Ideological Bigotry Part XXII–The Lynching of Sarah Palin

For those on the left who take joy out of taking decent conservative Americans and ripping their guts out, offer yourselves congratulations. In the same way your failure to destroy Ronald Reagan led to Dan Quayle getting twice as much abuse, the failure of the left to rip George W. Bush to shreds has led to the stoning of Sarah Palin in the town square.

In a bombshell announcement, Sarah Palin has resigned as Governor of Alaska.

While Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty declined to seek reelection in 2010 to focus on building a national presence for 2012, Governor Palin went a step further. She resigned altogether.

The press conference was unscripted and hastily read. When Sarah Palin was done speaking, her supporters and opponents had the same question. Why?

Is there a scandal building along the lines of a marital affair? Does she have a health problem such as cancer? Is there something wrong with her children?

Some described her move as a shrewd political move. If she truly wants to be President, she needs to bone up on her foreign policy credentials. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are already running. They have the luxury of flexible schedules, with Mr. Huckabee having a built in television audience and Mr. Romney being the wealthiest unemployed man in America.

Sarah Palin perhaps decided that she could not run a state and run for president. There is no shame in this. Bob Dole had to end his 35 year Senate career because juggling became too much. Bob Dole also did not have to raise five children, one of them a special needs child.

In short, Sarah Palin may be Superwoman, but even Superwoman never had to deal with villains as ruthless and vicious as the leftist smear merchants in America today.

The left needs to describe every powerful conservative as either evil, or as a complete imbecile.

Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich were too intelligent to be seen as imbeciles. Therefore, they were evil. Dan Quayle was too nice and decent a man to be evil. Therefore he had to be an imbecile.

Sarah Palin is a beautiful woman inside and out. She is also a religious Christian. Her election would destroy the feminist grievance mongers in the same way Barack Obama has been the death knell for racial hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Until feminists learn that a woman can be pro-life and still be a feminist, the movement will continue to be seen as a bunch of unattractive, over the hill, man-hating hags.

Sarah Palin is a hockey mom and a hunter. She eats moose stew. She is also a former beauty queen, another reason radical feminists despise her.

Yet Sarah Palin also has something else in common with George W. Bush and Dan Quayle. She is a human being. She is a creature of God that simply wants to be treated with dignity. The concept of treating political opponents with dignity is totally lost on the left. The same bullies that took down Robert Bork took glee in Borking Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin said that she stepped down as Governor of Alaska because she has had enough. The abuse has been relentless. The 15 investigations, of which almost all have been dismissed, have been draining her resources. She can make more money in the private sector than she can running Alaska under the media glare. Maybe she saw her critics and said, “Who needs this?”

If that is the case, she might wish to decline to run for president. Politics, as the cliche goes, ain’t beanbag.

If she is perceived as a quitter, she may be done.

The exact reasons of her departure from the governorship are currently shrouded in mystery.

Yet what is no mystery is that the abuse she has received goes far beyond anything political. She has been called a slutty flight attendant, and been accused of being the mother of the child that is actually her granddaughter. Her daughters have been verbally assaulted for no reason other than that they love their mother.

Enough is enough is enough is enough is enough.

Sarah Palin will soon be a private citizen. I pray that she gets the peace of mind that all private citizens are entitled to receiving.

The lynching of conservatives must stop. The verbal suicide bombers on the left must stop.

The ideological bigotry must stop.

If it does not, payback against the liberals will be bloody, as they reap what they sowed.


24 Responses to “Ideological Bigotry Part XXII–The Lynching of Sarah Palin”

  1. LOL!

    You think that was abuse? You obviously are unversed in the history of American politics. 15 investigations? That’s NOTHING. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen – or in Palin’s case, get back to the kitchen. In a relatively free and liberal society, public figures hold themselves out for all the abuse the people can dish out. C’est la vie. Always has been, always will, as long as we are free.

