Is abortion ever justified?

[Des]

I’ll tell you what: Go to ANY Orthodox Rabbi, and ask that Rabbi to give you an accurate translation of that prophecy. Mind you, that translation is likely to be much more accurate than one from just about any Priest. While Priests may or may not study Latin, the surely do NOT study the Hebrew language!

Are you telling me that the 2000 year old church has never put together any sort of well educated scholars in the Hebrew language?

All I know from what I’ve read is that it is never used to mean a ‘young married woman’ but a ‘young unmarried woman’. Even if it does not implicitly say virginity, we know from Jewish culture that a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be chaste.

While you’re at it, why not ask the same Rabbi for a correct translation of the Fifth Commandment? After all, do you want to know the truth, or not?

The Church understands this to mean thou shalt not murder. I never said there is a perfect interpretation of the Bible to the English language. As a matter of fact, it’s impossible as too many words have double and triple meanings or none that precisely fits our English language. It’s one of the reasons I use to defend against SS.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

Tell me was Jesus Christ and the early Christians Jewish and did they speak the various language of Hebrew which by the way had many different translations as there were many different sects throughout the world including in Jerusulem itself.

When did Christians consider themselves or the Jews consider them removed from the Jewish religion and not another sect.

Tell me when was the final approved scripture of the Tora made (year) to include the numerous changes?

Tell me when was the final version of the Catholic bible translation of the Old Testament made.

Then tell me who were the translators.

Sir, the answer to these questions will surprise you.

You may find yourself in the wrong site to state a Rabbi knows more of the Jewish(Hebrew) language.

First of all, I will not even attempt to answer all of your questions, as some of them are so irrelevant that it would not be worth the time. However…
Of course Jesus was Jewish. He HAD to have been in order to have a chance to fulfill the Messianic prophecies. After all, the Messiah was supposed to come from the House of David, as you know.
One little problem here is that while Joseph was the adoptive father of Jesus, and had the lineage from David, Joseph was not the real father of Jesus. Under Judaic law, lineage does not get transferred through adoption. Such has never been the case. Thus, we have something that might require more study.
Jesus, clearly, spoke many languages, as was evident by Him speaking to a Samaritan woman, as well as people of many other languages. He had to have been competent in Hebrew in order to do the Haf-Torah at His Bar Mitzvah. As far as I know, the chanting of the Haf-Torah MUST be done in Hebrew. (I had to learn, it, too, for my own Bar Mitzvah.)

Your second question: All of the early Christians (at least, the Apostles), considered themselves to be Jews. After all, they had Jewish mothers, and that automatically makes them Jews for life (with no “opt-out” provisions), even if they were to change their religious beliefs.

Third question: Irrelevant to this basic discussion.

Fourth and fifth questions are also irrelevant. The best translators of the Hebrew language are those who regularly use it. Therefore, in the present day and age, those people must be Jewish, preferably Orthodox. As for what happened 2000 years ago, I am in no position to give an authoritative answer.

As for your final comment, I take that as being somewhat insulting. It would be illogical to suggest that anyone here would have the competence with the Hebrew language as would an Orthodox rabbi, who speaks the language on a daily basis, and even prays three times per day in Hebrew. Or are you suggesting that you are more competent in the Hebrew language than are Orthodox Rabbis?
In all sincererity, I have my doubts about that.

But what’s really happening here is that we are getting away from the basic discussion that this thread is all about.

By the way, it would be illogical to expect a Catholic translation of the Old Testament to be as accurate as one done by Hebrew scholars. It might be done fairly well, but it would still lack the insight of Hebrew scholars, and there is a difference.

Anyway, I’ve got to go get ready to march in the Memorial Day parade, in Full Regalia, as part of the K of C Honor Guard.

Have a nice Memorial Day.

 

[ceciliatherese]

The baby has a right to be in that body even if it’s stuck somewhere that could cause death to the mother. And even then, there are other means to save the woman without intentionally destroying the child. One has to ask, what put him in that situation? Maybe the mother’s body wasn’t doing what it was supposed to be doing in pushing it along and it has nothing to do with the fetus. So I can come back and tell you that the mother is the one killing him first. Her body was doing this indirectly.
Also, by your rational, a mother cannot take cancer treatments since it could harm and kill the fetus. I’m going to use your logic now and say that the Doctors have every right to kill her so the baby can live. After all, then the mothers unintentional actions would be killing the unborn child and he does have a right to defend himself. So yes or no. Do you agree with this scenario? That a doctor, regardless if the mother protests or not, has the right to defend the unborn child from the radiation treatment and murder the woman in your so called ‘self defense’ reasoning?

Or how about a woman who drinks and smokes enough to cause her baby harm but won’t stop the habbit? Should we kill her and take the baby from her belly?

Correct, that’s why the ‘murdering someone to save your life’ reason won’t work here.

Because someone threatening a person’s life comes with intent and only then is defending oneself justified. I know of no other reason where someone can directly kill another when the other person is not ‘trying’ to murder him or her and if there was, it surely wouldn’t be under natural circumstances like a mother and her unborn child.

I never said any such thing. I am saying both lives have no right to directly kill one another with intent as nature itself put them both in that predicament. It can’t get more simpler than that.

And if I said that the baby’s life was ‘always’ favorable over the mothers then I wouldn’t have mentioned ‘the principle of double effect’ earlier.

