Murder is Murder--Abortion is NOT

This murder was nothing short of a terrorist act...trying to intimidate women's doctors to prevent them from providing desperately needed services and intimidate women who would seek out their help in a desperate situation. This was a brave soul who continued to provide services to women even after a prior attacker shot him in both arms. May his bravery inspire doctors to step up and provide services that are legal and done in emergencies to save the life of the mother.

Shalom!

A dreadful entry--completely void of fact, evidence or logic and wrong on all counts as if simply having a moral compass was bad enough.

First things first, we can all agree that this man did not deserve to be murdered and his murder is a shame and no doubt the killer will be found and handled properly.  Nothing Bill O'Reilly said btw is contrary to this basic observation.  After that point--all else is lost and down the drain--or should I say down the sink.

The fact of the matter is that simply because Jewish law does not say that a first trimester abortion is murder, it nonetheless considers it to be a clear moral wrong.  Abortions, from the point of view of every halachic authority one can find are a stain on humanity.

Which brings us to this Dr. Tiller fellow who has performed some 60,000 late term abortions and Mr. Waskow wants to indicate that this man is some kind of treasure for humanity.  He is alleged a "hero" and his life a blessing---  Based purely upon being a killing machine of innocent human life.  At last we can be pleased we do not have many heroes around--at least not of this order of magnitude.

Comment must be made concerning Mr. Waskow's grandmother who made a horrible choice to kill her sixth child instead of loving it--this kind of choice is unacceptable under any Jewish standard and a clear moral wrong.  No one needs to be a moral person to see the agony and lack of logic in such a choice.  Who might empathize with a mother who could happily care for five children but not six?  We all have families who have suffered under the pain of one family member, a child, dying young as a youth or as an infant.  That child is remembered, especially in Jewish families.  To come forward and say that we need to celebrate the doctor who has wiped out thousands of late term babies because someone's grandmother could not bear to take care of one more baby could easily win the award as the most immoral and illogical argument ever put forward on Jewcy--and believe me--there have been some real losers.  

53 million abortions in this country, trillions of lessons about all things sexual in classrooms and Mr. Waskow does not think we have done enough, spoken enough or killed enough. Perhaps if the people were allowed to claim control of this issue and ban this procedure in states that believe it shouild be banned, we could make a few less Dr. Tillers and a few more babies in a world in need of more life.

Waskow's second example is even worse than the first.  A pregnant woman creates a "hardship" (a real FALSE choice) for a family who is fleeing the Nazis--the right moral choice according to the ignorant author of this blog entry is to save the rest of the family by killing the pregnancy.  Therefore, the principle stands--let the strong survive and kill off the weak and the inconvenient.  No doubt, if the family had an  aunt or grandmother--please leave them behind to die so the strong can survive.  If a baby slows things down--please get rid of the baby.  If a daughter has a weak ankle or some slight deformity--please, leave her behind so the son has a better chance.

Anyone with even an inkling of Jewish wisdom knows that Jews NEVER make these choices.  And we also instantly recognize that heroes today leave no child behind, and refuse to sacrifice one weak part for the good of the whole.  True, this is the logic of the Darwinist, the atheist, the materialist, the utilitarian and the immoral but NEVER the thinking of the Jew.

One can imagine moral quandaries where horrible compromises must be made--for example the tragic story of the woman who, in an effort to not be discovered  by some marauding Islamic terrorist, unintentionally smothered her baby while quieting the  noises.  In this case, we quickly blame the terrorists for the tragedy and we never might suggest that the mother be given a medal.

Forgive my lack of patience with people who somehow believe killing babies is a higher good.  The Rabbis specifically condemn CONVENIENCE as a justification for killing a fetus. 

re: David Friedman's comment: I understand that "inconvenience" and financial hardship are not halachically acceptable reason to abort a sixth child. However, on the other hand the grandmother died from the unsafe illegal abortion and halacha does allow abortion to save the woman's life. Likewise if the abortion saved not only the woman's life but the entire family from nazi's in Austria. Not having walked a mile in those people's shoes I wouldn't be so quick to judge. The same with the women who had late term abortions via Dr. Tiller. I would look at their individual situations before rushing to judgement. Jews make ALL kind of choices and decisions including wrong ones, we're human's , not perfect.

"the grandmother died from the unsafe illegal abortion and halacha does allow abortion to save the woman's life..."

Um, excuse me, Joe--  The woman lost her life BECAUSE she had the abortion.  Many additional points can be made so easily since this is not even close to a debate.  How many babies out of the 60,000 did Tiller abort to save the life of the mother?  The answer is not known but some have guessed it could not have been higher than 5-10% and was likely a lot less.  The overwhelming reason was for birth control.  Further, many women illegally aborted their children without harm to themselves in years before Roe v. Wade AND more importantly, women die or suffer grievous harm from abortions in the years since Roe V. Wade.

The lowest estimate I have seen is that 1000 women have died from having an abortion and some authorities put the figure closer to 3000-4000.  Planned Parenthood takes taxpayer money and yet refuses to give out the numbers from their participating doctors. Also, many more young women unknowingly become infertile or have serious medical side affects from the procedure which are also not reported.  Legal abortion might make the actual procedure safer than it was before it was legal but  in absolute numbers--there is no doubt that many more women die BECAUSE abortion is legal than they did when it was illegal since making it legal has brought about millions of abortions when there were once much fewer abortions.  Therefore, it is more than a bit sick for abortion advocates like this Mr. Waskow to celebrate 53 million dead babies and hundreds and hundreds of dead and injured mothers getting their "legal and safe" abortions and this is why honest leftists like Bill Clinton and Obama speak about making abortion "rare"while at the same time doing absolutely nothing about it.

It is a Jewish position to celebrate *no* deaths.

People speak about "choice" as if it is an absolute right available at all times and in all ways indiscriminately.  Indeed, one can easily understand why someone might want two cookies but not choose three.  This freedom to choose a cookie is not a problem. Having five children but seeking to abort the sixth because it is not wanted assumes that the child is the same thing as the cookie.  Perhaps the Jewish people are best known historically among the nations for our ability to make meaningful distinctions and this example is an illustration of the need to make such distinctions--hence the phrase:  "it is a child and not a choice."  This bit of common sense could be lost among some but it is a true scandal if it is lost on the Jewish people.

Consider this:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=8b3d16b8-4e...

Impossible to respond to willful ignorance and malice but also not possible to remain silent at such a moment.  At the vigil I attended, woman after woman spoke movingly - of needing a late abortion due to a damaging amnioscentesis report of certain death upon childbirth; of having to travel thousands of miles and go into debt to find help; of fearlessly providing abortions to women who choose them; of the shame still heaped on a young girl who chose abortion after a rape.  Sanctimonious poppycock disguised as religious contemplation should not be tolerated while sexism distorts our lives and brutally silences those who cherish and defend women.

I completely second what Dave Friedman posted above.

If Dr. Tiller was a G-d-fearing Yid, and if he practised his trade with the fervor of a faithful zealot, Waskow's argument might come close to making a point.

But...  oh, yeah:  He was a Lutheran.  And he was a millionaire who could probably have afforded to pay for the security that was provided him by the taxpayers.

What a cesspool of self-loathing ignorance this blog is.

Oy!

Almost all of the women who were Dr. Tiller's patients needed late term abortions due to medical complications, either with themselves or serious complications with the fetus.

Asking a mother to give birth to baby who would spend a few years or hours in pain before an early death is too much to ask. Asking a mother to give up her life for a fetus (again, not usually viable) is too much to ask.

I have kids. I believe in life. I respect those who believe in life very strongly, but I cannot respect those who never try to see life through a pregnany woman's eyes. Dr. Tiller saved women's lives.

re: David Friedman's comment. Women don't undergo expensive risky surgical procedures for the purpose of "birth control". Secondly an unborn child is not the same as a born child. The so called pro-life people refuse to make distinctions between born and unborn humans. Slogans like "it is a child not a choice", and cries of "baby killer" illustrate how "pro-lifers blur the distinction between born and unborn.. There is even a bumber sticker that says, "a fertilized human egg IS a human".No, a fertilized human egg is a fertilized human egg and an unborn baby is not the same as a born one. The pregnant woman's life takes precedence. Even if it is one pregnant woman and a larger number of zygotes, becasue it is not about numbers it's about distinctions. The writer's grandmother would more than likely not have died if she had had a legal abortion for the simple fact that legal abortion IS safer than illegal abortions. As for your debatable claim that statistics show that more women are dying from abortion as it stands today: that is not an argument to make it illegal, it is an argument to work on decreasing the numbers of abortions-period. By the way the comment by Shooting sparks is also an example of the inability or refusal to make distinctions between born and unborn humans. He's not the only "pro-lifer" who sees the murder of DR. Tiller simply as a very late term abortion.The fact that Jew hatred has crept ionto what has otherwise been the frontlines of woman hatred is not surprising. "Feminazi" and "zionazi", either term is  Holocaust minimization.

Your talking about born and unbron child, same we can say for kids of 1 year who understands nothing and kid of 2 years know something... whats difference?

Should we put year limit at which year we can get rid of the kid?

Born or not born this are kids, i agree at early stage when life is not yet visible abortion is ok, but some people do abortions at late stages and thats murder IMO!!!