    People criticized Palin because she seems unprepared for higher office, she panders to basest emotions of the fringe right, and she comes off as insincere, insecure, and irrational. It would be frightening to imagine her in the White House – like being the passenger on jet piloted by a drunken child. This has nothing to do with her being a “Christian” (no one can really know that about anybody else) or “hot” (she’s not that “hot” and mature adults really couldn’t care less). This “abuse” Palin sustained was the direct result of her own positions, actions and stated beliefs. The fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin will never be president of the United States. She is on the lunatic-fringe Right and a majority of Americans are decidedly NOT.

    And no, you can’t be “pro-life” and a feminist. They are mutually exclusive philsophies. Think about it.


  2. Eagle 6 says:

    Jersey, I was going to disagree with your point that being “pro life” and “feminist” are mutually exclusive philosophies, but I suppose if one takes a myopic view of feminism – that one can only be a feminist if one believes it’s ok to be a child killer – and ignores that feminists also believe in voting rights, equal opportunity, prenatal care, prevention against rape and abuse, equal pay for equal work, and a number of other things…

    A number of Jews, Christians, and more specifically Catholics voted for Obama even though he is on the record for supporting third term abortions, so the argument goes 1) they either aren’t truly believers in the Jewish, Christian, or Catholic faith or 2) one issue does not a Jew, Christian, Catholic make or not make… so to tie this up neatly, which way do you want it?

    If a woman believes in equal opportunity, protection against rape and abuse, equal pay for equal work, voting rights, and prenatal care but does not believe in abortion, does this make her NOT a feminist?

    If a Jewish person recognizes the “One’s” stance on later term abortion (i.e. there is movement in the womb) yet votes for him anyway, does this make the person not Jewish?

    As far as the other comments go, although I agree that when one runs for office, he is open to criticism, it is obvious the press has a particular bias against Palin… Everyone knows how much the Republican Party paid for her wardrobe, but how many people know about Michelle’s $300K plus job she “secured” immediately following her husband’s “securing” a grant for the hospital? …or how much the Dem party paid for her wardrobe…or her $300 tennis shoes she wore at a food giveaway…which is the Tygrrrrr Express’ point about ideological bigotry.

  3. There is nothing in the Jewish or Christian theocracy that forbids abortion. It is a purely fictitious, specious, spurrious “issue” on every level – moral and ethical. It is a wedge-issue designed to inflame the easily-inflamed and keep their eyes off the real issues that actually affect them.

    And no, you can not be “pro-life” and be a Feminist. One of the core principles of Feminism is the belief that a woman’s body is her own private domain. You can not be a Feminist while at the same time believing that a woman’s body is beyond her personal control. Now, you can be a Feminist and presonally be pro-life, that is to say that you yourself would never get an abortion. But if one believes that should be imposed on all the other women and girls in the world, then one is not a Feminist, but in fact a misgynist pseudo-religious fascist.

    Late term abortion is a thorny ethical issue. The vast majority of these abortions, however, are believed to be performed only when the fetus will die anyway or the continued carraige of the fetus will in fact kill the mother. However, it is a personal medical issue, so no one really knows for sure. And that’s the way it should stay.

    Why one Earth would anyone say “Christian or Catholic”??? What kind of sectarian innanity is that? Catholics ARE Christians!!!

    Michelle Obama has taken plenty of abuse from the Right. You’d have to live under a rock not to know that. As for the mainstream press, yes, perhaps they are a bit enamoured with her. She’s “one of them” so to speak – highly educated, erudite, liberated, successful, etc. On the other hand, if she was a moose-hunted yahoo from Alaska, she’d probably have gotten the same treatment. I know I have very little respect for Sarah Palin, but I do like Michelle Obama. I guess a lot of people feel that way.


  4. Toma says:

    Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Bring attention to the target through ridicule and humiliation. Throw accusations, but don’t be to wild with them try to keep the accusations believable. Don’t be concerned about the truth you are not trying to prove anything just go for effect. The main effect is to put the target on the defensive. Be tenacious don’t let up the ultimate goal is to destroy the target.