Yeah, I get what you’re trying to say, and I admit that I was probably wrong. It just makes no sense, if both of them are going to die, to not be allowed to have an abortion to save the mother’s life. It doesn’t seem right.

 

[Des]

ceciliatherese, it takes a truly humble hearted person to say what you just did. And it takes a stronger person to be humble than to be proud.

You have no clue how much respect I have for you right now.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

I agree abortion is wrong for moral and logical reasons.

The self defense issue does not work today with medical science as an excuse morally or religiously.

QUOTE]

Taking the following comment from above: “The self defense issue does not work today with medical science as an excuse morally or religiously.”

Excuse me, but medical science has its limitations.
Today, I phoned the lady I’ve been talking about, and she has graciously provided me with some numbers that were taken from, among other things, her blood work while she was in the hospital, PRIOR TO getting her life back in order. She emailed me copies of her reports, which her doctor gave to her as “souvenirs of her past life”.

Mind you, I am not a doctor, so I’m not qualified to discuss some of these numbers. However, I have more than a passing familiarity with some of them, and if applicable, I will comment on them.

From her Hemogram, the following:
WBC is 22.4
RBC is 12.20
Hemoglobin is 21.4
Hematocrit is 88.0
MCV is 100
MCHC is 42
Platelets are 880 (about double the normal maximum)

From her Comprehensive Metabolic Panel, the following:
Sodium is 210 (essentially it was off the scale!)
Potassium is 4.8 (she ate few bananas)
Chloride is 110
Glucose (hold on to your hat for this one) is 180 (and is listed as an estimate, at best)

Now comes some of the even more “juicy"stuff:
From her Lipid Profile 3, the following:
Cholesterol (total) is 590
Triglicerides are 850
HDL Cholesterol (the so-called “good” cholesterol”) is 20.
LDL (so-called “bad” cholesterol) is…and it says here "Unable to calculate because the trigliceride value exceeds 400 mg/dl (I have no idea what that means. It is something that they should be able to calculate, but it says they cannot! Maybe the lab stinks?)

Not for anything, but when added in to her weight and blood pressure, she was literally a ticking time bomb. I said earlier that she would have had to lose over 100 pounds while pregnant in order to have a ghost of a chance of carrying the baby to term. The problem is that when she was starting out at…over 300 pounds (!!!) that’s a huge stress load on the heart, Her blood pressure was so high, they could not measure it through normal means, or so she said. She was right off the scale in that regard, so again, the exact BP reading would be hard to obtain.

Compare the above numbers with what she got from her most recent blood work, and you will see the difference that an intelligent diet…and cardiovascular exercise(!) has made in her life:
WBC is 7.7
RBC is 4.8
Hemoglobin is 14.8
Platelets are 231
Sodium is 140
Potassium is 4.8
Chloride is 98
Cholesterol is (again, hold on to your hat for this one) 170!!!
Triglicerides are 160

As for her diet, she is now a devotee of the Pritikin guidelines, as established by the late Dr. Nathan Pritikin (author of “The Pritikin Promise” and “Diet for Runners”, the latter of which I have read)

This was an incredible turnaround, obviously, but it took time…a long time.
Every medical doctor told her that she would not live if she had gone beyond 3 months of gestation. The strain on her already severely taxed body would have been too great.

Today, she is a regular runner, doing an average of 5 miles daily, and she is now planning on the challenge I gave her: to run her first marathon. She’s asked me to coach her, and I’ve agreed (coaching people to run marathons is not new for me, as I serve currently as an online coach for people who run in the Marine Corps Marathon (that is, for one group that raises money for a charitable cause). While she may not be ready by the end of this year, she should be ready by the end of 2010. I plan to be there at the Finish Line to greet her when she finishes!

You talk about “miracles” in this group, as if they will all happen overnight. Well, while she may have made a miraculous recovery, it did not come overnight. Besides going through the physical stress of body changes that took place while losing slightly over 200 pounds (oh, she’s now down to about 120, and looking NICE!!!), she also had to undergo a lot of emotional stress at the same time.

A human being can handle only so much. It is not our place to judge, lest we wind up BEING judged! She went through sheer hell, and now she has been rewarded with a healthy set of twins (who would not have been born if she had died, I might add), and they are the delight of her life (along with her husband, of course).

I would respectfully request that the naysayers in this group give her credit for what she has accomplished, and stop judging what they do not know!

Have a nice day, folks.

 

[limerick]

“One little problem here is that while Joseph was the adoptive father of Jesus, and had the lineage from David, Joseph was not the real father of Jesus,” PastGrandKnight tells us. “Under Judaic law, lineage does not get transferred through adoption. Such has never been the case. Thus, we have something that might require more study.”

**“The original and current Jewish definition of a born Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. Even though the Torah forbids a Jewish woman to marry a Gentile man, if she does, her children will still be Jewish.”

Hence, no “little problem”.

                                                        ~  [www.beingjewish.com](www.beingjewish.com)**
                                                          "Who is a Jew, According to the Torah?"

Limerick

 

[PastGrandKnight]

“One little problem here is that while Joseph was the adoptive father of Jesus, and had the lineage from David, Joseph was not the real father of Jesus,” PastGrandKnight tells us. “Under Judaic law, lineage does not get transferred through adoption. Such has never been the case. Thus, we have something that might require more study.”

