Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[aygart]

No one said it is. I'm explaining what he consistently refers to as "my" viewpoint which in this conversation is RMF which is fair to portray as very valid viewpoint, certainly in the context of the claim in the article he cited.If you have a substance based argument why not say it instead of making aloof statements? This is a simplified portrayal of his position. Let me know where you disagree. Certainly the main point I'm using it for stands.
Wouldn't it be also appropriate to back up some of the valid points you know to be true if you're involved in this conversation?

You can start with SMA 425:8 and PT1

I see no purpose in the conversation and I am not sure what you are getting at here. I am not involved in the conversation.

[imayid2]

I gave you an example.

Right. That one is a complete distortion.

[CountValentine]

Right. That one is a complete distortion.

Ok, what is the distortion? You don't believe aborting an embryo is murder?

[imayid2]

You can start with SMA 425:8 and PT1

I said RMFs position. Do you disagree?

I am not involved in the conversation.

Aha.

[aygart]

I said RMFs position. Do you disagree?Aha.

Why would that even be a conversation here?

[imayid2]

Ok, what is the distortion? You don't believe aborting an embryo is murder?

I don't know what you mean. The distortion is to says that Judaism allows abortion, and to use the catchphrase "life doesn't start at conceiving" to support it.
As for others not believing it's "murder", define murder. Its a technicality. It is strictly prohibited. The technicalities play a role in deciding excruciating circumstances.

[imayid2]

Why would that even be a conversation here?

So don't talk about it, or say you feel it shouldn't be discussed here. Don't come and say it's wrong without backing yourself up!

[imayid2]

I never looked into that.

Shouldn't you before writing this?

Let me show you how this works
"Christianity has never defined life beginning at conception,”
That would be false.

[aygart]

So don't talk about it, or say you feel it shouldn't be discussed here. Don't come and say it's wrong without backing yourself up!

RMF also does not hold that the rules of rodef are the same for a fetus and for a child. That is the distinction  made in the gemara and SA there.

I can't figure out what you are trying to accomplish by arguing about a RMF with a non jew who never studied it.

[CountValentine]

I don't know what you mean. The distortion is to says that Judaism allows abortion, and to use the catchphrase "life doesn't start at conceiving" to support it.

What are you talking about. You keep going off on these tangents. Here is the example I gave that you said was a distortion. Judaism or conceiving has nothing to do with it.

That is great and no issue.
You believe aborting an embryo is murder.
Others believe it is not.
I have no issue with either position. If I understand your view. You have a major issue with those that don't agree with you.

[CountValentine]

Shouldn't you before writing this?

Do you understand Christianity and Catholics are not the same?

[CountValentine]

I can't figure out what you are trying to accomplish by arguing about a RMF with a non jew who never studied it.

When you figure it out can you let me know?

[imayid2]

RMF also does not hold that the rules of rodef are the same for a fetus and for a child. That is the distinction  made in the gemara and SA there.

Of course not. משמים קרדפי ליה makes it harder in a way to abort than to kill a child in a similar circumstances. How does that make what I said incorrect?

[imayid2]

I can't figure out what you are trying to accomplish by arguing about a RMF with a non jew who never studied it.

There is no reason to "argue" about it. You're doing that
Very simple point was being made that that article was a distortion. They said "life" at that point was never a Jewish idea. They meant it in a way that was an absolute distortion. I'm bringing out that point by referencing RMF. There is no need to argue about it.

[aygart]

Of course not. משמים קרדפי ליה makes it harder in a way to abort than to kill a child in a similar circumstances. How does that make what I said incorrect?

A child would not be allowed to be killed for similar circumstances. Also, my understanding is that the status of אינו נפש גמור plays a large role according to RMF, but I have not gone through that well enough. It is definitely that way according to many /most poskim

[aygart]

There is no reason to "argue" about it. You're doing that
Very simple point was being made that that article was a distortion. They said "life" at that point was never a Jewish idea. They meant it in a way that was an absolute distortion. I'm bringing out that point by referencing RMF. There is no need to argue about it.

If that is the issue with the article then they are doing pretty well.

[imayid2]

A child would not be allowed to be killed for similar circumstances.

That is very much, if not totally, incorrect.

Also, my understanding is that the status of אינו נפש גמור plays a large role according to RMF, but I have not gone through that well enough.

Of course it plays a big role. Because otherwise you run into the משמים קא רדפי problem.

[imayid2]

If that is the issue with the article then they are doing pretty well.

That Judaisms allows for abortion like the article states?
Did you read it?

[aygart]

That is very much, if not totally, incorrect.

That is exactly what the SA says. In the same circumstances a fetus gets aborted but if it is far enough in the birth process it does not. Are you referring to a different circumstance?

משמיא קרדפי is even when considered born. That is the end of the seif

[aygart]

That Judaisms allows for abortion like the article states?
Did you read it?

No I didn't. If the issue is more than RMF then why pin it on that?