1) I am Jewish. 2) A woman has a right to perform abortion. Anyone has a right to view her action as vile and to express their opinion. 3) Unless she would judge me, I would not judge her.
And what does that have to do with this topic? You know what? Maybe you need to go talk with a Rabbi about this. And please don't go to one of those Liberal/Reformed congregations. (That's practically like buffet-style Judiasm, "I'll pick the parts that I like")
Many people commit sins. I am not going to throw anyone's moral shortcomings at them unless they judge me.
I see, so you do not believe punishment should be carried out to protect people. If someone steals from someone else, do you think anything legally should be done? If someone physically assaults someone else, but it was only a one-time thing and that person is unlikely to assault anyone else, do you think anything legally should be done? Or do you only care about justice if you personally were the one who was wronged?
No. 1) I do not believe in harsh Penal Systems like USA. 2) Laws protect Society -- not people. If anyone was free to steal/assault anyone else, Society would disintegrate. 3) Abortion, adultery, and many other sins do not destroy Society.
This is a terrible terrible argument. There are all sorts of terrible moral things that should be punished even though they would not cause society to disintegrate. There are examples of this throughout history. The Romans forced slaves to fight to the death in gladiatorial matches in the Colosseum. It did not cause their society to collapse. The Aztecs carried out human sacrifice on unwilling victims. It did not cause their society to collapse.
Abortion, adultery, and many other sins are viewed as unethical by most people. But most people are against criminalization of these sins. Only some Muslim Nations ban such sins as eating forbidden food (pork, alcohol).
Adultery does not actually infringe on the bodily rights of the person who owns it without their consent. Unless you view a spouse's body as being the property of the other spouse. That is why adultery is not legally punished.
Throughout History in many societies, deadly neglect of children who were not strong was an acceptable form of birth control. Given economic reality of the time it may have been a rational decision. Of course it was evil. Three millennia ago, only Judaism forbade infanticide.
My position is that many ethical issues must be outside the reach of the law. Many people would view Dawkins preaching of Atheism as a great crime. He may be a great sinner, but most people would be against banning his works.
Three millennia ago, sustaining life involved very hard work with very low standard of living. Thus, prohibition of infanticide was economically difficult. In 2020, this seems extremely far-fetched.
Yes, but you have not really given any indication how abortion is comparable to those other issues. All of those other moral issues do not violate the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle. They do not impose something onto someone else's body without their consent.
As I have described in the OP. If she is blaming me or anyone for falling short of SJW ideal, she should be reminded of her own shortcomings.
In 2020, does it seem extremely far-fetched that sustaining the life of a 12 week old fetus would be practical, because it would involve work that was too hard and be economically difficult?