**“The original and current Jewish definition of a born Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. Even though the Torah forbids a Jewish woman to marry a Gentile man, if she does, her children will still be Jewish.”

Hence, no “little problem”.

                                                        ~  [www.beingjewish.com](www.beingjewish.com)**
                                                          "Who is a Jew, According to the Torah?"

Limerick

Sorry, but there IS a “little problem”, if you stop to take a second look at this.

While the Birthright of being a Jew comes ONLY through the mother, the LINEAGE must, under Judaic law, come only through the father. For example, if I were to go back, generation by generation, I’d be able to find out which tribe I am from, just through the names of the various fathers along the way.
There are some who think that the Lineage that is listed in both Matthew and Luke represent two actual lineages, one of Joseph and one of Mary. However, the lineage of Mary is actually meaningless as far as Messianic prophecies are concerned. Lineage is never traced through the mothers!

So yes, Jesus is clearly a Jew. No question and no problem with that.
Now, however, it is impossible to establish a real lineage for Jesus as no lineage can be passed along to an adoptive child (be it son or daughter). Joseph may very well have been from the lineage of David, but that does not grant that same lineage to any adopted children.

So do you think there is still no “little problem”? If Jesus cannot be shown to have been from the House of David, then is he still the Messiah?

Little problem with this one, perhaps?

 

[c659smith]

Sorry, but there IS a “little problem”, if you stop to take a second look at this.

While the Birthright of being a Jew comes ONLY through the mother, the LINEAGE must, under Judaic law, come only through the father. For example, if I were to go back, generation by generation, I’d be able to find out which tribe I am from, just through the names of the various fathers along the way.
There are some who think that the Lineage that is listed in both Matthew and Luke represent two actual lineages, one of Joseph and one of Mary. However, the lineage of Mary is actually meaningless as far as Messianic prophecies are concerned. Lineage is never traced through the mothers!

So yes, Jesus is clearly a Jew. No question and no problem with that.
Now, however, it is impossible to establish a real lineage for Jesus as no lineage can be passed along to an adoptive child (be it son or daughter). Joseph may very well have been from the lineage of David, but that does not grant that same lineage to any adopted children.

So do you think there is still no “little problem”? If Jesus cannot be shown to have been from the House of David, then is he still the Messiah?

Little problem with this one, perhaps?

There is no Hebrew translation for adoption at least not until the 20th century

Since ancient times, Judaism has valued and encouraged adoption. But most biblical and rabbinic references to the practice relate specifically to orphans, a paradigmatically vulnerable class of individuals for which the Bible mandates we protect and care.

The most famous example in the Bible, of course, is that of the orphaned Queen Esther, who was raised by her cousin Mordecai. The Talmud, however, illuminates–and approves of–more obscure cases as well.

According to the book of Samuel (2 Samuel 6:23), King David’s wife Michal never had children–yet later five sons are mentioned. To explain the discrepancy, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 19b) states that Michal’s sister, Merav, actually gave birth to the children, but Michal raised them. The rabbis conclude: “Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded, according to Scripture, as though the child had been born to him.”

Interestingly, though, there was no Hebrew word for adoption until the 20th century, when Israeli lexicographers chose ametz, which comes from the same root as amatz, meaning strength or fortitude.

 

[c659smith]

Fourth and fifth questions are also irrelevant. The best translators of the Hebrew language are those who regularly use it. Therefore, in the present day and age, those people must be Jewish, preferably Orthodox. As for what happened 2000 years ago, I am in no position to give an authoritative answer.

As for your final comment, I take that as being somewhat insulting. It would be illogical to suggest that anyone here would have the competence with the Hebrew language as would an Orthodox rabbi, who speaks the language on a daily basis, and even prays three times per day in Hebrew. Or are you suggesting that you are more competent in the Hebrew language than are Orthodox Rabbis?
In all sincererity, I have my doubts about that.

By the way, it would be illogical to expect a Catholic translation of the Old Testament to be as accurate as one done by Hebrew scholars. It might be done fairly well, but it would still lack the insight of Hebrew scholars, and there is a difference.

Anyway, I’ve got to go get ready to march in the Memorial Day parade, in Full Regalia, as part of the K of C Honor Guard.

Have a nice Memorial Day.

Many Catholic Churches use from the oldest to the newest versions of Hebrew. The language of Hebrew is not a Religion but a language used by certain people in geographic areas.

Here are a handful of Roman Catholic Churches using some of this ancient language including that which Christ spoke a Jewish scholar and Rabbi.(Teacher)
The Syriac Catholic Church, or Syrian Catholic Church, Monotheism#Christian view religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus and interpreted by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament…

The Levant describes, traditionally, the Eastern Mediterranean at large, but can be used as a geographical term that denotes a large area in Western Asia formed by the lands bordering the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean, roughly bounded on the north by the Taurus Mountains, on the south by the Arabian Desert, and on the west by the M…
having practices and rites in common with the Syriac Orthodox
.

The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church is an Antiochian Rite, Major Archiepiscopal sui iuris Eastern Catholic Church in the Catholic Communion, in union with the Pope of Rome, historically linked to the Syrian Church…

Christians. This is distinct from the Greek Byzantine rite of Antioch of the MelkiteMelkite
The term Melkite is used to refer to various Christianity churches and their members originating in the Middle East. The word comes from the Syriac language word malkaya , meaning “imperial”…
s, both OrthodoxAntiochian Orthodox Church

. These Syriac Catholics number about the same as the Syriac Orthodox, from whom they originated; their head, the Syriac Catholic PatriarchList of Syrian Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch
.