    Palin is a target. There are factions in a free society that make a living picking, freezing, personalizing, polarizing, ridiculing and humilating targets. They are paid to destroy those that get in the way. The factions in our free society are very powerful and tenacious in deed. It is not about policy, politics or the common good it is about power and control at any and all cost.


  5. Toma, you could say the same thing about countless people. Yes, Palin is a “target.” She made herself one when she placed herself on the national stage and ran for Vice President with a candidate who’s in his 70’s and not in the best shape. For Christ’s sake, man – she would have been a heartbeat away from the Oval Office! You’re darn straight that makes her a “target!” Thank God there are people out there who criticize, scrutinize, investigate, question, ask! Too bad Sarah Palin isn’t on them.


  6. Toma says:

    Critics? You and I are critics Jers. I’m talking about people destroying other people for personal gain. And God doesn’t have any thing to do with it. It is people against people.


  7. Toma, Palin was dangerously unqualified. McCain lost the election the day he chose her. No one had to destroy Sarah Palin, all they had to do was expose her. And in the light of exsposure she lashed out, wilted and finally collapsed – proving her utter unqualification. (As for “God,” I was just using a figure of speech.) Yes, you can think of it as people against people, to a point, but really it’s ideas against ideas and there Palin lost the battle. Her ideas stink, and she’s not even competent enough to express them or even understand them, let alone carry them out.

    Yes, we are critics. And that’s a great thing. I would never suggest stifling criticism of any kind. If Palin had the competence, intelligence and wisdom her supporters claimed she had, she would have easily survived and emerged the victor in that battle of ideas, of criticism.

    Besides, she was one hellacious attack dog herself, so she’s the last person who should be complaining.


  8. Toma says:

    Jers, you are still side stepping and trying to justify vicious personal attacks on a person’s family. What if this was Michele and her kids? What would you say then? This is not first time in history that a public figure’s family has been castigated by “the opposition” it won’t be the last. But being a public figure doesn’t give “the opposition” the right to hurt the public figure’s family members. You can not justify personal injury with euphemisms. Cruelty is cruelty no matter how you try to color it. What I have heard people say and what I have read about this “issue” is wrong and so are you.

    God bless you, (Figure of speech).


  9. thepoliticaltipster says:

    Frivolous (and not so frivolous) ethics complaints, intemperate abuse from opponents are (sadly) a fact of political life – and if she was not able to deal with them then she really has no place in politics. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, George W et al all had to deal with equivalent criticism but you didn’t seem them complaining. Indeed, after reading Fred Siegel’s “Prince of the City” recently I have to say that Giuliani had a much, much harder time of things from the Sharpton / Rangel / ACORN crowd than Palin ever did from her opponents.

    I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton (and Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached) but The Letterman joke, although tasteless in the extreme, was no worse than Limbaugh (and McCain’s) “jokes” about Chelsea Clinton. Similarly, the Palin/Trig conspiracy theory (which got little traction outside left-liberal blogs and Andrew Sullivan) was no worse than the hundreds of wild conspiracy theories about Bill Clinton that were repeated in the American Spectator (though some of the ones concerning his infidelity were probably true). Two wrongs don’t make a right (though Jeremiah Wright may be doubly wrong) but her situation was not unique.

    Also, even if some sections of the media are biased against her, that still doesn’t explain why she made such a mess of the Katie Couric and Charles Gibson interviews – nor does it explain why she felt the need to reference her refrigerator magnet on Friday. Palin can clearly deliver a speech from a teleprompter very well and inspire devotion from her followers, but people and commentators equating those two abilities with leadership and fitness for national office, was one of the main reasons that Barack Obama is now President Obama.

    Indeed, I believe that Palin and Obama are closer to each other than their supporters (and detractors) would admit. Not only do they lack experience but they represent the “dumbing-down” of politics (which is happening on both sides of the Atlantic sadly). Indeed, you could make the case that Palin, with her endorsement of Ron Paul during the primaries (albeit alongside praise of Mitt Romney) and her call for another investigation into 9/11, could actually be weaker on foreign policy than Obama. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if she ran in 2012 on a paleoconservative foreign policy platform.