If you follow the surveys of women who get abortions--their motivations vary.  Some simply procrastinated.  Some felt presured to keep the child and then changed their mind.  Some felt the burden of being pregnant, saw how it was affecting their future and concluded an abortion was the way to help themselves.  If you sum up most of these motivations, the abortion sums up accurately as a form of birth control.  The instances of a woman having a complicated pregnancy would bring mothers to emergency rooms and not Dr. Tiller's abortion clinic.  The opportunity to save the mother can be handled adequately at the hospital and there are numerous examples where emergency surgery saved not only the mother but the baby as well.  Again, if this a case where a mother's life is at risk--how can some 20 year old know if an abortion is needed--this would be called a medical opinion.   The medical opinion offered after the fact by the abortion doctor can easily be spun into a circumstance where the health of the mother was at supposedly at issue--in fact, it is a known way of dodging the ethical and legal questions.  It is entirely preposterous to imagine that this clinic had a rare rash of complicated pregnancies which required an emergency abortion to save the life of the mother about 60,000 times.  Again, 60,000 pregnancies in the context of modern medical treatments translates into a very low instance of genuine life of the mother threats.

These girls and young women are motivated to have the procedure--they believe they really do not want the child.  They see the pregancy as a mistake, they are not married--the motivation is pretty clear.  What is not in evidence is a life-threatening situation or they would be in a hospital where the mother and the baby could be saved.  But this is NOT the desired result.  The desired result is to terminate the pregnancy and that is why they go to the abortion guy to get rid of the problem.  Please, Joe.  Turn your head to the upright position.

The writer's mother had no good reason to kill her sixth child.  Secondly, she could have visited a place that had a safe environment instead of risking her life with a so-called "back-alley" procedure.  In truth--relatively few women died in such circumstance--it is an urban myth. Waskow's conclusion in support of abortion is not only bizarre and illogical--it is clearly immoral.  The lack of logic would sway anyone--if one's grandmother made such a bad choice, losing her life and the life of a whole wing of one's family-- most people would find it hard to even mention her name. It makes as much sense as if she died of an over-does of heroin with the use of a dirty needle and then 60 years after the fact one is campaigning for a clean-needles instead of being appalled by drug use of any kind.

Lastly, why do you want to decrease the number of abortions?  Isn't it a right--as Waskow states flatly--a woman's "Constitutional right?"  In what other case do we knowingly suppress the constitutional rights of women? We want abortions to end since they are a moral wrong. You want them to be decreased because....?  I once had your midset and it is an ugly place to stand.  I know, I stood there.  I felt it was good that "other" people have the option--an option I would never take for myself.  Fine--let them abort their kids, they are not wanted, a world with only wanted children is better.  It is an ugly place to sit. Free yourself, Joe, from that place. 

Either celebrate the woman's "right" or see it as a moral wrong--that is the issue.

Choose life.

who will never face the dilemma of facing really horrible choices to sit back and pontificate. Most women who have late term abortions don't do it for random reasons. In the case of a close family member, it was a desperately wanted child. Prenatal testing and ultrasounds discovered horrendous anomalies that guaranteed a very short, pinful life. Simultaneously, it was a high risk pregnancy for a woman with complex medical issues whose doctors were very clear about the fact that she would only be able to carry to term once. The family was devastated and made a hard choice. Everyone was broken hearted. Of course, a male will immediately post that there was reason A,B,C why a woman should destroy her health, marriage, finances, or risk losing her life for a fetus who will only know pain and suffering and pass away in infancy. They will never face that pain, it is abstract. But women are fully human, not incubators, with their own capacity to examine their own lives, situations, and physical, emotional and financial resources and decide what they can bear. I thank God that I have never been in that situation...but as a mother I can respect the rights of families who are faced with awful options, none of which they ever dreamed of, to make the right choice for their own families without being screeched at by zealots who see only black and white. The bottom line is, if you loathe abortion don't have one. Or work to reduce them by providing great universal health care to women and children, social programs to support families who are struggling, free contraception. Preach from your pulpits about your religious convictions if you want...it is a free country. And women are free to follow their own religious, moral and ethical compass whether it points in the same direction as yours or not.

Shalom!

Please, Laura--we basically agree.  This is why the Jewish standard is the gold standard in these cases.  For all the fear and loathing against the so-called "Religious Right"--that is to say the Christian right--I had personal conversations with Jerry Falwell, for example, who quickly agreed that he would absolutely honor life of the mother exceptions and would also agree to rape and incest exceptions in any abortion law.

No woman is required to put her life on the line for what is factually a high risk pregnancy and these small number of cases can be handled in a hospital setting.  But you did not answer the question I posed to Joe.  If these young women were having high-risk pregnancies--why were they going to Dr. Tiller since they do not even know anything is wrong with their pregnancy?

When I indicated that "a child is different than a cookie" I am making both (1) a profound statement and 2) I am also making a pointed criticism of this group of young women.  We need to quickly separate instances of dire medical need and women who are legitimately put at risk vs. those who use abortion as birth control.  I must insist that all the evidence suggests that women use abortion as birth control in the vast majority of cases.  We are all very sympathetic and understanding of the NEED--indeed, the imperative to abort a child to save the life of a mother.  This represents a very small number of the 53 million abortions.  No law, no ethical person will every demand that those mothers have their lives put at risk. 

Current law literally throws the baby out with the bath water.  Young women are allowed to treat a child like a cookie (to go forward with my analogy) and this is a huge problem for us as a nation and it distorts our entire moral standing . Allowing young women to make the choice of convenience is not at all empowering to women--it is very destructive to women who are living the life of making poor choices and then given an easy escape clause as a way to abort their immaturity.  If only the child was a cookie--all is fine.  But where the stakes are so high, the state has an obligation to regulate this activity.

I find it curious that leftists for this one issue love the concept of the freedom, the RIGHT to choose to kill one's baby and yet will seek no other freedom (beyond other sexual freedoms).  We live at a time when I can be fined for refusing to recycle newspaper, I require the permission of the state to cut down a tree on my own property--but if I had a daughter, she has an absolute right--  no discussion, no permission required from me as her father or from anyone--she can just abort a child very quickly and easily. Does this make sense to you, Laura?

But as a woman, a Jew, abortion is wrong.  My sister knew a women, a nurse, who worked in an abortion clinic, and said of all the years she worked there, abortion was used for birth control.  The Torah says we are made in the image of God.  Who are we to flaunt "our rights" before God?  We belong to God, we don't belong to "ourselves".  We are the image of Him, not the other way around.  My mother was told by her doctors that if she had me she would die, and voila! she had me and had one more to boot.  Both healthy and doing well, thank you very much.  This whole abortion issue is about pride.  And pride is idoltry.  The Torah says that children are a blessing from God.  Not a curse.  Wake up people!  Self-rightous hyprocrites, can't keep their legs shut, and kills a child, a gift from God, because they don't want to be " bothered" and reminded of their "sin" so they can repent and change their lifestyle to please God, but no, they can't do that, can they?  They love what they are doing. so they get rid of it and turn around and do it again. Justifying their actions, so they try to cram that down everybody else's throats, because immorality doesn't like light and truth.  They are enmity with God, rebellious, and stiff-necked.  I know a lot of women who had abortions and my younger sister got pregnant, was pressured by her "friends" to get an abortion and even the nurse at the clinic tried to push her into aborting the child and my sister didn't want to.  Number one reason women have abortions is birth control.  Nothing else. The clinics don't care about the girl's rights or anything else.  They make bucks, I think last time I heard was about 1200. per abortion and the state funds them as well.  They pressure the girls, don't tell them everything their suppose to tell them, just to get their money.  The girl could be sitting there sobbing her heart out that she doesn't want an aboortion,she changed her mind and the bastards push her into it.  They see dollar signs before their eyes.  They'd sell their own mother for money and people back them up?!  The doctors who perform these abortions took an oath to preserve life, preserve LIFE.  Not take it.  What kind of people do you think these doctors are?  They take an oath before God and then break it?  That tells you what kind of people they are, doesn't it?  It's all about pride and money.

Impossible to respond to willful ignorance and malice but also not possible to remain silent at such a moment. At the vigil I attended, woman after woman spoke movingly - of needing a late abortion due to a damaging amnioscentesis report of certain death upon childbirth; of having to travel thousands of miles and go into debt to find help; of fearlessly providing abortions to women who choose them; of the shame still heaped on a young girl who chose abortion after a rape. Sanctimonious poppycock disguised as religious contemplation should not be tolerated while sexism distorts our lives and brutally silences those who cherish and defend women.

__________________

http://rkigqpve.szm.com/deerantl9c/ 

I  will leave aside the combined stupidity and arrogance of the comments above thast insult my grandmother and denigrate her choices, and the comments above that show hatred for women and for sex ("Spread their legs"). But I do want to make sure that Zeek readers know something about the real-life Dr. Tiller and his willingness to do late-term abortions under certain conditions ---   not the stereotypes they seem to have sucked into their brains straight from Bill O'Reilly .

I also want tp report that  adding up all responses (on this list and on all others) to my essay praising Dr. Tiller and urging that abortions  and all other unintended pregnancies be reduced by providing  comprehensive sex education and free contraception for all young people in public and religion-based schools, including pre-bat/bar mitzvah kids:    Every single attack on my essay  has come from a man. Supportive posts have been (a) seven times as many & (b)  three-fourths by women.

Interesting.

Here is a real-life report on Dr.Tiller from a woman who used his services.