In 2009, the newly-elected Patriarch Ignace Joseph III YounanIgnace Joseph III Younan
Ignace Joseph III Younan is the Patriarch of List of Syrian Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch of the Syriac Catholic Church from January 20, 2009…
became the head of the Syriac Catholic Church.

History
In the time of the first Ecumenical Councils, the Patriarch of AntiochPatriarch of Antioch
is a traditional title carried by the Bishop of Antioch. As the traditional “overseer” of the first gentile Christian community, the position has been of prime importance in the church from its Early Christianity…

Syriac is a dialect of **Middle Aramaic **that was once spoken across much of the Fertile Crescent. Classical Syriac became a major literary language throughout the Middle East from the 4th to the 8th centuries, the classical language of Edessa, Mesopotamia, preserved in a large body of Syriac literature…
was to provide the world and the Universal Church with eminent saints, scholars, hermits and pastors. Among these great people are Saint Ephrem (373), Doctor of the Church, Saint Jacob of Sarug (521) Dionysius Bar Salibi (1171) and Gregorius X Bar Hebraeus (1286).

In modern history the leaders of the Syriac Catholic Church have been among others: Patriarch Michael III JarwehIgnace Michael III Jarweh
Mar Ignace Michael III Jarweh ibn Ni’matallah was the 111 Patriarch of Antioch and Patriarch of the Syrian Catholic Church, from 1783 to 1800. In 1757 Michael Jarweh converted to Catholicism and took with him a large number of his congregants…
,The community includes two archdioceses in Iraq/Iran
,
Diocese of Our Lady of Deliverance in the United States

.
Their ancient SemiticSemitic
In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic was first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages…
*** language is known as Aramaic (or “Syriac” after the time of Christ since the majority of people who spoke this language belonged to the province of “Syria”). It is the same language that was spoken by Jesus, Mary and the Apostles and is still the language used during the liturgy. Many of the ancient hymns of the Church are still maintained in this native tongue although several have been translated into ArabicArabic language
Arabic is a Central Semitic language, thus related to and classified alongside other Semitic languages languages such as Hebrew language and Aramaic language…***,

The Syriac Catholic Church was formally and officially united with Rome in 1781.

Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Diocese in the United States and Canada has nine parishes; seven in the United States and two in Canada.

A Jewish Orthrox Rabbi can only properly define Hebrew? I do not think so!

 

[c659smith]

c659smith;5241144:

I agree abortion is wrong for moral and logical reasons.

The self defense issue does not work today with medical science as an excuse morally or religiously.

QUOTE]

Taking the following comment from above: “The self defense issue does not work today with medical science as an excuse morally or religiously.”

Excuse me, but medical science has its limitations.
Today, I phoned the lady I’ve been talking about, and she has graciously provided me with some numbers that were taken from, among other things, her blood work while she was in the hospital, PRIOR TO getting her life back in order. She emailed me copies of her reports, which her doctor gave to her as “souvenirs of her past life”.

Mind you, I am not a doctor, so I’m not qualified to discuss some of these numbers. However, I have more than a passing familiarity with some of them, and if applicable, I will comment on them.

From her Hemogram, the following:
WBC is 22.4
RBC is 12.20
Hemoglobin is 21.4
Hematocrit is 88.0
MCV is 100
MCHC is 42
Platelets are 880 (about double the normal maximum)

From her Comprehensive Metabolic Panel, the following:
Sodium is 210 (essentially it was off the scale!)
Potassium is 4.8 (she ate few bananas)
Chloride is 110
Glucose (hold on to your hat for this one) is 180 (and is listed as an estimate, at best)

Now comes some of the even more “juicy"stuff:
From her Lipid Profile 3, the following:
Cholesterol (total) is 590
Triglicerides are 850
HDL Cholesterol (the so-called “good” cholesterol”) is 20.
LDL (so-called “bad” cholesterol) is…and it says here "Unable to calculate because the trigliceride value exceeds 400 mg/dl (I have no idea what that means. It is something that they should be able to calculate, but it says they cannot! Maybe the lab stinks?)

Not for anything, but when added in to her weight and blood pressure, she was literally a ticking time bomb. I said earlier that she would have had to lose over 100 pounds while pregnant in order to have a ghost of a chance of carrying the baby to term. The problem is that when she was starting out at…over 300 pounds (!!!) that’s a huge stress load on the heart, Her blood pressure was so high, they could not measure it through normal means, or so she said. She was right off the scale in that regard, so again, the exact BP reading would be hard to obtain.

Compare the above numbers with what she got from her most recent blood work, and you will see the difference that an intelligent diet…and cardiovascular exercise(!) has made in her life:
WBC is 7.7
RBC is 4.8
Hemoglobin is 14.8
Platelets are 231
Sodium is 140
Potassium is 4.8
Chloride is 98
Cholesterol is (again, hold on to your hat for this one) 170!!!
Triglicerides are 160

As for her diet, she is now a devotee of the Pritikin guidelines, as established by the late Dr. Nathan Pritikin (author of “The Pritikin Promise” and “Diet for Runners”, the latter of which I have read)

This was an incredible turnaround, obviously, but it took time…a long time.
Every medical doctor told her that she would not live if she had gone beyond 3 months of gestation. The strain on her already severely taxed body would have been too great.