  10. Eagle 6 says:

    Jersey, You made my point, and you reinforced Eric’s implications as well. I would think one would have to live under a rock to say “There is nothing in the Jewish or Christian theocracy that forbids abortion”. Granted, there are a number of people who call themselves Christians who turn a blind eye to abortion – but the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, priests, preachers, and rabbis think abortion is murder – especially once there is movement in the womb. My personal opinion is irrelevant to the issue – but how it ties in with being a feminist requires logic, and the Dems just can’t make logical arguments. I said “Christians, and more specifically Catholics”… I didn’t say Catholics aren’t Christians, so to attack this statement as inane suggests a lack of logic. My argument stands: one can be a feminist and be pro life just as one can be a Christian and tolerate abortion – they are not mutually exclusive.

  11. Toma says:

    Tipster, you can’t justify the treatment that public figures must endure just to be public figures by pointing a finger and comparing insults. The “dumbing down” is a result of this treatment. No manners, no respect, no boundaries, no limits no wonder quality people are so hard to find.

    Tell me, do we have quality people managing our national business?


  12. thepoliticaltipster says:

    I’m not justifying it, but the fact remains that if one stands for national office one has to expect a certain level of abuse. Of course it would be great if people didn’t spread vicious rumours but the fact remains that whereas McCain, Giuliani, Clinton, Bush were able to deal with the pressure whereas Palin quit at the first opportunity (if indeed this was really the reason for her resignation). It should also be pointed out that most of the smears have come from outside the mainstream media (the fact that Daily Kos and Huffington Post publish a lot of garbage should not be news to anyone). I also fail to see how anyone other than Palin herself can be blamed for her performance in the Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson interviews given that most of the questions were simple and straightforward.

  13. Micky 2 says:

    So other politicians have ben brutalized ? Fair enough. But nowhere near to the degree and new levels of low that Palin was subjected to.
    I dont remember Quayle, Reagan, McCain, their kids, Chelsy, Twins or any politician being labeled as and by the meida as trailer park inbred trash, stupid, yet 6 months ago with just a degree in journalism more accomplished than a man with a law degree, having a dysfuntional family yet instead of abortion decided to keep what fuctions… LIFE !

  14. Toma, I’m not justifying anything said about Sarah Palin. I don’t care enough to justify it or not. All I know is she got the usual treatment and handled it MISERABLY.

    Eagle, you should darned well know better than to say “the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, priests, preachers, and rabbis think abortion is murder…” That is aboslutely NOT true. First of all, the VAST majority of Rabbis would NEVER agree with that, priests HAVE to, and no one really knows what most of them may personally believe about it, and when it comes to “Biblical scholars,” that is a HUGE mixed bag with all sorts of opinions on the matter. The FACT is that NOWHERE in the Bible is abortion forbidden. Period.

    Micky, you would have to live under a rock, to quote some guy who’s been posting around here, to believe no other politicians have been “brutalized… to the degree and new levels of low that Palin was subjected to.” That just shows a complete ignorance of American political history.


  15. thepoliticaltipster says:

    I agree that some commentators may have been motivated by snobbery or misogyny. However, there is little direct evidence that this was the case. Just out of interest I typed various combinations (such as “Sarah Palin” AND “redneck”) into a Lexis-Nexis database of articles published by American newspapers and found that my search produced few hits. Most of articles and transcripts produced by my searches only mentioned Palin incidentally (for instance there were a lot of articles pulled from wires that were factual report of a McCain/Palin rally where Hank Williams played “Redneck Woman”).

    Of those that did talk about Palin’s background, the clear majority were conservative columnists complaining about Democratic snobbery in relation to Palin (although it is interesting that none of them provided examples). The only articles that I could find denigrating Palin’s family background were a few letters to the editor in local newspapers and an article in the Boston Herald on the eve of the election that said Palin “appealed to the inbred Republican base”.

