian, rule at the time, Jordan unilaterally declared that, “Every person residing in the West Bank before the date of 31/7/1988 will be considered as [a] Palestinian citizen and not as Jordanian” (Article 2, Amendment to the Jordanian Nationality Law). And henceforth, through the stroke of a Jordanian pen, a Palestinian people were born – in 1988.

But a nation also needs a homeland, a territory they can call their own. Luckily for Jordan, in 1950, almost 40 years before the new Palestinian existed, Jordan coined the term, “West Bank.” In 1948, after the State of Israel was created, Jordan kicked Jews out from Judea and Samaria and renamed the territory. The term “West Bank,” which the international community has embraced, is so important to the Palestinian cause that now, in 2010, Wikipedia no longer allows edits which refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria. A Palestinian West Bank is more convenient for a Palestinian cause than a Judea and Samaria that is populated by over 350,000 Jewish Israelis.

This subconscious, persuasive vernacular is evident in every phase of the conflict and has encroached into our everyday speech, affecting the way we perceive the conflict. But more important, it influences the reality on the ground and our position when making a case for Israel.

The following phrases creatively implanted the false notion that Israel does not rightfully belong in her own territories: Words such as “occupied,” “occupation,” and “settlements” now refer to Israelis rather than the true Arab occupiers and settlements. “Giving away land for peace” that Israel has won is now “giving back land for peace.” “Displaced” or “disowned” Jordanians with the help of the uninformed and ignorant have effectively become a “Palestinian people.”

Israel cannot occupy her own country. There is no justifiable reason to continue using phrases that merely empower falsehoods. I invite people to send me more misleading semantics.

*   *   *

Action Alerts: Watch Your Words!

Yossi Cukier

In A Language Of Lies, Don’t Lose To Wordplay

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

Americans understand the power of wordplay. When pro-abortion activists were fighting an uphill battle in the ’90s, trying to gain public support for their cause, a very shrewd marketing company insightfully changed the language of their debate. The debate was no longer about abortion; now it was about “choice.” The contentious question, “Are you pro-abortion?” had a new compelling answer: “No, I’m pro-choice.” Language effectively changed the abortion issue, successfully focusing on the mother while disregarding the plight of the child. There is another roiling debate, this time concerning Israel, and you can help reframe it.

 

Hakol kol Yaakov – Our voice is the voice of Jacob.” This power of the voice that was granted to us, that defines us, and that we as a people are known to use, is a real and powerful tool. It is far more effective than the sword, more potent that Esau’s hands. Reality is created by the words we use. This is our tool, and the Arabs are using it to their advantage. And what is even more distressing is that we are using it to their advantage too. It’s time we reclaim our voice, our power – and effectively the debate.

 

Jordanians had smoothly adopted a label and nationality that comes from biblical times, which was used universally for Jew or Arab living in Palestine before 1948. Their jargon is so cunning that it continues to make the liberal and unassuming layman believe that these Jordanians are the same people who lived in Israel proper some 3,000 years ago, and are thus entitled to a country called Palestine.


In 1967, Jordan attacked Israel and lost the war. Accordingly, under all international pretenses, Judea and Samaria were now officially back under Jewish control, as they had biblically been for 3,000 years. So what to do now with all these ex-Jordan Arab residents of Judea and Samaria? Not a single Arab country was about to absorb their Arab brethren, so a different idea had to be implemented. Not interested in being responsible for their own refugees, Jordan decided that any Arab living in Judea and Samaria was a separate people – not of Jordan or Israel, but of Palestine. Though Judea and Samaria were under Israeli, and not Jordanian, rule at the time, Jordan unilaterally declared that, “Every person residing in the West Bank before the date of 31/7/1988 will be considered as [a] Palestinian citizen and not as Jordanian” (Article 2, Amendment to the Jordanian Nationality Law). And henceforth, through the stroke of a Jordanian pen, a Palestinian people were born – in 1988.


But a nation also needs a homeland, a territory they can call their own. Luckily for Jordan, in 1950, almost 40 years before the new Palestinian existed, Jordan coined the term, “West Bank.” In 1948, after the State of Israel was created, Jordan kicked Jews out from Judea and Samaria and renamed the territory. The term “West Bank,” which the international community has embraced, is so important to the Palestinian cause that now, in 2010, Wikipedia no longer allows edits which refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria. A Palestinian West Bank is more convenient for a Palestinian cause than a Judea and Samaria that is populated by over 350,000 Jewish Israelis.


This subconscious, persuasive vernacular is evident in every phase of the conflict and has encroached into our everyday speech, affecting the way we perceive the conflict. But more important, it influences the reality on the ground and our position when making a case for Israel.