Today, she is a regular runner, doing an average of 5 miles daily, and she is now planning on the challenge I gave her: to run her first marathon. She’s asked me to coach her, and I’ve agreed (coaching people to run marathons is not new for me, as I serve currently as an online coach for people who run in the Marine Corps Marathon (that is, for one group that raises money for a charitable cause). While she may not be ready by the end of this year, she should be ready by the end of 2010. I plan to be there at the Finish Line to greet her when she finishes!

You talk about “miracles” in this group, as if they will all happen overnight. Well, while she may have made a miraculous recovery, it did not come overnight. Besides going through the physical stress of body changes that took place while losing slightly over 200 pounds (oh, she’s now down to about 120, and looking NICE!!!), she also had to undergo a lot of emotional stress at the same time.

A human being can handle only so much. It is not our place to judge, lest we wind up BEING judged! She went through sheer hell, and now she has been rewarded with a healthy set of twins (who would not have been born if she had died, I might add), and they are the delight of her life (along with her husband, of course).

I would respectfully request that the naysayers in this group give her credit for what she has accomplished, and stop judging what they do not know!

Have a nice day, folks.

Which brings me to the case in point. With possible Hospitalization, proper diet, and medical monitoring pregnancy would have been safely and with little danger to the mother or child till viability at a minumum.

I do not excuse the rationalization of abortion and certainly not in this case.

So what you are saying is she could not correct that during the pregnancy with medical guidance?

Does not hold water. Good thing Abraham’s wife did not consider abortion because of her age huh !

I am sure there are some so called medical professionals that would have told her it was medically necessary to have an abortion.

I am not condemning this woman but to rationalize it was right to have an abortion may jeopardize her soul. But I will leave that judgement to God.

 

[mariyka]

From her Hemogram, the following:
WBC is 22.4
RBC is 12.20
Hemoglobin is 21.4
Hematocrit is 88.0
MCV is 100
MCHC is 42
Platelets are 880 (about double the normal maximum)

As a Clinical Laboratory Hematologist of 35 years, these results are highly suspect to me. Physiologically, it’s not really possible for this combination of Red Cell parameters (RBC, HGB, HCT, MCV, MCHC) to occur. The first action of any laboratorian would be to have another sample properly drawn and then rerun, after verifying the analyzer was functioning properly and also checking for any interferences in the patient blood. The value of the MCHC (Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration) is what concerns me the most. If it was truly that high, her Red Cells would be lysing (breaking up) and her RBC (Red Blood Cell count) would then be low. If it was an interference due to her high triglycerides, then, once again the Red count would be lower. It doesn’t make sense, and I am surprised the laboratory reported these values as they are.

Perhaps there was possibly an error in your or her transcription?

Sorry to quibble, but it’s the Laboratorian in me. We always want the results to be correct. It’s important to us…and to you and the doctor, as well!

 

[PastGrandKnight]

There is no Hebrew translation for adoption at least not until the 20th century

Since ancient times, Judaism has valued and encouraged adoption. But most biblical and rabbinic references to the practice relate specifically to orphans, a paradigmatically vulnerable class of individuals for which the Bible mandates we protect and care.

The most famous example in the Bible, of course, is that of the orphaned Queen Esther, who was raised by her cousin Mordecai. The Talmud, however, illuminates–and approves of–more obscure cases as well.

According to the book of Samuel (2 Samuel 6:23), King David’s wife Michal never had children–yet later five sons are mentioned. To explain the discrepancy, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 19b) states that Michal’s sister, Merav, actually gave birth to the children, but Michal raised them. The rabbis conclude: “Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded, according to Scripture, as though the child had been born to him.”

Interestingly, though, there was no Hebrew word for adoption until the 20th century, when Israeli lexicographers chose ametz, which comes from the same root as amatz, meaning strength or fortitude.

The ancient Jews did not need a word for “adoption”. They simply took a child into their house and raised the child as one of their own. There were no forms to fill out, nor was there any other sort of paperwork to bog down the process (a far cry from today!). However, the lineage did not go with the adoption. Therefore, adopted children still belonged to whatever Line they had originally come.
That having been said, it is entirely possible for someone who is adopted to have been of the same Tribe. That probably was not uncommon in those days.
There is no doubt (at least with me) that Jesus was the son of Mary. Fine. Mary might even have been from the house of David, but that makes no difference whatsoever. Lineage is passed only from the father, through to his children.
However, we now need to know…for certainty…that Jesus was actually from the line of David, as prophesied. If we can prove that, then we’ve got a slam-dunk. If we cannot (and I hate to say this!), then we may have trouble being able to prove that Jesus was the Messiah as foretold by the ancient prophets.
Now, we have one other item, from your message. You wrote the following:

<<<<<“Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded, according to Scripture, as though the child had been born to him.”>>>>>

I’m glad you mentioned “an orphan”. To be an orphan, the original parents had to have both been dead. Mary was not dead by ANY means! She was still alive when Jesus was Crucified, as you should know. She was very much alive! God certainly was not dead (and still is alive today, I might add). Therefore, the issue of an orphan is irrelevant to this discussion.
But raising an orphan does not grant the lineage of that house to the child. He or she still belongs to his or her original house. (In other words, they cannot jump from one house to another. Consider an orphan, who loses his or her adopted parents once, and then again, and then again! Does the lineage change with each newly acquired adoptive parent? I don’t think so!