Shalom, Arthur
(Rabbi Arthur Waskow,  The Shalom Center www.shalomctr.org

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"My story with Dr. Tiller, a Hero"

Posted on <http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/01/making-it-personal-share-your-late-term-abortion-story#comment-21686>

I am disheartened that the news media has covered Dr. Tiller's murder without any insight into the range of healthcare services he provided women including those faced with the heartbreaking choice of terminating their late-term pregnancy due to severe fetal anomalies and cases where there would be irreparable harm to the mother.

I am one of those women and am deeply mourning Dr. Tiller's loss. Ironically it is very near the June anniversary of my loss in 1997--I was very excited to go to my OB for my 26-week ultrasound (beginning of 3rd trimester) but something was very wrong--the baby was measuring at 18 weeks and my OB sent me to a major hospital where a medical team conducted a high resolution ultrasound.

The confirmed diagnosis was the most severe form of osteogenisis imperfecta (brittle bone disease) and my poor little one had broken bones throughout his body and was underdeveloped. I was told my baby was "incompatible with life" and if I went through live labor and delivery, I would most likely kill my baby as he passed through the birth canal.

I felt the most loving and humane informed choice I could make for my baby was to end his suffering; it was agony knowing that every move I made could be causing him pain.

My OB arranged for me and my husband to fly to Kansas to Dr. Tiller's clinic. We felt like fugitives having to leave our own state and could only use a certain travel agent, hotel, and cab service because of the pro-lifers stalking Dr. Tiller's patients. We passed through protestors on our way into the clinic who were yelling at me that I had a choice. I wanted my baby, and I wanted him to live--that would have been my choice, but that is not the situation I was in.

We could not have been treated with more dignity, compassion, love, respect, caring, etc. by Dr. Tiller and his staff. He was by my side the whole week and provided superb medical education & care. Before we left Kansas, as part of the healing process he showed me my angel boy and why he wouldn't have been able to live on this earth. I held my baby and remember his perfect tiny little feet and his mop of black hair.

The other couple there that week had a baby with 1/2 a brain--incompatible with life. Dr. Tiller told us of a 9 year old girl whom he'd recently helped--she had been molested and impregnated by her father and if she had carried the baby to term her body as well as her psyche would be destroyed.

I am aching for those couples who flew to Kansas last Sunday after making a very difficult choice.....where do they go now? Who would want to take on Dr. Tiller's work and put themselves and their families at life risk?

Dr. Tiller had to take extraordinary measures for his safety as well as that of staffers and patients, and anyone associated with Dr. Tiller (including their families, friends, and even businesses in the community that served them) were targets of unbelievable harassment by supposed "godly" pro-lifers.

Bill O'Reilley targeted Dr Tiller for the last few years calling him "Tiller the Baby Killer." What would Bill say if he had a daughter in such a difficult predicament? Women like me don't openly share our stories for fear of retribution. Dr. Tiller kept doing the work he was doing because he was a true advocate for women and their health and well-being. He is a brave hero and is a huge loss to this world. He was also a husband, father of four, and grandfather who was ruthlessly murdered.

The killer has been dismissed as acting independently, but many of them are cheering the fact that Dr. Tiller is dead, and the majority of people in the US would not even think of supporting late-term abortion.

I am hoping by sharing stories like mine, a greater education and understanding of the need to maintain women's rights to choose as well as there being a true medical need for those grey areas of choice including late term abortions is critical.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 3, 2009 - 12:45pm. 

Posted on
<http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/01/making-it-personal-share-your-late-term-abortion-story#comment-21686>

...that there are brave doctors out there who will step intp the breach and take up Dr. Tiller's work. No family is such a horrendous position should be left without medical care. In the final analysis these decisions are between a woman, her God and her MD. Noone who doesn't have to carry the burden of the consequences should ever get a vote...my heart goes out to these families.

Shalom!

I am a woman. I am Jewish but not Orthodox. I grew up outside of New York City and moved to the bible belt in the deep deep south a few years ago. I have heard nothing but condemnation of his murder on the radio stations and locally. A person decides to kill someone and you blame right wing conservatives, Christians and Bill O'Reilly. When Rabin was shot did you condemn Israel and Jews?

And by the way, Awaskow, I'm a female and don't endorse late term abortion so figure that into your statistics.

Thank you David N. Friedman and Adam H. for saying what I would have said but more eloquently. :o)

AWaskow, fine for bringing forward an anecdote and I would easily support legislation, state by state that speaks to the topic of when a late-term abortion can be consumated.  I will admit that I am not expert on this law.  I understand through a colleaugue who is a Jew and and OB that such late term abortions are performed routinely in the state of MD where I reside--in such circumstances.  The particululars are matters that are rightly determined by the law since we are--I regret to repeat, not speaking about cookies but babies.  This concept is vitally important--again, the fact that the state has an interest in a tree on my own backward but NO interest in a child is beyond bizarre.

Now, concerning the fact that Tiller aborted 60,000 bobies--this is surely way too big a number to account for circumstances 1) life of the mother, 2) rape/incest and the 3rd most difficult category as you document above--the case of the severely damaged.  So what are we talking about 5% of the whole 10%?

Please do not take this the wrong way but Bernie Madoff had a much higher percentage of thoroughly satisfied clients than even 30% if you could document that 30% of Tiller's clients came in that category.

Lastly, you cannot sit there and demogogue the fact that I am male to discount my opinion, my sensitivity to women and children, or my general morality.  The fact that women are allowed to make this "choice" by themselves is a problem since every pregnancy requires the imput of 1) a woman, 2) a man 3) the Will of the Almighty. The anonymous woman who says that Tiller is a "champion of women" denigrates the health professionals in this entire great nation and surely no one man alone could possibly offer compassionate care to women.  

If Tiller's death can have any positive impact, I hope it will help tighten guidelines concerning state laws which regulate late term abortions.  

To Mr. Waskow--if you cannot have your opinions stand up to scrutiny--perhaps you might keep them to yourselves and I am not here to attack you or level personal attacks--such as indicating that I am not sensitive to women.

Mr. Friedman, when you compare women to trees you are already providing the eviidence of your arrogrant contempt for women.  Pregnant women live, breathe independently, choose theior social relationships, and form their consciences. They are, in short, hum,an beings in the Image of God. Trees are not. 

The Constitution treats women as  moral agents capable of making better decisions than anyone else can about the situations in which they share their bodies with another body that is not breathing, has no independent social relartionships, and  has not formed a conscence capable of making moral choices. You wish to impose your own deciions on these women. who are sharing their own bodies  with another body,   although you are never in that situation. That is the definition of arrogance.

Baduri: You oppose abortion? For your own body, geh gezunterheit. I would not do to you what Jewish law teaches -- that is, if you were bearing a fetus that was endangering your life, according to halakha the community would be obligated to  kill the feus rather than let it kill you. But if you would choose an excrucioating death for yourself instead, I would let you choose..

And if you really affirm what Adam H said, that incoudes his contemptuous reference tio a woman's choice to have sex as "spreading her legs," and he viewed her possible pregnancy as a punishment for that decision, to be enforced upon her by preventing her aborting the unwanted fetus. Is this really how you think about yourself and other women?  I don't.

 Rabbi Arthur Waskow, The Shalom Center www.shalomctr.org 

Nowhere in my post do I remotely come close to the phrase "spread her legs".  I pointed out that illegal birth control can be blamed as easily as illegal abortion.  Your grandmother, and your aborted uncle or aunt, did not experience late-term abortion.  You're the schmuck who invoked her demise, so don't be surprised when some commentators reply.

Even before my original post was redacted (thanks to the freedom-of-speech-loving editors) I said no such thing as "spread her legs".  But I did mention that your Web persona is too stereotypical to be real.

To that I will add that only a completely insecure, groundless @$$hole goes back into a comments thread and replies to his critics.  Write your essay, back it up with supports, post it, and let it be.  You cannot possibly expect to write a column this extremely radical and not receive some criticism.

"Wahh, wahh.  Only men are critical.  Women agree with me.  You guys insulted my Nana.  Wahhh..." 

Mr. Waskow:  you misrepresent my argument and ignore why your side is losing the debate instead of trying to persuade.

1) I do not make an analogy between a woman and a tree.  I related the horrible reality and the warped morality that exists where one is prohibited from cutting down a tree in one's own yard in many jurisdictions but can abort a baby in one's body with impunity (except in some states in the second and third trimester of life). The reality is that about 50 million babies have been aborted, the Jews yawn, while they support further restrictions over how one might deal with worthless property owned by individuals such as newspaper and gasoline use.  This is not simply a tad ironic--it is a moral outrage.  Your comment---don't compare women to trees--huh? I am comparing the legal action of flushing a baby down the sink vs. the supposed controversial action of putting newspaper in a landfill or carbon in the atmosphere. I say killing the baby is a problem--what do you say?

2) You say that "the Constitution makes women moral agents more capable than anyone else...."  Of course, the Constitution does not elevate women as more capable than anyone else--what you are trying to say is that one controversial 1973 decision which almost every lawyer says is really bad law, allows women the regulated opportunity to  dispose of a baby inside their body.  Yes, this is true--the question remains is this: is there something wrong with the regulation of late term abortions that disallows such procedures unless two doctors agree that the life of the mother is at stake or that the baby has some kind of rare and life threatening disease ?(or the case of rape or incest--in which case it should not be a late-term circumstance).  Women are great--they are not flawless "moral agents" who will always do the right thing.  The fact that almost ALL ABORTIONS (93%) are done for CONVENIENCE proves that women are quick to do the expedient thing and that not the moral thing. 

