Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[CountValentine]

We are out of time. Next Friday

For a simple yes or no?
Don't go out and buy more pretzels!

[imayid2]

For a simple yes or no?
Don't go out and buy more pretzels!

The answer to that question is yes. I do not have time for the follow up, nor do I necessarily claim to have the full answer to that age old question.

[imayid2]

So murder has evolved into killing after a member pointed it out you and it is me who doesn't understand words. 

For the record YOU are the one the misused it first here:

If you don't want to answer questions then don't make comments like abortion is murder.
Then go on to say that murder is allowed in certain situations.

And I simply responded with the word you chose to misuse.

[imayid2]

I ask anything, and your response is Judaism says...
That is deflecting to the religious view instead of your view. That is throwing Judaism under the bus since you don't want to own the response as your own.After you threw them under the bus, I have seen you backup and run over them again. 

Your mistake here is that you think Judaism feels a need to rationalize their position. They do not. They believe they know G-ds position on the matter and that's good enough for them.

[imayid2]

This is opposed by most rabbis.  Not using the technique means that these couples will not reproduce, and reproduction is desirable under Jewish law.  And transferring their embryos to someone else runs the risk that their child will one day meet someone ("We're so much alike!") and marry them without realizing that they're biological siblings. So in this case, I think it's accurate to say that Jewish law doesn't accept the implications of "life begins at fertilization".

It is my understanding that all Rabbis oppose this.

So in this case, I think it's accurate to say that Jewish law doesn't accept the implications of "life begins at fertilization".

Well worded.

Thank you for the elucidation.

[WAM]

It is ludicrous to insist on a yes or no response to a complex question which cannot be adequately  answered with a yes or no.

So your answer to my yes/no question is yes. 
I respectfully disagree. If he makes a complicated question simple by asking an all inclusive question, there's no need to complicate the question by excluding certain things. He can always follow up his simple question with something more complex.

For example:
Q1. According to Judaism, it's one permitted to eat on Yom kippur?
A1. No
Q2. I saw your 4 year old son eating on YK, does that mean he sinned?
A2. No.
Q3. But you just contradicted yourself! Can you reconcile the differences in your two answers?
A3. Yes.
Q4. Please elaborate.
A4. My son is not obligated to fast until he's 13.

[WAM]

Ok I agree.

This post and the few posts before this one are an example of what I mean by give a simple answer to a simple question.
You said murder is allowed in certain circumstances. Somebody commented how that's not entirely accurate and explained why, you agreed.
Even if you wouldn't have agreed, you could have given a simple reason why.

You generally write very well (in my opinion). To me, it seems like you also try to answer questions before they're asked. That is nice, but when the question is complicated, you might end up answering the wrong questions. Additionally, some people want break down complicated questions into simpler questions and by answering the simple question with answers to unasked questions, you're actually complicating things for them instead of keeping it simple.

They then get frustrated by your long shpiel and you get frustrated that they didn't like your well written post.

[WAM]

For a simple yes or no?
Don't go out and buy more pretzels!

At least it's not Pesach!

[imayid2]

This post and the few posts before this one are an example of what I mean by give a simple answer to a simple question.
You said murder is allowed in certain circumstances. Somebody commented how that's not entirely accurate and explained why, you agreed.
Even if you wouldn't have agreed, you could have given a simple reason why.

This is a ridiculous example because it hinges on a connotation of a word and has no other substance.

You generally write very well (in my opinion). To me, it seems like you also try to answer questions before they're asked. That is nice, but when the question is complicated, you might end up answering the wrong questions. Additionally, some people want break down complicated questions into simpler questions and by answering the simple question with answers to unasked questions, you're actually complicating things for them instead of keeping it simple.

They then get frustrated by your long shpiel and you get frustrated that they didn't like your well written post.

Have you considered that some of these "not understandings" aren't being asked in good faith? The above point is a perfect example.

[imayid2]

So your answer to my yes/no question is yes. 
I respectfully disagree. If he makes a complicated question simple by asking an all inclusive question, there's no need to complicate the question by excluding certain things. He can always follow up his simple question with something more complex.

For example:
Q1. According to Judaism, it's one permitted to eat on Yom kippur?
A1. No
Q2. I saw your 4 year old son eating on YK, does that mean he sinned?
A2. No.
Q3. But you just contradicted yourself! Can you reconcile the differences in your two answers?
A3. Yes.
Q4. Please elaborate.
A4. My son is not obligated to fast until he's 13.

None are good examples. A better example would be the guy who was being demanded a yes or no response by the judge and he responded "Your honor, will you stop taking bribes? Yes or no?".

[WAM]

None are good examples. A better example would be the guy who was being demanded a yes or no response by the judge and he responded "Your honor, will you stop taking bribes? Yes or no?".

Ok let's play.
Judge: "No"

[WAM]

Have you considered that some of these "not understandings" aren't being asked in good faith? The above point is a perfect example.

@CountValentine asks questions until they can no longer be asked.
I agree with you that the questions may not always be asked in good faith (he is Catholic ), but his questions are still there.

[imayid2]

Ok let's play.
Judge: "No"

By falling into the trap and agreeing to answer the question, he is admitting he is disqualified to be a Judge. The correct approach would for the Judge to accede that a demand for a yes or no response is not always appropriate.

[Sam 77]

@CountValentine asks questions until they can no longer be asked.
I agree with you that the questions may not always be asked in good faith (She is Catholic ), but her questions are still there.

FTFY

[WAM]

By falling into the trap and agreeing to answer the question, he is admitting he is disqualified to be a Judge. The correct approach would for the Judge to accede that a demand for a yes or no response is not always appropriate.

Now you're making assumptions.
Don't assume, ask instead. For example -
Would that mean that you're disqualified as a judge?
Or
Will you continue taking bribes?

[WAM]

FTFY

sorry, I don't get it.
ETA I see what you changed, I just assume you're making a joke. I have evidence (stronger than @imayid2's evidence that the judge was accepting bribes) that CV is a guy.

[imayid2]

sorry, I don't get it.
ETA I see what you changed, I just assume you're making a joke. I have evidence (stronger than @imayid2's evidence that the judge was accepting bribes) that CV is a guy.

I was always under the assumption that the female aspect was the one exiled in Poland.

[imayid2]

Now you're making assumptions.
Don't assume, ask instead. For example -
Would that mean that you're disqualified as a judge?
Or
Will you continue taking bribes?

As in asking how "life" is being referred to, and the implications thereof?

Hmm. If life means the same as a born person than it’s true. But it would be true in the third trimester too.
If they mean abortion is allowed it’s false. For the most part it’s prohibited.
If they mean that in the earliest part of pregnancy exemptions are easier to obtain, it hinges on halachik debate, with some very eminent Rabbis equating all stages.

[WAM]

As in asking how "life" is being referred to, and the implications thereof?

but you're skipping steps. Just answer the questions and play along.

No guarantees that you will get CV to see the light, but I think it simplifies the argument. When he asks why you gave a no to a question that sometimes has a yes, you'll be able to simply explain that the available answers were either yes or no and you thought that "no" was closer to the general answer because ....

[Sam 77]

sorry, I don't get it.
ETA I see what you changed, I just assume you're making a joke. I have evidence (stronger than @imayid2's evidence that the judge was accepting bribes) that CV is a guy.

Just look at her profile.