This can be quite fascinating, but what does it have to do with the title of this thread? Sorry, but we seem to have gotten de-railed for the moment.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

As a Clinical Laboratory Hematologist of 35 years, these results are highly suspect to me. Physiologically, it’s not really possible for this combination of Red Cell parameters (RBC, HGB, HCT, MCV, MCHC) to occur. The first action of any laboratorian would be to have another sample properly drawn and then rerun, after verifying the analyzer was functioning properly and also checking for any interferences in the patient blood. The value of the MCHC (Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration) is what concerns me the most. If it was truly that high, her Red Cells would be lysing (breaking up) and her RBC (Red Blood Cell count) would then be low. If it was an interference due to her high triglycerides, then, once again the Red count would be lower. It doesn’t make sense, and I am surprised the laboratory reported these values as they are.

Perhaps there was possibly an error in your or her transcription?

Sorry to quibble, but it’s the Laboratorian in me. We always want the results to be correct. It’s important to us…and to you and the doctor, as well!

Good point. I am not an expert in these things by any stretch of the imagination, nor would I ever wish to be one!
I suppose that what it really shows is how badly messed up her health was, with numbers all over the place.
My main concern was the cholesterol level being as insanely high as it was. Her arteries, as I understand it, were not totally blocked, but one was about 98% blocked, another was about 80-85% blocked, and another was about 50% blocked. In essense, her arteries were as badly blocked as were those of Jim Fixx (author of “The Complete Book of Running” who died one day after a 20-mile training run. He was an accomplished long-distance runner, and 20 mile runs were common for him. However, he ignored the advice of Dr. Pritikin. According to the Vermont state Medical Examiner’s Office, when he had his last cholesterol level taken, it was 253. His doctor told him that level was completely normal. If he had just puttered around in his garden, he might even be alive today. However, as an endurance athlete, he was placing himself at death’s door. He never changed his eating habits, and died for it.)
I have no reason to distrust any of the numbers she sent to me, as it comes straight from “the horse’s mouth”, so to speak. Between all that stuff, and her stupid cigarettes, she was just fortunate to keep drawing one breath after another.
As for the lab, I hope they are out of business. If their numbers could be so far off, then they certainly don’t deserve to remain in operation! (personal opinion, folks)

 

[jmtowle]

PGN

Re: post # 307

This sounds like the road a theologian might take on the way to losing his or her faith.

JT

 

[PastGrandKnight]

PastGrandKnight;5244437:

Which brings me to the case in point. With possible Hospitalization, proper diet, and medical monitoring pregnancy would have been safely and with little danger to the mother or child till viability at a minumum.

I do not excuse the rationalization of abortion and certainly not in this case.

So what you are saying is she could not correct that during the pregnancy with medical guidance?

Does not hold water. Good thing Abraham’s wife did not consider abortion because of her age huh !

I am sure there are some so called medical professionals that would have told her it was medically necessary to have an abortion.

I am not condemning this woman but to rationalize it was right to have an abortion may jeopardize her soul. But I will leave that judgement to God.

Let’s take one at a time:
You wrote:
“Which brings me to the case in point. With possible Hospitalization, proper diet, and medical monitoring pregnancy would have been safely and with little danger to the mother or child till viability at a minumum.”
She was about 2 months along, and was already sinking rapidly. All told, she has lost slightly over 200 pounds. However, there is no way she could have done that…while pregnant…and safely. She probably would have had to stop eating entirely (my own guess), and that could not have been good for the baby. Her arteries while not totally blocked, were fairly clogged with cholesterol. That, PLUS the stress of a growing baby, would probably have killed her…and the baby.
I ask this question: What good can possibly come from her being dead? Would it soothe your heart if she were to have died? Or is it the fact that she’s also Jewish? (just asking, and NOT making accusations here).

You wrote:
“I do not excuse the rationalization of abortion and certainly not in this case.”

You wrote:
“So what you are saying is she could not correct that during the pregnancy with medical guidance?”
Correct! Her health was in a disastrous state. Of course, perhaps you cannot understand what a woman goes through when she weighs over 300 pounds. Or would you like to try losing well over 100 pounds while going through pregnancy, and then another 100 pounds after that? You think it’s so easy? TRY IT!

My reply:
So you would condemn her to death. How utterly kind of you.

You wrote:
“Does not hold water. Good thing Abraham’s wife did not consider abortion because of her age huh !”
My reply:
Irrelevant to this discussion. Sarah lived thousands of years ago, and they knew almost nothing about medical science in those days.

You wrote:
“I am sure there are some so called medical professionals that would have told her it was medically necessary to have an abortion.”

Not just some. EVERY medical professional who evaluated her case made the same recommendation. That included her own family doctor, who knew her case better than the others did.

You wrote:
“I am not condemning this woman but to rationalize it was right to have an abortion may jeopardize her soul. But I will leave that judgement to God.”/

You most certainly ARE condemning her. You would have condemned her to a premature death, which would have helped absolutely nobody.
As for your final line, that’s almost laughable. You are standing in judgement of her, based on your own writings. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, has the right to do that!