3) The fact remains that extremely few abortions are done to save the life of the mother (and the 3 exemptions people commonly put forward to correctly justify abortions).  Please stop bringing up the non-controversial rare examples.  Let's give the famed baby-killer Tiller the benefit of the doubt and say that a full 10% of his patients had a legitimate excuse.  That leaves a full 54,000 babies aborted for convenience--that is to say 54,000 children that would have been if not for the activities of this one man. Stop referencing the anecdotal cases where Tiller simply did what almost any other doctor in America would have also done.  He is  there  running his huge business not because women had a legitimate need--ipso facto--if he was there only to perform a legitimate service--he would not have aborted 60,000 babies in one clinic--instead, he would struggle to stay busy for even a couple weeks in a year doing the right thing. You need to address the morality of those 54,000 babies--not the 6,000.  Will you ever do that?

4) Just for kicks--I will ask you this and I understand that you are not prone to answer.  Your side of the populace--the political left--went crazy over the fact that 3 disgusting and notorious terrorists were waterboarded so that Americans could live and not die from further attacks.  That's right 3 evil men were treated to an enhanced interrogation technique so that Americans could be safer.  This is obviously heroic on the part of the people who performed that interrogation.  But for your perverted minds--what was done to those three evil men who did not die and were not even injured--was "barbaric."   By contrast, a man who has made a mockery of established laws in this nation--forged documents and invented legitimate need for 54,000 INNOCENT babies to be sucked down a sink.--is hailed by your side as a HERO?  How might saving American lives through interrogation be termed "barbaric" while the truly barbaric actions of taking healthy babies from healthy mothers and taking those babies and killing them in barbaric procedures be justified by ANYTHING at all in Torah?  OK, forget Torah--how might it be justified by any standard at all?  Again--I will give you the 6,000--I will even, just for argument, through in another 10,000 babies as "justifyable."  So justify the 44,000 everyone knows were aborted for convenience--healthy babies from healthy mothers.  Please speak.

I don't need to speak, because this  hesped speaks for itself and tells the real truth from direct experience. It's by a rabbi who, together with his wife (also a rabbi)  had direct experience in having Dr George Tiller provide a necessary abortion. Note that his description makes clear why other women were seeking abortions when he and his wife were there: Not a "convenience" in the lot. 

Shalom, salaam, peace — Arthur

Eulogy for Dr. George Tiller <http://rabbiyoung.blogspot.com/2009/06/eulogy-for-dr-george-tiller.html>
By Rabbi  David N. Young, Temple Sinai of North Dade Co, Florida
Friday, June 5, 2009

The poet Marcia Falk adapted a poem ascribed only to the name Zelda, called “Each of Us Has a Name,” which reads in part:

Each of us has a name
given by the source of life
and given by our parents

Each of us has a name
given by our stature and our smile
and given by what we wear

Each of us has a name
given by our enemies
and given by our love

This past Sunday in Wichita, KS, a man whose name is known to many in the political, social action, and medical communities was shot and killed in his church. He was serving as an usher, handing out programs much like our Shabbat greeters do here at Temple Sinai. His wife was singing in the choir when a man walked in, shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, and ran away.

Dr. Tiller made a name for himself, given to him in many forms. He was named a friend and supporter of Kathleen Sebelius, our current Health and Human Services Secretary. He was dubbed “Tiller the Baby Killer” by Bill O’Reilly. He was labeled hero by the hundreds of cards and letters that line the walls of the Women’s Health Care Center. He was named “Godless Murderer,” and “Church-Going Martyr,” in the same article of the Wichita daily newspaper. He was called father to four, and grandfather to 10.

I have been to Wichita only once—April 9th to 15th, 2006. Natalie and I met Dr. Tiller, and spent time with him in his clinic for a week. We did not want to go, but to us there was no real choice. About a month before our ordination and investiture from HUC, Natalie was 34 weeks pregnant, and we discovered that the baby had microcephaly and lissencephaly. In plain English, the head was too small, and the brain was not developing. The first, second, and third opinions all told us the same thing. Our baby would not live outside the womb. So Natalie and I made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy.

In the United States, abortion is legal, but it is up to the states to determine limitations or restrictions on these laws. The Women’s Health Care Center in Wichita is one of three locations in the US that legally performs late-term abortions, or abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy. Dr. Tiller was referred to us as the best of those three, so we quickly made plans to fly to Wichita.

Though I do not wish this experience on anyone, I can say that Dr. Tiller deserves his designation as a caring, compassionate professional in his field. My memory is weak about our time there, perhaps subconsciously as a defense mechanism. I remember fake wood paneling on the walls, worn couches in several different waiting areas, and sympathetic faces on everyone on staff.

We were there with three other couples, all going through the same thing, though for different reasons. Not one person was there because of an unwanted pregnancy. All of us were distraught that our babies could not survive outside the womb. Dr. Tiller and his staff guided us gently and honestly through this incredibly painful process.

Throughout our week there, Natalie spent a lot of time asleep or in a drug-induced haze, so I had a lot of time to sit in our hotel room and think. I kept a journal when I could handle it emotionally, and I read. I read emails and magazines, and studied a little Mishnah. I took in the words of Tractate Niddah (5:3) which says, “A day-old son who dies is to his father and mother like a full bridegroom.” This phrase stuck in my mind, especially the use of the word “bridegroom.” There are many words the Talmud uses to distinguish different stages of life. It could have said elderly man, full-grown son, or young man with equal gravity to describe a parent’s loss. Using “bridegroom” must be intentional, and it works on two fronts.

The first is independence. A bridegroom is clearly of an age where the parents have completed raising the child until he is ready to be on his own. They know who he is, the kind of person he is, what interests he has, and what his aspirations are. Their loss equals the loss of a fully developed human being, no matter what age he is.

The second speaks to emptiness. Even before a woman gets pregnant, she is making plans for the child’s life. When a couple discovers that they are going to have a child, the plans begin. If this is the birthday, then this will the Bar Mitzvah. This will be graduation, and hopefully around here is the chuppah. Who knows, maybe by this year we’ll be grandparents! Describing the loss as “like a full bridegroom” reminds us that we are going to miss out on every simchah that might have been, from birth to the wedding and beyond.

Dr. Tiller had an understanding of this pain, perhaps better than anyone who has never gone through it personally. As a doctor he was upfront about everything he was about to do and everything we needed to do to make things go well. When we arrived, he sat all four couples down and told us everything that was going to happen. He showed us the instruments he was going to use. He told us how the drugs would make the women feel. He told them flat out that it was going to hurt and she needed to be ready. He was brutally honest. He told us that he had lost a patient about a year and a half prior to our visit. He asked if we had questions, and when challenged, he answered respectfully and honestly.

He also asked about us. He wanted to know who we were, what we did, and how we lived as couples and families. When it came out that Natalie and I were about to become Jewish clergy, he mentioned that his on-staff chaplain was not Jewish, but he wrote down the name and number of a local Reform rabbi who we might want to talk to. Admittedly, we did not use the number. So the next evening, that rabbi called us in our hotel room. He said Dr. Tiller had called the synagogue, let them know we were in town, and said he suspected we weren’t in a place where we could make the first move. He invited us to Passover Seder at his home two nights later, and said we could decide anytime up to dessert being served that we wanted to show up, and that he would understand if we wanted to keep to ourselves. All because Dr. Tiller cared enough to make sure someone was reaching out to us.

Judaism acknowledges that life is sacred. Dr. Tiller personified the value of pikuach nefesh, saving a life, putting his own life at risk every day in order to fulfill this value. Jewish tradition dictates that before Kaddish we do not say the name of non-Jews unless they fall under the category of gerei tzedek, the righteous gentiles who live ethical and valiant lives. In that vein we will add Dr. Tiller to Temple Sinai's Kaddish list tonight, honoring him as a ger tzedek.

In the words of Dr. Cheryl Gutmann, Chair of the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism: "As our hearts and prayers go out to Dr. Tiller’s family, we think of his personal heroism and that of the other brave and courageous providers and professionals who are part of reproductive health centers across this country."

Zelda’s poem closes:

Each of us has a name
given by our celebrations
and given by our work

Each of us has a name
given by the sea
and given
by our death

Zichrono livrachah: May his name be remembered for a blessing

Sorry: I got wrong who it was who said the "Can't keep their  legs closed" thing. It was "sunnynyv65" (he doesn't sign himself in any other way, like a real name) who wrote, "This whole abortion issue is about pride.  And pride is idoltry.  The
Torah says that children are a blessing from God.  Not a curse.  Wake
up people!  Self-rightous hyprocrites, can't keep their legs shut, and
kills a child, a gift from God, because they don't want to be "
bothered" and reminded of their "sin" so they can repent and change
their lifestyle to please God, but no, they can't do that, can they?"   As I said, this is classic hatred for women and disgust for sex (at least for women who have sex, maybe not for men). And its hatred has nothing to do with Dr. Tiller's work, except that the work acted as a stimulus to and excuse for the hatred. 

 - Rabbi Arthur Waskow

Mr. Waskow, it simply cannot be credible that given the well-documented industry average of 93% for convenience is much lower for Dr. Tiller.  Even if, contrary to compelling testimony from a variety of sources, Tiller's numbers were only 60% (or even 50%)for the convenience of the mother--he still is running a nasty business.

The murder of Tiller turned him into a martyr and this is a sad circumstance since it would have been better to expose his bad practices and force him to face his critics and the law.  Now we have people giving eulogies and no one will listen to the thousands of cases where he extracted healthy babies from healthy mothers.  Ultimately, does it really matter if the Nazis murdered 5.6 million Jews or 5.975 million Jews? Similarly, must we really go through the entire record?  