    Similarly, few newspapers (with the exception of the Anchorage Daily News) pushed the conspiracy theory regarding the maternity of Trig Palin, so the MSM can’t be blamed on that account. Of course this doesn’t excuse the behaviour of bloggers like Andrew Sullivan or Arianna Huffington, but many politicians have had to deal with individuals pushing their own private vendettas – for instance the Arizona Republic and John McCain, the American Spectator and Bill Clinton etc.

    Ultimately, it is undeniable that the media have been biased towards Obama ever since he emerged onto the public stage. However, if Obama had selected a running mate with similar experience and family problems to Palin, then the media would have had a field day. Additionally, Palin could have closed down much the coverage by not putting her daughter centre stage during the convention and asking the media to respect her family’s privacy – after all McCain kept quiet about the heroism of his two brave sons.

  16. Micky 2 says:

    “That just shows a complete ignorance of American political history.”

    In your case its not an ignorance of political history that stands in your way. Whats stands in your way is your ignorance of the medias history and that you’ve joined the gang in America that actually believe that shes suffered no worse than anyone else. Sure, there are those that suffered worse, but were talking about someone who didnt deserve it. GET IT ?
    I like to call them the “American idolized usefull idiots” who’ve made Sarah Palin bashing a sport.

    I read and research as much if not more than the average guy and have been at and listening to this crap way longer than you my friend. So please, lighten up on the insults to the intelligence of those of use who actually have functioning memories.

    This is just another example of why it’ll be a long time before I engage you again. You call people ignorant and living under rocks because they see things for what they really are.
    What would be more logical is discusss why the level of brutality and not act a fool and deny it exists while calling those who differ names

  17. Eagle 6 says:

    Nowhere in the Bible is abortion forbidden? A quick check:

    The term “with child” is mentioned in the Bible 26 times. The Bible does not recognize “fetus”…but Obama supporters use the term regularly, as in “feed us”…
    In Luke chapter one, verses 36 and 41, we are told that Elisabeth conceived a “son” and that the “babe” leaped in her womb. God does not say that a “fetus” leaped in her womb!. He says THE BABE leaped. This is the exact same word that God uses to describe Christ in the manger AFTER He is born (Luke 2:12, 16). According to the Bible, an unborn babe and a newborn babe are the same. They are both living human beings.
    The Bible is clear about babies, whether they are in the womb or out. Examples: Job 3:16: “Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.”
    Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
    Psalm 139:13-16: “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” The speaker is David, who was a person IN THE WOMB, not a blob of tissue.
    In Jeremiah 1:5 the Bible says that God knows Jeremiah before, during, and after he was in the womb:”Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
    Exodus 21:22-23: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,”
    If the woman has a premature birth and the child lives (“no mischief follows”), then there’s no death penalty. However, if the child dies (or the woman dies) God says the death penalty applies: “thou shalt give life for life.” Why would God require the death penalty if He didn’t consider the unborn child to be a human being?
    Science also declares that an unborn child is just as much an independent human being as you. The original human cell consists of 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. At no point during pregnancy does the mother contribute any new cells to the child. The original cell divides itself and multiplies to provide development and growth for the child. Scientifically speaking, the child is just as independent at six months before birth as he will be six months after birth. Yes, the mother does provide nourishment to the unborn child, but she also provides nourishment to the newborn child!
    At two weeks pregnancy, the “fetus” can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.
    All of the above Bible verses suggest we are human before we are born. Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception. There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception. Since blood is flowing at this point, it is likely that blood formation begins well before day 21. From a purely scientific viewpoint, there is an argument that a baby blob isn’t a human until 21-24 days after conception, because that is when the heart beats, and shedding of man’s blood is considered murder. God gave the law and penalty for murder (described as the shedding of “man’s blood”). Therefore, God considers blood to be the basis for life and the shedding of human blood, which results in death, to be murder.

  18. Still Eagle, NOTHING about abortion. The Bible says NOTHING about abortion. PERIOD. It’s a pseudo-theological LIE. And the AUDACITY of CHRISTIANS spouting off the TORAH! What a joke! Neither Orthodox nor Reformed Jews, the overwhelming majority of Judaism, recognizes the scriptural forbidance of abortion.