But I’ll tell you what:
Spend the next 20+ (maybe 10 will be enough in your case, though. Who knows?) years of your life gorging yourself on the typical American diet, loaded with fats, oils, etc etc, and smoke 2-3 packs of cigarettes per day. Sit around eating bon-bons all day. Get so grossly overweight and unhealthy that you are literally at death’s door. And THEN…get pregnant!
It happened to her. While I do not support abortion at all, there are times when it is medically necessary in order to save the life of the mother.
Her case was one of those times, and the lesson she learned did not fall on deaf ears. She responded to her wake-up call, and to this day is still a strong, Pro-Life advocate! No, not a “choice” advocate. She is 100% committed to the Pro-Life cause.
And she is also a damned fine human being. She can join me for a cup of herbal tea any time (and does, once in a while!)

 

[PastGrandKnight]

PGN

Re: post # 307

This sounds like the road a theologian might take on the way to losing his or her faith.

JT

Interesting thought, but not quite the case.

It is the road THIS person is taking in the hope that he can find those answers. In the meantime, I’m still very active at Mass, serving as a Lector (among other things), and in the Knights of Columbus.

I have asked numerous Priests about the different lineages that are in Matthew and Luke, and none of them have been able to give a satisfactory answer. Yes, I still respect them for being Priests, of course. However, when a Priest tells me that one genealogy had to be that of Joseph, while the other was of Mary, I know he has to be wrong. Jews do not trace genealogies through the women. it is the birthright of being a Jew that passes through the women, regardless of the religion of the father.

In a sense, I’m on a journey of discovery, looking for satisfactory answers to these questions…answers that make sense, and that work within the boundaries of Hebrew scripture.

 

[Des]

This was an incredible turnaround, obviously, but it took time…a long time.
Every medical doctor told her that she would not live if she had gone beyond 3 months of gestation. The strain on her already severely taxed body would have been too great.

I know of no ‘good mother’ who sacrifices her son to save herself. She was wrong to do what she did and killing someone in self defense means you’re defending yourself from that person’s free will to do you harm. She took it upon herself to murder her unborn child because of her poor choice of lifestyle that got her so out of shape to begin with. And what does she then do. I’ll kill my unborn child and give myself a better chance to live and improve my life for the future. That’s sickening man.

A human being can handle only so much. It is not our place to judge, lest we wind up BEING judged! She went through sheer hell, and now she has been rewarded with a healthy set of twins (who would not have been born if she had died, I might add), and they are the delight of her life (along with her husband, of course).

That’s twice you’ve tried to puff up your argument with this kind of statement and you even insert the word ‘rewarded’ in there to boot. So I will try and repeat what I said last time with my own example of how silly that looks.

example: “A man murdered a woman’s husband to have his wife and they were later ‘rewarded’ with two children the woman would never have had because of the husband’s low sperm count.”
It just won’t fly when you get down to the nitty gritty of her actually intentionally killing her unborn child to get to this area in her life.

I would respectfully request that the naysayers in this group give her credit for what she has accomplished, and stop judging what they do not know!

Sorry but I won’t give mothers who kill their unborn children any credit when they use it as an excuse to improve their life.
And nothing is 100 percent. She may or may not have died yet she didn’t even want to take the chance with her own kid in her.
And for a Catholic, you sure seem to be siding with her decision and not thinking anything was wrong here. At first you make it look like a ‘faith’ decision of which we had no business to get involved. Now you are making excuses for her as well where you promote the poor girls pain she went through, totally neglecting the fetus pain when killed. You seemingly dehumanize the unborn by your statements.

This can be quite fascinating, but what does it have to do with the title of this thread? Sorry, but we seem to have gotten de-railed for the moment.

Why don’t you both start a new thread and maybe you can get more imput from Catholics who may know this area better.

You most certainly ARE condemning her. You would have condemned her to a premature death, which would have helped absolutely nobody.

Now you’re judging us. We defend life and how you nor I have the right to directly kill each other if we are not the aggressors and trying to kill each other first. That fetus is not her life to do with as she wills.
You use her ‘faith’ as a way to rationalize her actions of intentionally killing another who hopefully we can agree is a human being within her womb. You seem to think she should be allowed to place her own moral judgments on another human beings life yet we can’t do the same with her.

You are siding with her choice to condemn her child to save her own life that is still not 100 percent by the way no matter how gloomy it may have looked. You are judging her actions acceptable. Personally, I think you have issues with the Church here when She says we are to defend life from conception till it’s natural end.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in murdering 2 people against their will to save 3?
Say a robber breaks in a store where he gathered hostages and told you to kill this 2 year old girl or he’d kill two of the woman. Would you murder her and feel you did the right thing? Or would you allow the robber to bloody his own hands?

As for your final line, that’s almost laughable. You are standing in judgment of her, based on your own writings. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, has the right to do that!

Nobody here is judging her soul. Maybe you stop judging her as being a good girl as well since nobody here can read her heart. She may not know any better. But you do. Think about that.

While I do not support abortion at all, there are times when it is medically necessary in order to save the life of the mother.

Then you do support abortion except you like everyone else has your own reasons when it’s acceptable.

She is 100% committed to the Pro-Life cause.