The abortionist as Jewish HERO?  Nope. Sorry, pal.  You are way out in left field all by yourself.  Don't expect any Rabbi to follow suit.

My question remains unanswered--when we will get together in this country--people on both sides of the aisle and agree that abortions of convenience (like the one that killed Waskow's grandmother) must end so that the only abortions performed relate directly to the real life of the mother or extreme issues with the baby?  To sit here and say with a straight face that a notorious late-term abortionist is some kind of a hero brings us nothing but comtempt for each other.  93% of the abortions performed in this nation are done simply because the law allows for the destruction  and Roe v Wade--giving a right for a woman to kill her own baby for any reason she wants-- has stained our nation.  

People on the left need to wake up and speak honestly.  50 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade.  Hundreds of women have died getting so-called "safe-legal" abortions. Thousands of women have become sterile as the result of getting an abortion.  Thousands of women have contracted breast cancer and died prematurely because they had an abortion.  Tens of thousands of women who made the mistake of having an abortion have NOW reversed themselves and support strong laws against abortion on demand--including Roe herself.

All of this adds up to abuse against women and barbarity towards the most innocent among us--the child.  And against all of this we have people like this Waskow fellow who has the gall to say that he and he abortion friends--and not us, the majority of Americans--are the ones who really care about women.

In the absense of sense, nonsense is allowed to run wild.

Friedman, Along with your crippled and crippling fear toward those brave women who affirm their ability to make their own moral and ethical decisions,  along with your self-imprisonment in ignorance and nastiness toward one of them -- my grandmother,  whom you never even knew -- I realize with shock and sorrow that like the heroine of "The Reader,"  you can't read. You write, "Don't expect any Rabbi to follow suit"  even though staring you in the face is the hesped by another Rabbi besides myself who with his wife, a Cantor, not only actually arranged for an abortion with Dr. Tiller but praised him as a ger tzedek, a hero of justice.   Having now realized the depth and breadth of your disabilities, I also realize that instead of anger I should have been  feeling pity toward you.  Now I do.  -- Rabbi Arthur Waskow 

In face of facts that demonstrate beyond nay reasonable doubt that 93% of all abortions are done for mere convenience and have nothing to do with preserving the life of the mother, rape, incest or a massively deformed baby--Mr. Waskow resorts to the anecdotal evidence of the 7% WHICH NO ONE CHALLENGES.

If this conversation is going to progress, please try to get past the brainlock and look at the 50 million abortions--or the 30-50,000 halachically incorrect abortions performed by one man's clinic.  The fact of a  witness to one halachically acceptable abortion says nothing about all of the others.  I will not continue to repeat myself.

Impartial observers can see the *contrast* between the OUTRAGE among the same people who only yawn over 50 million abortions so hypocritically turn their angry sights towards the Rubaskin meat plant in Iowa.  For the innocent child and the women who are lulled into making such bad choices--there is no defense, no helping hand.  But for the cow or chicken which was bred to be slaughtered--there is MONUMENTAL outrage if the animal killing can be made to appear in distorted images to be a bit non-kosher. This is not simply selective outrage, it is sick morality.

Waskow, your arguments here make no sense to me. You keeping pointing to the tale of a few women to justify the 93% of abortions that are done for convenience. You just can't grasp the fact that the vast majority of abortions are performed not for the safety of the mother, not in the name of horrible crimes of incest/rape, but simply because it's easier to end the life of the child, rather than deal with the implications or shame of bearing the child.

Will you not admit that this is the case or do you insist upon continuing to point at the exception to the rule in order to justify your defense of such an abomination?

Since you have shared with us your tales of abortion, I will regale you with my own experience. My partner and I had a beautiful baby girl and all seemed blissful. Until soon after our first birth she became pregnant again. Soon after discovering the news she informed me that she would be aborting my child. Was her life in danger? Was she raped? No, her reason was simply that she could not go another year without "partying." That's right she murdered my child so she could get back to her bohemian lifestyle. I begged, I pleaded, I offered to take both children and raise them myself if only she would allow my child to live, but to no avail. My child was murdered.

Mr. Waskow where were my unborn child's rights to protect him/her from this monster? Where were my rights as the father? I contacted an attorney but of course I had none. Thankfully my first daughter and I were able to seperate ourselves from this monster.

Please reflect on your beliefs. No one who is pro-life would advocate for the mother to have to sarifice her life for the baby. Examine the facts, abortion is not about saving the mother, it's about convenience and shame.

As we continue to roll down a moral sink, a new on-line link to honor the controversial late-term abortionist, Mr. Tiller--called "I am Dr. Tiller"--features about 20 women with signs up that say "I am Dr. Tiller."  Blind to utter irony--almost all the women holding the signs fail to show their faces.  To top it off, one of the people holding up the signs is a young girl, perhaps 5 or 6, told by his Mom to say that she is "pro-choice."

People love to say that what Tiller did was "legal."  In truth, we do not know how many of his 60,000 abortions were legal and this is why I have brought up the parallel of the Rubaskhins.  To be plain, I do not intend to draw a parallel between killing babies and killing chickens and cows.  I do intend to draw a parallel between the moral outrage against a kosher meat plant and the lack of moral outrage against this notorious abortionist.

I was very quick to stop buying meat products by Rubaskhin since it is important to me that a meat processor conform to kosher standards and not be in violation of  Federal laws.  The Jewish community simply went overboard abouit what are in retrospect--not so serious violations.  Similarly, the reaction against the fraternity style pranks at the Abu Guraib prison was way, way over the top and completely hysterical.  The American soldiers who put panties on prisoners could have been lightly reprimanded and a strong US President would have stopped the conversation immediately--defending the conduct of our great men in uniform who only committed a slight impropriety.  But no--the NYT went wild over the story--week after week--as if the US was guilty of something very, very severe.

PETA snuck in hidden cameras to the Rubaskhin plant--bringing the plant to bankruptcy.  By contrast--has a pro-life group ever brought in cameras to the Tiller facility?  How do we know that all 60,000 of Tiller's killings are legal and proper--we actaully have no idea.  Unlike the Rubaskins and the US military who opened themselves to leftist smears--Tiller kept his operation closed so we don't know how many of his abortions were actually proper.  The fact that his facility was THE PLACE for late-term abortions that could not take place in over 30 other states indicates that he took a whole lot of women other states would not admit.  Is there any evidence that Tiller refused to offer his services to thousands of women--or even hundreds of women?  No--by all accounts--he took everyone almost no matter what the circumstance, in defiance of the law.

It surely seems, therefore, if poor L. England can be thrown in jail for not torturing or harming anyone and the Rubaskhin family fined, made bankrupt and jailed for some FDA viloations--surely Dr. Tiller could have been investigated and if found guilty-- also fined and jailed.  Instead, the radical Mr. Waskow and some liberal Rabbi want to make the man a hero. 

I wanted the Rubaskins investigated--I believe that the US military should be careful with their behavior--but I also really expect that the wholesale slaughter of late-term abortions needs to be monitored.  Without even looking into the problem--how can anyone be confident concerning this closed activity?  It is clearly ripe for abuse--some woman who could not abort her baby late term in many states--assuming the common occurence of healthy mother, healthy child--had the opportunity to fly to Kansas and visit this controversial character who could quickly draw up some paperwork claiming the woman suffered from clinical depression, grab the rubber stamp of another staff doctor as a second-- and all looks kosher. Logic demands that if these women all had thoroughly legitimate reasons to have an abortion--why did they all have to fly to Kansas?

The fact that Tiller offered a legitimate service some of the time disguises the fact about the majority of cases--facts we do not know.

Else, the penalty for causing a miscarriage would be the same as causing a murder. Exodus 21:22

A fetus does not have the legal standing of a person--yep--so it is not murder.  Do we only prosecute murder in this nation?

We prosecute all kinds of things, quantum.  

Theft? Battery?

It is worse than death, I say, to be enslaved. It is worse than death to be forced into a situation by another human being. None have the right to use my body, my organs, my blood, without my permission--even if by using it they remain alive. No one should be forced into that position.

OK--so thus we have it well said--pregnancy is worse than death.  Women carry the risk of prenancy with intercourse.  They choose intercourse knowing the risks.  Then, when the inevitable happens--someone else is "using my body, using my organs and my blood without my permission..."  Amazing--this is the definition of irresponsible behavior.

Pregnancy is a gift from the Almighty which assumes the permission of the woman.  If consent is not given--this is called rape and is punishable by law in the civilized world thanks to the spread of ther wisdom of our Torah.  Sexual freedom which gives implied permission and then later, regrets, asks for abortion which is disallowed under Jewish law since the life of a fetus has sanctity passed the first trimester.  Women bear the risk of pregnancy handle that risk through their conduct.

I have certain medical susceptibilities--it is my responsibility to avoid the triggers and the problems which put me at risk.  This is all very normal.

Trying to have it both ways is a problem. Abortion is horrible law which has allowed for the killing of 50 million babies in this nation alone since 1973.  93% of those killings represent health babies from healthy mothers having nothing to do with rape or the threat of the life of the mother.

To say that a woman is free to have sex under all situations and then, when the condom leaks or the inevitable thing happens and the women becomes pregnant--already giving implied permission to become pregnant--she can still balk and still demand that having made her choice--she can choose after the fact and kill the result of the choice is irresponsible.  