The following phrases creatively implanted the false notion that Israel does not rightfully belong in her own territories: Words such as “occupied,” “occupation,” and “settlements” now refer to Israelis rather than the true Arab occupiers and settlements. “Giving away land for peace” that Israel has won is now “giving back land for peace.” “Displaced” or “disowned” Jordanians with the help of the uninformed and ignorant have effectively become a “Palestinian people.”


Israel cannot occupy her own country. There is no justifiable reason to continue using phrases that merely empower falsehoods. I invite people to send me more misleading semantics.


*   *   *


Action Alerts: Watch Your Words!


·         Say “giving back land” instead of the incorrect “giving away land.”


·         Refer to the “disputed territories,” not the inaccurate “occupied territories.”


·         Call them “displaced” or “disowned” Jordanians, not the historically unrelated “Palestinians.”


Yossi Cukier is

 co-founder of The Activist Network, along with Dina Kupfer and Ari Lieberman. Please note that all petitions, letters, phone numbers, etc., can be found at theactivistnetwork.wordpress.com. The group welcomes suggestions for pro-Israel and pro-Jewish projects and events.

Yossi Cukier

A Torah Perspective on Educating Our Children About Sexuality (Part IX)

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

As we have discussed over the past few weeks, it is essential, especially in these times, that parents take an active role in teaching their children Torah ideas in regards to sexuality and modesty.

One of the reasons this is necessary is because of the invasive exposure they experience from secular sources and culture, and also because we can no longer afford to be naive about the existence of sexual predators in our midst. If children do not possess clear knowledge and age-appropriate understanding of the parts of their body and how they can be used or misused it is hard for them to protect themselves from those who seek to abuse them?

To quiet those who think it is forbidden to expose children and adolescents to sexual ideas, we referenced a halachic ruling from the Ezer Mekodesh (Shulchan Aruch, E.H. 23:3) where he states that it is permitted even for a young man to study parts of the Torah related to sexuality.

Sex Education with Older Children:

Obviously, the older a child gets, the more cognitive and emotional abilities he has. Furthermore, at a certain point children, particularly adolescents may be embarrassed to discuss sex with their parents. Yet, this is the time in their lives when guidance is needed. Therefore there may be times where it is appropriate for a parent to raise the topic of sexuality, and as the children get older, they must look for opportunities to segue into these discussions. Ironically, the media that we fear may be a corrupting influence on children can be actually helpful in giving us opportunities to “break the ice” with your adolescent about sex.

Keep in mind; sex education is about more than facts and biology, it’s about emotions and ethics. This is even truer from a halachic perspective, where parents are not only charged to educate their children about the facts but also to guide them about the morals and ethics. The issues addressed so often in the media – unwanted pregnancy, abortion, rape, sexual abuse, spousal abuse and the like are important to discuss with our adolescents.

Goals for Halachic Sex education:

To serve as a guide for parents who hopefully will talk to their children about sex on their own, a list of the cognitive, moral, and developmental goals of halachic sex education could be useful. A parent should help his child acquire:

An understanding of the mechanics of sexuality, which includes the sexual act as well as the process of conception and childbirth.

An understanding of the biological changes associated with the onset of puberty and the differences between males and females.

Halachic and moral responsibilities regarding modesty, pre-marital chastity and laws of family purity.

Comparison of secular values vs. religious values and how they relate to the modern world in areas such as sexually transmitted diseases, dangers of rape and molestation, teenage pregnancy and abortion. (Readers might be wondering why they would need to teach their children about this, assuming their children remain frum and on the derech. Unfortunately, anyone who believes there is no such thing as promiscuity and teenage pregnancy in the frum community, is mistaken. Experienced therapists tell a different story. In addition, such a belief is in contradiction to Chazal, who state explicitly that there always will be a minority in every community who are sexual immoral. See Bava Basra 165a, and the Rambam’s Mishne Torah, Isurrei Biah, 22:19.)

Develop an appreciation for the wonders of creation and the wisdom of the Creator by studying the fascinating aspects of the miracle of reproduction. (See the Rambam’s Mishne Torah, Yesode Hatorah, 2:2.)

Healthy attitudes toward the body, pleasure and abstention, and particularly how it is expressed in the Jewish halachic code.

Knowledge of what is good touch and bad touch, and who is allowed to be alone in a room with them and who is not. An awareness of the existence of sexual predators, how they groom victims by seducing them and then preying on their need for attention, and how they induce feelings of shame or fear that a child will get in trouble if he or she tells an adult.

Next week, the conclusion

Rabbi Simcha Feuerman

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/family/parenting-our-children/a-torah-perspective-on-educating-our-children-about-sexuality-part-ix/2009/10/21/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: