Fandango’s Flashback Friday — October 30

Wouldn’t you like to expose your newer readers to some of your earlier posts that they might never have seen? Or remind your long term followers of posts that they might not remember? Each Friday I will publish a post I wrote on this exact date in a previous year.

How about you? Why don’t you reach back into your own archives and highlight a post that you wrote on this very date in a previous year? You can repost your Friday Flashback post on your blog and pingback to this post. Or you can just write a comment below with a link to the post you selected.

If you’ve been blogging for less than a year, go ahead and choose a post that you previously published on this day (the 30th) of any month within the past year and link to that post in a comment.


This was originally posted on my old blog on October 30, 2007. I think, given that Amy Coney Barrett, a far-right conservative, was just sworn in as the newest Justice of the Supreme Court, it’s a great time to flash back to this post. Barrett is an outspoken opponent of Roe v. Wade, and the Supreme Court is about to hear cases on abortion. With Barrett’s addition to the high court, it now has a 6-3 conservative majority, and that increases the likelihood that abortions may, once again, be declared illegal in the United States.

Pro-Choice Isn’t the Same as Pro-Abortion

I am becoming quite annoyed by the labels people use to describe their positions on the abortion question. They are “pro-this” and “anti-that,” making it seem like it’s a black and white issue, which it clearly is not.

When someone claims to be “pro-life,” for example, does that imply that being anything else is “anti-life”? When someone says they’re “pro-choice,” does that also mean that they’re “pro-abortion”?

The debate over abortion is a highly divisive one in which people feel intensely passionate. Unfortunately, it seems that most people on both sides of the issue who openly express their opinions are intractable in their positions. For the record, I am “pro-choice.” But that does not make me, or anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose, “pro-abortion.”

I believe that abortion should be a last resort for women, but a resort nonetheless. Who but a woman who finds herself with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy is in the best position to assess the situation and the impact upon her life, evaluate the available options, and decide what the best course of action is? It is no doubt a highly personal and agonizing decision to have to make and I think there are very few who take lightly the decision to have an abortion.

What right do those who oppose abortion have to deny a woman a lawful course of action simply because it is against their religion, beliefs, or morality for a woman to have an abortion?

For those whose religious or moral beliefs are such that they oppose abortion, the answer is simple. Don’t have one. But don’t deny the choice to others who might not feel the same way or share those same beliefs. Don’t picket and protest outside of Planned Parenthood clinics in order to harass, intimidate, and try to shame those who are seeking to examine all of their available options.

23 thoughts on “Fandango’s Flashback Friday — October 30

  1. Mister Bump UK October 30, 2020 / 3:34 am

    I think you’re right in that people become entrenched. In my mind, it therefore becomes an issue which there is no point debating. People either believe that the rights of the woman trump (your favourite word 🤣) those of the foetus, or they think the opposite, and thereafter, never the twain… It’s a stalemate.
    My own view is based more on equality. The would-be father has the right to walk away from the encounter. Sure, there might be paternity suits down the line, but ultimately he has the right not to be there. So why should the woman not have those same rights?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Paula Light October 30, 2020 / 7:42 am

    Also, the abortion rate goes down during Democratic admins. Maybe women have better access to birth control and/or feel less pessimistic about raising a child…

    Liked by 2 people

  3. annieasksyou October 30, 2020 / 9:13 am

    Absolutely, Fandango. As you know, I wrote about this topic recently in my post “Expanding the Definition of Pro-Life.” And then more recently, I saw a Nicholas Kristof Op-Ed in The NY Times saying essentially the same thing —and referring to some of those I cited as well. The Zeitgeist?

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Marleen November 1, 2020 / 6:24 pm

    Seems to me hypocrisy is the feature (for a majority of the “pro-life” people), the draw, not a perceived flaw… the honey, not the bug or fly in the ointment. This is becoming more clear, in a number of ways, lately (and has become so in recent years). In the last couple months, a supposed pro-life person wouldn’t let me speak from my pro-life “record” (which I think triggers them dumbfounded).

    And then I, additionally, learned about a case in 2005. Therein, Scalia bantered as to whether “shall means shall” or not. He decided it did not, in order that to his own liking it would be decided there was no neglect that could be identified in a law enforcement department refusing a woman’s repeated attempts to have a restraining order enforced. Her daughters were murdered, and who cared?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

    Liked by 2 people

  5. leigha66 November 5, 2020 / 8:58 pm

    Excellent post. I too am pro-choice. I think if I were faced with that situation I personally could not go through with it, but it should be my choice to make. And those cases of rape, incest and one where the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life… which life is more important? I truly hope we don’t make it illegal. It would just be another step backwards.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Fandango November 5, 2020 / 10:43 pm

      I think that with Amy Coney Barrett now on the Supreme Court, it’s only a matter of months before Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortions will no longer be legal in many states.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Marleen November 5, 2020 / 11:11 pm

        The weird thing is, I think, there will still be approvals for certain situations. Therefore, it seems better to leave the “approval” (or not) up to the individual most involved. Of course, some people don’t think there should even be exceptions… at all. Let them decide that for themselves. There was a time when I had life insurance and wouldn’t have allowed an abortion. But, now, I can see why someone else would decide otherwise in their life.

        Bottom line — like you said — pro-choice isn’t the same as pro-abortion.

        I knew someone in college who was pregnant with twins. A month or so after I met her, one was dying. The toxins were endangering the other one. So, this person who was very much against abortion went ahead with an abortion of the one to save the other. I think some people don’t accept that such decisions are real. They think it couldn’t be possible something like that would ever come up. They put unforeseen circumstances out of mind.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. mosckerr February 1, 2021 / 7:27 am

    JewishPress.com

    Stand up, Dear Clergy

    Do not fear because God is with us!

    Now is the time for our Priests, Rabbis and Pastors to rise up and fight back against the Covid lockdowns; to stand up against this tyranny against humanity. We were together for promoting civil rights. Now it is our moment to promote and protect our HUMAN RIGHTS

    “God created man in his own image. . . male and female he created them.” (Gen1:27)

    We are all made in His image and therefore of inestimable dignity, equality, and worth.

    No Covid does not compare to the Civil Rights movement and the issues Blacks raised against White racism. Two separate Cases that do not compare. Covid perhaps more closely appears to resemble the fear and dread felt during the Black Death. Cities burned, both during the Black Death & the Covid pandemic. Therefore No Covid does not compare to the leadership of Martin Luther King or Malcolm X.

    The logic of abortion compares to the slaughter of a pregnant animal. Once the mother, slaughtered by the proper halachic laws, not necessary to apply those same halachic laws to the animal in the womb. Why? The life of the baby depends upon the life of the mother. Hence if say a cow receives ritual slaughter, and the calf in the womb has developed sufficiently that it lives, even if this calf grows to maturity – it does not require ritual slaughter.

    The embryo growing in the womb of a pregnant woman has a similar ruling. Its life depends upon the life of the mother. The sages make distinctions with pre 40 day old babies and post 40 day old babies. The Gemara of Sanhedrin נט. brings a dispute between ר’ יוחנן ור’ מאיר. What distinguishes the nature of their logical dispute? Rabbi Yochanon expresses the opinion that a Goy who learns Torah behaves as a thief and should receive the death penalty. Rabbi Meir expresses a counter opinion that states that a Goy who studies Torah compares to the Cohen HaGadol/high priest.

    The rest of the dof/page of Gemara addresses the subject of the laws of Bnai Noach. What does the term “Bnai Noach” mean? Rashi’s commentary there states the opinion that Israel never left the general category of ”Bnai Noach”/temporary resident. This Gemara compares to Baba Kama that employs an opposing rhetorical term of reference “Canaani”. D’varim, the 5th Book of the Torah lists 2 types of Goyim 1. gere toshav & 2. Na’cre/stranger. The language employed by the Sha’s Talmud does not construct other categories of Goyim. Therefore the Gemara of Sanhedrin whose language employs the term: ‘Bnai Noach’, refers to the gere toshav. Whereas the Gemara in Baba Kama refers to the Na’cre/stateless refugee person ie “stranger”.

    Talmudic logic stands upon the construct of Common Law. Common Law learns by means of bringing precedents. It’s just that simple. Comparing one Case with other Cases requires logic, specifically the Oral Torah logic which Moshe the prophet orally heard at Horev. From this logic Moshe derived his 611 Commandment commentary to the revelation of the opening TWO Commandments of Sinai which all Israel heard.

    Now this returns the subject back to the Mishna of Sanhedrin. פרק שביעי/Seventh Chapter.
    המגדף אינו חייב עד שיפרש השם.
    A person who curses, not condemned to death, until he explicitly employs the Name of HaShem. This explains the dispute between Rabbis Yochanon and Meir, and how they understand the language of the opening phrase of the Mishna quoted above.

    As previously mentioned only a Sanhedrin Court has a Torah mandate issue a death penalty. Therefore both rabbis Yochanon and Meir agree, that the term: “Bnai Noach”: refers specifically to the gere toshav person. A gere toshav temporarily resides within Judea. Rabbi Yochanon understands the laws of gere toshav that violation of any of these 7 laws – qualifies as a Capital Crime! Rabbi Meir makes an equally great comparison, on Yom Kippor the Cohen HaGadol explicitly pronounces the Name of HaShem. The opening pages of the Gemara of Avoda Zara, dof ג, teaches that the Goyim abandoned the brit of Noach. The Torah brings the stories of the people of Sodom and the Tower of Bavil as precedents that the Goyim abandoned, almost immediately, the brit of Noach. Rashi’s analysis on Sanhedrin נט. which states that Israel remains within the Bnai Noach laws therefore merits praise.

    Goyim never accepted the opening first 2 Commandments of the Sinai revelation. Therefore Rabbi Meir correctly discerns that a “Bnai Noach” who learns Torah, meaning he learns Torah לשמה, compares to the Cohen HaGadol who on Yom Kippor pronounces the Name. The opening Gemara of Gittin/divorce distinguishes between gere toshav Jews living within Judea from gere toshav Jews living in g’lut/exile. G’lut Jewry does not know how to do mitzvot לשמה. Nonetheless, the 7 Universal laws apply to Jews living in g’lut. The Rambam sharply contrasts with Rashi, and serves as proof that he relied upon the logic of Aristotle to organize his Mishna Torah. As a dog returns to eat its vomit, so too the Rambam failed to learn Sha’s Talmud based upon the Oral Torah logic of tohor middot לשמה.

    Having brought precedents, let us return to the subject of abortion. Since the life of the unborn child depends upon the life of its mother, the mother takes priority over the unborn child. If child birth threatens the life of the mother, then her life takes priority over that of the baby, even a 3rd trimester baby! If this threat does not apply, then the rabbis permitted abortion of the baby prior to 40 days. After 40 days, the growing mass of cells within the mother’s womb takes on the shape of a baby as opposed to the rough shape of a shoe. Once the embryo has grown to the extent that the baby looks like a child, the rabbis of the Talmud feared to kill such a small being.

    Like

    • Marleen February 1, 2021 / 10:45 am

      The illustration I gave, in a post above, involved the poisoning of the mother as well as of the other twin. But many “pro-life” crusaders [it is one thing to believe and teach a certain way but another thing to try and force it on others] really don’t care about the mother (in terms of abortion and with regard to other matters). It’s likely that had there not been a twin, that mother herself would not have made the choice she did; she could rationalize saving the other child but not herself. I don’t know, for sure, what that one woman would have done in the long run — but there are people like that. Still others insist that nothing can really be done about any of it; just see who dies. (Meanwhile, my understanding of a Jewish perspective has more to do with whether the fetus has implanted in the mother’s womb, or not, rather than having to do with the counting of a number of days. However, that number of days is roughly close. Thus, something like planB is permitted without special permission.)

      Liked by 2 people

      • mosckerr February 1, 2021 / 4:04 pm

        Logic means a consistent pattern or path-thoughts. This ties logic into the tohor midda of truth. Each person has a destiny path of life. The life path of “owned” animals shines light on the life path of the owners of those “owned” animals, the life path destiny owner of animals usually has a longer life path compared to the corresponding life path of those “owned” animal.

        Does the Court believe the woman, if she said: “the birth of this baby, has directly threatened the existence of my life, as I had lived it up to then. Could this defense convince the Judge to permit Abortion? Just as police violate justice if they possess the power of the State to impose fines upon private citizens. Could such a Defense cause the Judge to permit 3rd trimester abortions? As the latter Case requires a Judge so too the former case: Only a judge, and not the police, can impose fines upon private citizens.

        The difference between a בית דין court and a בית משפט court, the latter: public servants get their salaries from the State: the Judge, the Prosecuting Attorney, and the Police. The former: The three Judges of any Torts Court, none receive any salary from the State. Of the three Judges of this type of Court, one Judge accepts the role of Prosecuting attorney, the opposing Judge accepts the duty of Defense attorney. The two Judges argue the current case before the Court, before the 3rd Judge.

        For most if not all countries, throughout the Ages and generations, the Courts have a bias in favor of the State. Persons who receive their salaries from the State, compare to Judges who accept bribes. Justice can not prosper under such corrupt circumstances. No European Court throughout the Age of Xtianity has ever held the Church accountable for committing War Crimes Against Humanity! Justice through the service of European Courts directly compares to a woman who aborts her 3rd trimester baby because she hates the stretch lines and scares pregnancy causes.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.