To be 100 percent against abortion means there are no exceptions. She has exceptions as you have made that clear. So yes, she does carry a pro abortion stance at times.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

I know of no ‘good mother’ who sacrifices her son to save herself. She was wrong to do what she did and killing someone in self defense means you’re defending yourself from that person’s free will to do you harm. She took it upon herself to murder her unborn child because of her poor choice of lifestyle that got her so out of shape to begin with. And what does she then do. I’ll kill my unborn child and give myself a better chance to live and improve my life for the future. That’s sickening man.

example: “A man murdered a woman’s husband to have his wife and they were later ‘rewarded’ with two children the woman would never have had because of the husband’s low sperm count.”
It just won’t fly when you get down to the nitty gritty of her actually intentionally killing her unborn child to get to this area in her life.

Sorry but I won’t give mothers who kill their unborn children any credit when they use it as an excuse to improve their life.
And nothing is 100 percent. She may or may not have died yet she didn’t even want to take the chance with her own kid in her.
And for a Catholic, you sure seem to be siding with her decision and not thinking anything was wrong here. At first you make it look like a ‘faith’ decision of which we had no business to get involved. Now you are making excuses for her as well where you promote the poor girls pain she went through, totally neglecting the fetus pain when killed. You seemingly dehumanize the unborn by your statements.

Why don’t you both start a new thread and maybe you can get more imput from Catholics who may know this area better.

Nobody here is judging her soul. Maybe you stop judging her as being a good girl as well since nobody here can read her heart. She may not know any better. But you do. Think about that. (That’s right, MADAME! I know a heck of a lot better than you do, and DON’T YOU FORGET THAT!)

Then you do support abortion except you like everyone else has your own reasons when it’s acceptable. (Only in the most extreme of cases, and ONLY when medically NECESSARY to save the LIFE of the mother. Anything short of that is not enough.)

To be 100 percent against abortion means there are no exceptions. She has exceptions as you have made that clear. So yes, she does carry a pro abortion stance at times.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folks, please pardon the strong words I am about to use. Normally, I do not believe in doing this, but this has gone on long enough…too long, in fact.

MADAME…
You and your specious arguments have gone on long enough. If I can find an “ignore” button somewhere on this site, I will apply it to you and to all of your irrational arguments.
Clearly, you don’t give a tinkers damn about the life of this woman, who went through both physical and mental anguish at a bad time of her life. You CANNOT just turn your back on those FACTS, MADAME, but you seem to be doing just that.

Whenever this lady speaks out at Pro-Life events, one of the first things she does is tell her story. She does not mince words, either. (For that fact, neither do you, but at least she has gone through hell and back, which you don’t seem to understand.)

Unfortunately, you do not seem to care about those who at least have a CHANCE to survive, and change their lives. Yes, she made some bad mistakes, and nobody is going to deny that. I’m sure you’ve made some real doozies in your time, MADAME! But it is my best guess that you’ve never gone through what she has gone through, so I’ll ask you to keep your trap shut, and stop judging her or anyone else. (I can hardly believe I’m really typing this!)
Funny thing, but I seldom if ever see your type when it comes to the issue of the death sentence. My guess is you probably don’t care about criminals such as those who murdered Sharon Tate, or Lee Harvey Oswald (at least Jack Ruby had a trial and was found guilty, but Oswald NEVER had a trial!). You possibly supported Mike Dukakis even after he gave convicted murderer Willie Horton a furlough…during which Horton murdered another person.

The thing about people who come across as you do (angry, opinionated, and loud-mouthed… all at the same time) is that they seldom if ever stop to consider that there IS another side to each question. Every equation has two sides, and you are only seeing one.

You also wrote:
“You are siding with her choice to condemn her child to save her own life that is still not 100 percent by the way no matter how gloomy it may have looked.”
Wrong, MADAME!
I was responding to a comment by someone to the effect that an abortion can never be justified, only rationalized. You seem to have forgotten that little fact, MADAME!
And no matter how you try to sugar coat this, her decision was in line with the religious teachings of Judaism. Since WE are Roman Catholics, WE have no business applying OUR rules to someone of another faith. Want to talk about Roman Catholics? FINE! Let’s talk about getting Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry excommunicated! After all, they are supposedly Roman Catholics, and yet they have been HUGE supporters of abortions. They both opposed the Mexico City policy (which I supported).

When I see you signing a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, requesting the Excommunication of Kennedy and Kerry from our Church, then I may be willing to listen a bit more to what you have to say.

Until then, please do not darken my doorway within the confines of this forum. I will no longer reply to any of your comments, as they are becoming more and more irrational as we have gone along.

To everyone else who has read this, I apologize for coming on this strongly. However, even I have limits to my patience with people such as her.

 

[zzz]

(snipped for length)

---

To everyone else who has read this, I apologize for coming on this strongly. However, even I have limits to my patience with people such as her.

No apologies necessary…you didn’t come on too strongly at all…I, for one, agree with you…

 

[PastGrandKnight]

(snipped for length)

No apologies necessary…you didn’t come on too strongly at all…I, for one, agree with you…

Thank you. It’s nice to know there is another “voice of reason” in here today!

I have to wonder, though, how many others feel the same way. Some may want to shoot me (such as Des, of course!).

Regardless, I am not accustomed to writing in such an angry fashion, and that’s why I apologized. It was not my intention to be offensive, and I wanted that to be made clear to everyone else.