Please, if this is the standard--I appeal right now to abort the election of Obama.  Simply because we elected him, by your standard, does not mean that we now have to suffer the consequences.  We are sick and bloated, afraid, bankrupt and violated. Please let's create a law whereby we can abort the last election right now.

But, you see, we can't do that.  We have made our choice.  It is a sick choice but having made it--we are stuck with the consequences.

Tragically, the woman with the "unwanted" child gets a gift but wants to kill it.  By contrast, America gets a disease we cannot eradicate.

Thusly, Obama has been brought to term. First term. Who knows about the second. If a sufficient majority of people wish to abort the Obama presidency, he will not come to THAT term. But I think that that's a bit off topic. Rules of democracy are not the same as the rules regarding individual rights.

 I would disagree that simply having sex gives implied permission to a fetus to use one's body. If she THINKS she doesn't wish to become pregnant, uses protections to that degree -- Even on a regular basis, not neccesarily the particular time copulation resulted in conception --  has indicated that she, well, doesn't wish it. Most importantly, the fact that she chooses to get an abortion is a fairly big indicator of her not wanting to be pregnant. And who would she imply permission to? The man? The man has no right to tell her what to do. The fetus? The fetus didn't exist beforehand, so there would be no way to imply consent to it.

If a man sleeps with a woman, and gets a disease of some sort, should he not feel angry at the woman? "You knew the risks when you did the deed"? Should he not seek treatment to cure himself? We don't implicitly agree to all of the possible repercussions of an action when we commit that action.

 We agree on aborting a fetus, any fetus, if the health of the mother is threatened. This is dealt with in the Mishna, actually. If the health of the mother is threatened by birth, we're OBLIGATED to perform an abortion, until the greater part of it has been born. And we have no statistics saying how many of them were done for the health of the mother--Keep in mind, birth is not the easy, safe process we always think it is these days. People still die, even in the US with excellent medical care. The physical health is threatened in some cases, but what about the mental health? More and more, we know about the mind, and post-partum depression, we learn about how dangerous the after-birth period can be. Especially in groups and communities without adequate mental health support, this can be a problem. Most Jewish authority agrees that if the well being of the mother is threatened, at any statge of the pregnancy an abortion should be performed.

Quantum, it is really boring to repeat the same thing over and over.  The facts clearly demontrate that a full 93% of all abortions are performed against the stadards of Jewish law.  For the fifth time, I say, fine--we ALL AGREE about the 7%--can we speak about the 93%?

93% represents about 45 million abortions.  A truly radical individual, in comtempt of everything Jewish, has penned a blog entry above which calls a notorious late-term abortionist a hero.  He has even found one Reform liberal Rabbi to give him some kind of positive eulogy.  This is damnable--even as we all condemn the fact Tiller was murdered. Julia Duin in yesterday's Washington Times has a good column aboutTiller.

Tiller was ex-communicated froom his previous liberal Church because of his activities as an abortionist (that is to say, a CONTROVERSIAL late term abortionist) and he fouond another liberal church that might take him, a Luthern Church where he was shot.  Duin tried to reached some understanding regarding the theology of people who say they belong to a kind of church and yet abort babies in controversial circumstances.  One example--Tiller aborted a fetus that was a full 30 weeks from a rape victim.  She delayed her opportunity to abort and then had to fly on a plane to go to Tiller. Regarding the general circumstance, Julia Duin tried to get some clarity from one of Tiller's colleague's who is a United Methodist--to understand how theology can blend with baby-killing.  The respondent claimed that "God gave that fetus a 'guardian ad litem' when he chose the mother that the fetus is born with--that mother, this Tiller collegue explained, has been charged by God to make the right choices for that child during its unborn and early born years."

When Julia D asked the Tiller drone "why would God choose a mother intent on aborting her child"--they terminated the interview.

Therefore--note 1) the danger that comes when radical politics so infilitrates relgion that religion is corrupted by sick ideas and 2) there is never a dialogue possible with these radicals and this is why Waskow, when I patiently asked him questions in an attempt to gain understanding--refused to answer in the same way Dr. Tiller's goons also decline to answer.

Now, regarding your question concerning a man and a man's irresponsible sex acts--yes, a man who gets a disease should know the risk of the disease and no--he should only blame himself and not the woman for the result of the disease and "curing" himself from a std is not at all like a woman curing herself from a pregnancy.  A disease is a disease while human life involves a wholy different avenue in the law.

Regarding the mental health of the woman, Jewish law treats this specifically and a a Jewish court's OK (if such court existed!!!)  would be very narraow and require specific requirements--*no* general--"it hurts my feelings therefore the baby must die"- standard.

Feel free to stop responding.

It's a fairly major tenet of Judaism to not hold up the world to our standards. We're different, we're seperate, and we must remember that the people who don't use our beliefs, our rules on existence...shouldn't, I suppose. It's not for them. It's for us.

I disagree with your statement that a fetus is a person, with all of the rights thereof. An abortion isn't murder in the same way that a miscarriage isn't an accidental death. We wouldn't charge someone who caused a miscarriage with manslaughter, in either Jewish law or in secular law. Until it is born, it is not a person. It is something that lives inside you that you do not want. How is that different than an infection, a parasite?

Asking why G-d would choose a mother intent on aborting her baby is sort of an oxymoron. If she's intent on aborting her baby, and if she's successful, then she wouldn't be a mother.  She may be a POTENTIAL mother, but that's not the same thing. There's no reason a woman should act to protect her unborn children, nor should a man. A hysterectomy or a vasectomy would be mass murder.

I have no idea what Rabbi Waskow should say. I don't know if he's an authority, but I will continue this discussion as long as I can, although I have no idea how to set it so that it would notify me when you respond.

First, what the Jews say matters to everyone since the Christians gleen their morality from us--it is not at all identical andf it is true that Judaism does not say that personhood begins at inception.  In fact, when the soul is implanted in a person is vaguely enunciated by Jewish law.  Perhaps protecting an innocent mother who miscarriaed from undue grief is part of the equation.  Nonetheless--the law is clear--the fetus is to be protected--its growth is of extreme importance and yet, its official standing is less than someone who is born. 

I am not a rabbi but I do not believe a vasectomy is kosher for a man but a hystorecomy is fine for a woman given medical need.  This has nothing to do with the topic.

A pregnant woman has a special status under Jewish law and in civil law in general.  If someone intentionally kills a pregant woman--the penalty is much more severe than if he had only killed the woman.  The law and common sense recognizes the reality of a pregnancy.  We stop short of giving the "unborn" full civil rights under the Constitution but the reality is recognized under civil and our Jewish law.

A pregnant woman knows who she is and any woman who has tried hard to get pregant knows the special standing of the pregnancy.  The kinds of pregnancies wiped out by Tiller are very close to full term pregancies and those which meet "viability" standards under the law.  Again, common sense must command your attention here.  When Tiller forceably removes that fetus from the mother--what is there in the nurses hands, Quantum?  What is that?  It has hands and feets, it has a heart and a brain--please stop being so dim witted--it is a BABY.  It is human life. Of course, Obama also opposed born-alive statutes that sought to protect aborted late term babies from being killed outside of the womb on that nurses' steel table.So tell me Quantum, when a late term abortion brings a viable baby into the world--do you agree there needs to be some protection afforded that baby to not be killed on the steel table? Does that baby have rights at that point?  Notice the Tiller drone I quoted earlier says that the mother has the absolute right "DURING ITS UNBORN AND EARLY BORN years"--gee--isn't that too much power given to one party of a birth of a human being?

Anyone with the rustiest moral compass in the world can see that this discussion is disgusting and the truth must be on the pro-life side.

Is it human life we decide to NOT given full protection under our civil laws--yes.  But is it fully human life and very precious--absolutely.

Again, observe the contrast when we are speaking about a cow or a chicken and the world explodes on Agriprocessors when they might have very slightly mishandled one out a a thousand animals that go through its slaughterhouse.  Every cut was kosher and yet there is still grave controversy. How many were BABIES were mishandled by Tiller--we don't know.  Tell me it is the same thing--a chicken vs a baby!!  Where is the controversy surounding Tiller's death factory?  He is martyred and a hero.  What rubbish!

Again, Bernard Nathanson stands as a great witness to this activity.  You cannot stand here, Quantum and deny what is happening.  Day in and day out Nathanson killed 75,000 babies.  Eventually he had to stop.  It was tearing him apart.   Nathanson converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism in 1996 because he felt, as a Jew--he would be punished and understand that almost all of Nathanson's sbortions were first term abortions.  He knew what he was doing--he produced the"Silent Scream"--he did videos of what he was aborting--look at those videos, Quantum--what is in the videos if they are not babies!!  They are not potential babies--they are immature but fully formed babies.  My 20 year old son is clearly not fully formed--alas he is half-baked--is he not fully human?  Nathanson thinks as a Jew he would go to hell--but he is wrong to believe being baptized will help him.  He gets Communion every week by a priest--he has done Teshuvah. Nathanson may have had water splashed on his head but he is still a Jew.  And he knows a Jew cannot kill babies.Waskow wants to make Tiller a Jewish hero--how grotesque--what a sick lie.

Nathanson says in an interview he knew Tiller.  He admits that if he had continued on his pace as an abortionist, he, Nathanson,  would have likely been killed as well.  Stop this madness. Let's call it quits at 50 million.

Friedman, I only have one question.  You state:

"No woman is required to put her life on the line for what is factually
a high risk pregnancy and these small number of cases can be handled in
a hospital setting."