    Oh, by the way, the doctors kid is okay. He’s just going to need a little r&r and he’ll be good as new. Thanks for helping me out with your kind advice.


  19. Eagle 6 says:

    Jersey, I am shaking my head and smiling…I guess some of us are just wired differently…it seems intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that if the Bible verses establish a human being – whether in or out of a womb – and that human being is killed by the shedding of blood, then it is wrong. Again – not my opinion – simply constructive logic drawn directly from the Bible…and I suppose that just because something is obvious to me doesn’t make it obvious to others…

    Glad the young man is ok.

  20. parrothead says:

    Full disclosure I am pro-choice especially int eh first tri-mester, the later you get in the pregnancy the thornier the issue becomes.

    First of all Jersey I love how you get into the discussion of religious leaders of views of aborition to obscure the original point. Which is one issue (specifically abortion) is NOT determinative of whether somebody is a feminist. In fact it wasn’t even one of the issues which spawned the feminist movement, but a later issue whch the movement adopted.

    As far as your comment “Now, you can be a Feminist and presonally be pro-life, that is to say that you yourself would never get an abortion. But if one believes that should be imposed on all the other women and girls in the world, then one is not a Feminist, but in fact a misgynist pseudo-religious fascist”. The real debate over abortion has to do with when people believe life begins and whose rigths should prevail. So a “pro-life feminist” legitimately could believe that the unborn female also has a right to control over her body. I am not saying I share this belief but they are not mutually exclusive.

    Secondly, you ar ein no position to speak for Jews. First of all the overwhelming majority of jews are neither orhtodox nor reformed but conservative. Coservative Judaism is split on this issue. Orthodox Jews believe Halacha (jewish law) prohibits abortion, especially in the later months. Reform Jews tend to be much more accepting of abortion. None of this is really all that relevant to th ecentral point that abortion is NOT a litmus test for feminism.

  21. The problem I have Eagle, is that Bible painstakingly, sometomies tediously and excructiatingly, makes endless, countless rules and laws governing just about every single aspect of the daily life of people – yet NO mention of abortion. Most Jewish scholars believe there is a very simple reason for that: abortion is a private, unspoken, family matter – it is not within the purvue of public or theologic law. Secular anthropologists and historians with knowledge of this subject almost all agree that abortion was commonplace in the ancient world. So why doesn’t the Bible mention it? The Bible even goes out of it’s way to explain the social doctrine regarding the harming of a fetus as collateral damage in a violent confrontation. Yet no mention of abortion – of harming the fetus oneself. There is simply NO theological argument against abortion. It is a highly subjective abstraction.

    Parrothead, I’m NOT “speaking for Jews.” I was simply refuting the untruth that Jews are theologically “Pro-Life.” Conservative Judaism is a relatively modern and very small movement. The vast majority of Temples agree that abortion is NOT murder as long as it is performed humanely before the fetus developes sentience.


  22. Oh, and yes, Feminism and “Pro-Life” ARE mutually exclusive. You can NOT believe that women’s bodies are not their own AND be a Feminist.


  23. parrothead says:

    Jersey your argument about women’s bodies not being their own INGORES(I believe intentionally) the true fundamental question on abortion. Whose body is it? Does it belong to the baby/fetus (or whatever you want to call it to suit your particular point of view) or the mother. At what point does it make the transition from one person into two. FOlks who oppose abortion are not concered with what a women does with her body. They are conerned with awhat she odes iwht the body inside her which they feel belongs to another. The fight over abortion is not about oppressing women but a genuine belief about a conflict of rights and whose rights takes priority. WHich is why it is NOT mutually exclusive form feminism.

    By the way that is where Jewish scholars draw the distinction as well. Judaism does not allow you to cut off your own arm or leg just because you want to either, so even if the unborn is part of the mother it doesn’t me it is permitted. The view is he body belongs to god and you are required to take care of it. There is a great deal of theological study on this issue and it is far from a settled debateiin Judaism (which is typical of most areas of jewish law).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.