So if abortion were illegal, how would you determine when the abortion is "factually" a high risk?  Would any doctor be able to make this determination?  If the state later disagreed with the doctor's determination, could the doctor be prosecuted and thrown in jail?  And if a doctor ran that risk, would the doctor ever allow an abortion? 

Today, many patients live in unnecessary agony because the government overzealously prosecutes doctors who prescribe more pain medication than the government thinks is necessary.  I can easily imagine women dying because their doctors are afraid to authorize abortions in borderline situations, lest they be subject to prosecution.  And if you think that relevant authorities could authorize any necessary procedure without undue delay, then you don't know anything about our legal system.  

Also, how would the government decide when an abortion is permissible?  Would women's medical records be subject to subpoena's and public hearings?  I remember thinking I could live with the partial birth abortion law until the government started enforcing the law by subpoening medical records to determine which procedures were actually necessary to save the life of the mother. I was a fool to fail to predict this, because when you involve the law in anything, the result is subpoena's, investigations, delay and publicity.

I don't think you and I are very far apart regarding the morality of late term abortions.  But I continue to be pro-choice because there are some morals that should not be enforced by the penal law.  

--Z

The dialogue between the Christians and us is ongoing, but let's keep some things to ourselves. They've got their morality, we've got ours.

I have no idea whether it's morality or logic that causes you to assume that, since I disagree with you, I'm possesing of less intelligence. But, this is clearly not the place for rational discussion or dissemination of ideas. I'm sorry I thought that it was.

As long as a clinic like Tiller's can keep all the facts to themselves--they can win lawsuits. 

Tiller won lawsuits easily since a plaintiff must has standing and it is difficult to demontrate standing when the issue seems to rest ENTIREY by the the law with the woman.  The law is the problem here since no one can stand on behalf of the baby.

I agree that the difficult part of this revolves around the fact that there is a need for quick decision making and bringing lawyers into this is not the desired solution.  What is desired are strict guidleines for these clinics and the burden placed on the clinics to demonstrate that they meet those guidelines.  Again--I have not heard of anyone ever being turned down at Tiller's clinics.  I know he took $5000 for a basic abortion and I understand that he took $10,000 in some cases.  What are those cases?  The moment abortion is regulated with more seriousness will be the moment a lot of heat will be pulled away and I agree what we do not need is all the lawyers.

The law, must more accurately reflect the sentiment of the people and what we deem moral.  During WWII,  Germans had not problem murdering Jews and they NEVER changed a law regarding murder.  They simply changed the law regarding who was human and every murder was "by the book." 

Similarly, Tiller (if he was alive to speak) might argue that everything he has done was LEGAL.  But, from what I understand, he had no pressure to document the details of his cases and had wide lattitude to check appropriate boxes to cover the vaguries in the law.  The pro-life side is asking for a much tighter bit of regulation.They also would like the people to decide state by state if early term abortions are to be allowed at all.  Once the number of abortions are dramatically reduced--the public sympathy for those few difficult late-term abortions would increase.

You asked if doctors would still be able to detrmine on their own what was high-risk for the mother and I believe yes--this ambiguity needs to stay in the care of the doctor and the patient--with documentation.   A friend of mine at shul who is an OB told me the other day of the case of a woman (who happened to be an illegal immigrant but that is another story and controversy) and they (my friend did not do the procedure) pulled out the 7 month old baby in an emergency room and made all attempts to save the baby as well.  As it turned out, the mother is OK and the baby tragically died (all of this was due to peculiarities having to do with the baby) and it was a tale told so matter of factly--I do not believe that such situatoins require mothers to fly secretly to Kansas to pay some guy $5000-10,000.  If there is something written in any law that fails to give a mother at risk of losing her life protection--I would love to see such a law and I would help to reform that law.

Z--you don't like the fact that someone needs to write the rules concerning what babies can be aborted and which cannot under the law. This is merely the nature of all law.  Who is going to decide that the speed limit is 65 on a highway--why 65 for goodness sake?  With abortion--the stakes are far higher and the government and the people's representatives have a lot at stake in reducing the 1 million babies a year that are aborted--approx. 93% for pure convenience.

Quantum, I merely felt frustration over the difficulty you have in calling a fetus a baby--that is, human life.  Therefore, I stayed polite and asked you, as I will ask again,--if it is not human life what is it?  If you look at that 6 month old baby in the woman's body--is it something other than human life--is it something other than an immature human being?

Further, are you a father?  I know I had the opportunity to see my son on a computer screen when he was inside my wife's body at about three months old.  What was in there?  Clearly--my son. He was not an "entity"  or potential life or potential human life. From the moment the pregancy was discovered, it was the baby which was created, which was a fact, living and growing inside my wife.  My wife was therefore not simply my wife but also temporaily coupled with my son.

I believe people can detach themselves so far away from the obvious that they distort reality and believe that LAW should describe something removed from reality on purpose.  If it is a baby for US it needs to be seen as a baby for the courts and in the eyes of the law.  It is a problem when it is precious to us and merely a fetus unable to sustain itself on its own for those other people.

I am asking for clarification concerning where you stand--not assuming you stand anywhere.

Preferably a fetus. If it is not human life, it could be any number of things, but fetus is the least controversial. I've heard it called everything from Child to Parasite. Fetus seems like a good middle ground for me.

There is a point, and that point can be argued fairly extensively, where a human life actually begins. The point that I believe in is at birth, because that's when the human life could be said to be an INDIVIDUAL--A unique human, as it were, that exists without the usage of anyone else' organs. Until that point, it could be said to be a part of the mother--a sentiment echoed in rulings on conversions of pregnant mothers and the Jewish status of fetuses.

I'm not a father. However, I'm glad at you saw your child as your child from the moment you've learned of it's existence. I'm going to ask for clarification on something you said, though. " If it is a baby for US it needs to be seen as a baby for the courts and in the eyes of the law." Granted, if a fetus is growing inside you, the law should reflect your wishes and thoughts on it. However, if a woman becomes pregnant and does not see a fetus as a child, should not the law reflect her viewpoint on the matter?

Quantum, I believe it is quite dangerous to deal in the kind of situatonal ethics you are describing.  To repeat, many very intelligent Germans just 70 years ago created a standard that by their law, categorized certain "undesirables" such as Jews as sub-human.  Therefore, as "parasites," one could do what one would want to with Jews and laws against murder did not apply.  I might imagine that Jews today would be very careful about calling anyone a parasite and *also* very careful about allowing ANYONE's subjective experience to define a human being.  How can you invoke objective standards to PROVE that the Nazis were wrong?

What we know today is pretty consistent with our Jewish heritage--a fetus is not considered human until 40 days after conception--at that point there is a brain, a heart, definable features, etc.   The point made by Nathanson and the pro-life crowd is that women abort their babies without the modern knowledge of what they are doing.  This is why they are so intent on telling them what they are doing--that in the case of a legal abortion, say 3 months,--that baby (just like my son on the computer screen) has identifyable sex organs (we could see he was a boy) and could feel pain very clearly.  We laughed because we could clearly see that the baby clearly had a personality. So when you say if some woman does not consider it human--I must really ask if this woman has any idea of what she is speaking?  Does she really know what she is extracting from her body?  In most cases, these women do not want to know, Planned Parenthood purposely hides the facts from them and very commonly lies about such matters, if the young woman has second thoughts and asks--"will the baby feel pain, does it have a fully formed brain...etc?"--they don't give the facts. And if this young woman says that in her opinion, concerning a fully developed baby of say, 5 or six months--"I consider that thing in my body like a tumor and I want it removed"--this is not the kind of subjective opinion that should carry weight in a court.  After all, many people who refuse medical treatment for their child or elderly charge can be prosecuted for failing to do the medically necessary thing which is defined by objective standards--not the subjective desires of the participant.

Americans are divided on this issue and the law needs to reflect in some way the division of opinion.  If Roe v Wade could be overturned--God-willing when Obama is sent away in 4 years and we have a real President---the matter could be returned to the states and the people could decide.  If some state wants to say that a baby is a fetus until 40 days--I could understand and permit abortion up to that 40 period.  If a state held that no abortions could be given except in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother--I could understand that and the people couold make that law for themselves and their residents.  If a state like CA wants to have all abortions allowed except for late-term abortions--I could understand that as well. 

We have drug laws in this nation and we enfoce them even if the user does not agree with the law.  We have many laws that people might disagree about.   Again, this is the nature of all law.  In liberal America--we STILL, very commonly decide for everyone what the laws are and theyare forced to comply even if they disagree.  This seems especially relevant when we are speaking about something as fundamental as the taking of innocent life.  People who are pro-choice have no hesitation, for example of being anti-choice all over the place when people rightly might COMMAND choice such as where to send their child to school or whether or not they can re-cycle newspaper or not or drive a large automobile or not.  So who is the real bully here?  Sure, I want it to be illegal for a woman to kill their unborn child--and I am a libertarian.  On the other side are the facsists who proclaim liberty throughout the land if the life of some baby is at issue but want no American to have any say in any other matter. 

This is fraud.

Many years ago, Quantum--I sat where you are.  I wanted to allow other people to have their abortions even if I would never have one for myself.  It seemed the liberal-minded thing to do.  But this kind of noblesse oblige is a tainted point of view and the world needs to hear clearly what the Jews believe is the moral course of action.  We never accept welfare--but we push it on those "other people."  We are a wealthy community, but we vote as if we are just below the poverty line.  We say we support Israel--but we show how overly fair we are by elevating the standing of the Arab Palestinians as if we were Arabs.  We believe that a child is a gift from God, but we allow other people to throw that gift down a sink. 

It simply cannot be such a hypocritical stand anymore, Quantum.  The moment you can see another's predicament as your own and apply the same standard to all cases, can you enter a debate in good faith.

Am I getting somewhere with you?  I always wish to be persuasive.  And I need an honest answer to my question posed to you--conerning the late term baby--if that is not human life--what is it?  If you say it is a fetus--do you deny it is human life or not?

David,

I'm glad you share my concern about bringing lawyers into the decision-making process when doctors need to decide whether to abort, but nothing you say convinces me that we can regulate abortion with criminal laws while keeping the prosecutors away.  You state we need "strict guidelines" so everyone knows when an abortion is legal and when it's not.  But the birth process does not so conveniently express itself in pre-defined situations amenable to strict guidelines.  Every expectant mother has a different body, a different medical history, different drug reactions, and a different pregnancy.  Ultimately doctors need to way multiple variables at once and come to an informed judgment about what to do.  As long as a doctor faces criminal liability for deciding in favor of abortion, there will always be borderline cases where doctors put women's lives at risk rather than risk jailtime.  Right now patients suffer needlessly because doctors are scared to prescribe too much pain relief (a point you didn't address before); I can't see how the same won't happen if abortion is put under a prosecutor's microscope.

Also, your point about legal standing is simply wrong.  Illegal abortions are criminal acts, and the state always has standing to prosecute crimes.  

Finally, I have no problem at all with the law making distinctions, as it does when it decides that 65 mph is a legal speed and 66 is not.  That's never been the argument regarding abortion.  The argument is where to make the distinction.  I think the distinction should be made at birth.  Before birth, abortion should be a question between a woman, her conscious, her doctor, and whoever else she chooses to bring into the decision.  After birth, killing the baby is clearly a question for the law. 

--Z

The state of Kansas was geraing up from a case against the notorious Dr. Tiller.  The problem:  no clear Federa,l or state guidlelines.  We live in a nation, Z, where government sets out all kinds of elaborate rules and regulations.  I have receently had a tiff with the IRS over mere pennies involved with an employee--for example.  Alas, I did not know the minutia of the law.  No lawyers are involved in the case.  The IRS is down my throat for missing some matter--I could argue but I would rather just pay it off.  They have the regulation down to every very specific example.  Alas, I am not a big employer, I did not know their rules in such detail.

 This is all that is at issue regarding Tiller.  People have gone through the files to see very clearly he was aborting late term babies without cause.  In fact, most of them were without cause.  But he was not subject to prosecution.  Why--precisely because NO ONE had standing to sue and also because of too many vaguries in the law and a lack of specifics.  Believe me, there is no lack of specifics regarding how the IRS can collect their money.  They have every possible circumstance covered.  We need to decide if the life and breath of babies is as important as whether or not the IRS gets every penny it can out of employers.  37 states have outlawed late term abortions.  Does this say something to you Z?  Does this change your opinion?  Indeed, I face criminal liability if I mess up an employee's witholding schedule.  So what?  Any good clinic should be able to document its activities. But we need someone willing to ask for the documentation and expect to get an answer.  Tiller was able to get away with doing whatever he wanted to do.  No enforcement, no lawsuits.

Tiller ran roughshod over Kansas law.  But prosecuting him was difficult.  The victims were all down the sink and this is a clear legal difficulty.  Again--keep out the lawyers--let the state regulate these clinics.  Let the people decide whether or not late term abortions are permitted or if any abortions are to be permitted.

If Tiller had to document 60,000 reasonable cases--he could NEVER do it.  He could not document 30,000--at best, he could document perhaps 6,000.   If not for being martyred--he should have been put in jail and fined so he would have to give back the  hundreds of thousands of dollars he made from his late-term specialty activity.

So you are wrong--before birth, 37 states have said there needs to be REASON to kill a baby.  Tiller made a fortune because if you live in one of those states and you want to kill your baby, you might need to fly to Kansas where no one is looking.

Is David even aware of the sort of conditions that tend to prompt "late-term" abortions? Babies without brains? Babies born as cyclopses? Babies with developmental defects so severe, bizarre and grotesque that they will die either during childbirth or shortly thereafter and tempt fate if they don't kill the mother in the process?

"Late-term abortion" has become a buzzword for wedge-issue fanatics who tend to have no idea what medical issues are usually at stake. The mere fact that these phenomena exist and are never mentioned by the "pro-life" crowd makes it that much easier for me to retain the assumption that good faith abides with those of us who are "pro-choice" - and the few remaining doctors brave enough to understand that they might be unfortunate enough to need support all the way through to full-term. 

Yes, Isaac, I am very aware.  I have allowed for the fact that some percentage of Tiller's abortions were legitimate and moral and even "righteous"--as I have said repeatedly--60,000 is simply way too big of another.  For the estimated 4000-6000 abortions done for good reason--he has performed a legitimate service.  For the remainder--and we can argue what how many babies are the "remainder"--I need you to indicate why he has your support for those?

Hospitals all over America almost routinely handle those circumstances and the law allows for it.  If some state does not allow for it, this is why people can work to change such a law.

Isaac--are *you* aware that independent people have taken a look at Tiller's operation and they are convinced that it is simply not credible or even possible that he has handled 60,000 abortions by the book.  So the argument is how many healthy babies from healthy mothers should this man have been allowed to abort?  You might allow him to get away with 20,000-40,000 or even 50,000--speak and tell us.  Understand I am not ready to allow him to get away with one.  Even one needs to be protested.  As far as the IRS is concerned, the law should not allow even one employer to fail to without even a penny that it could rightly claim as its own--so isn't a healthy baby from a healthy mother worth more than a penny? Is throwing out the baby with the bath water fine by you?

For the women who have special needs babies--should the law force them to have those babies and raise them when they say they do not want them?  In my opinion, yes.  Is there a line where a mother, her doctor and hopefully the father decide to abort a child with severe disabilility--again, I stand with Jewish law when I say yes there is such a line and where Dr. Tiller and anyone one else aborts those babies--we can understand why.  Btw, a doctor friend of  mine just did a brain scan on an 87 year old man--they were a bit shocked when they saw the man's brain.  You see--he has literally one half of a brain.  Of course--87 years ago they were not able to detrmine in advance that he had an abnormality and this man has lived an outstanding and normal life.  People with all kinds of disabilities lead outstanding lives.

I am passive in this debate--I merely stand with Jewish law.  If you do not like "my" point of view--understand it is not mine--I am merely seeking to follow what I believe to be the Jewish standard.  Abortion on demand, the status quo in America (and in Israel!!!) is not the Jewish standard.

The law must change--the status quo is an outrage.

In fact, you're not even making sense anymore.  In the same paragraph you say the following: "Again--keep out the lawyers--let the state regulate these clinics.  Let the people decide whether or not late term abortions are permitted or if any abortions are to be permitted."

If you want to the state to regulate these clinics, who do you think will write and enforce the regulations?  That's right--lawyers.  Not doctors.  Not the mothers, not close family--lawyers.  Yet you think the lawyers can magically be kept out of this. 

 Your tax example just proves my point.  It's easier to draw bright line tests when you're talking about numbers--revenue, expenses, deductions, etc.  It's easy to argue with the IRS when you have a fixed deadline several weeks away to resolve the situation.  Abortion is completely different from your tax example--in the case of a late-term abortion, if the mother's life is at stake there will be no time to fight the state regulator, to appeal the verdict if necessary, etc.  And a doctor's decision is more than a mere numbers game--there are unique circumstances surrounding each woman's health that ultimately require medical judgment.  You apparently think a bunch of lawyers and judges and beaurocrats should take part in this judgment.  I think the law should allow the doctor and the woman to decide.

--Z

Z--you seem to believe that regulations are cut and dry and not subject to interpretation and an appeals process.  The legislature can demand the parameters of the law and the bureaucrats must listen to those parameters.

This is nothing that is not ALREADY on the books.  Most states allow abortion for any reason early and then regulate it late.  Some disallow it unless it is to save the life of the mother.

In reality, almost all law is nuanced and we have a heavy burden of regulation for all kinds of things.  We have environmental regulations that are out of control and getting far more onerous. We have thousands of various regulations that say somethings are allowed and others not, depending on this or that--so why Z can't we look at babies?  In a world where the state looks at the ergonomics of my secretary's chair--why can't we look at life and death?  You want to make abortion cut and dry and I am seeking a middle ground that does involve some of the same ifs and buts that are a part of many other regulations.  This is a good thing and it would not be good for the nation to go crazy over abuses such as Tiller and shut down all abortions.  If you were faced with THAT reality you would not like cut and dry, would you?

Abortion on demand is bad law and allowing a handful of late-term abusers such as Tiller to prosper is bad.  It is our job to make the bad better, through the electotal process.  The people can decide this impotant matter and our will can be done.

Again, your stand is simply inconsistent with our lives and our government.  I would LOVE to say that what I pay my employees is a private decision made between myself and my employee--but it is not.  I would love to say that where people send their children to school is a personal, private decision--but it is not.  There are people that want to smoke if they choose to--but we do not allow them to make that personal choice.

Matters of life and death are RIGHTLY not private and personal decisions--they are very public matters.Similarly, how a wife can deal with the life and death circumstance of her own aged husband is not a private matter--it is a matter of public policy.