Zone1 I am stepping away from Judaism

[rosends]

rosends

The way I read is Israeli law on abortion is that a married woman cannot get a legal abortion.

That's not the way Israeli law reads.

The law does not have to state that she needs her husband‘s approval because she can’t get a legal abortion. That’s how I read it.

so you are interpolating into the law something not there.

I’m just saying that restriction it’s probably due to Israel beings a paternalistic society because the religion is as paternalistic as they come.

so the restriction which doesn't exist reinforces your view of the political position because you make it synonymous with the religion. Got it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That's not the way Israeli law reads

This is how the law reads:


I read this as a woman can’t get an approved abortion through the state if she is married and does not fulfill any of the other requirements.

“You can apply for a legal abortion in any of the following cases”

• you're not married ….

 

[irosie91]

This is how the law reads:


I read this as a woman can’t get an approved abortion through the state if she is married and does not fulfill any of the other requirements.

“You can apply for a legal abortion in any of the following cases”

• you're not married ….

so?---you cited ONE of the possible criteria--not a NECESSARY criterion.
Another possible criterion is PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM to the woman----
as in "I might kill myself if I have another kid" <<< a simple example

 

[whutTHEYsay]

so?---you cited ONE of the possible criteria--not a NECESSARY criterion.

why does the Israel law separate women into married and unmarried - an unmarried woman gets more or less state approval but a married woman has to pay $1000 for an abortion at a private facility which is formally illegal.

 

[irosie91]

why does the Israel law separate women into married and unmarried - an unmarried woman gets more or less state approval but a married woman has to pay $1000 for an abortion at a private facility which is formally illegal.

From where did you derive your information that a WEALTHY unmarried
woman gets her abortion free but an impoverished married woman has to
pay?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

so the restriction which doesn't exist

The restriction that married women cannot get a legal abortion on the equal basis that an unmarried woman can get, does exist.,

i24NEWS

www.i24news.tv

"A married woman under 40, in good physical and mental health and whose pregnancy does not present any risk, has practically no chance that her abortion request will be accepted by the committee. Even though she may have other good reasons for not wanting to have a baby," explains a representative of the association, pointing out that in the event that her request is validated, the cost of the procedure remains at her expense.​

 

[whutTHEYsay]

From where did you derive your information that a WEALTHY unmarried
woman gets her abortion free but an impoverished married woman has to
pay?

I didnt associate wealth to the women.

Abortion in Israel: Relatively Easy to Get, Hard to Discuss

The discourse over abortion differs dramatically between the United States and Israel, where the procedure is legal and barely a political issue.

www.hadassahmagazine.org

As part of the law, a pregnant woman must receive approval from a termination of pregnancy committee comprised of two physicians and a social worker (one of whom must be a woman) that determines if she meets the legal criteria for an abortion. The committee appointment itself can take two weeks or more to schedule, and the meeting has been described as humiliating, intrusive and paternalistic by critics and activists. Consequently, some women choose to undergo the procedure through private doctors, paying the costs—about $1,000—out of pocket and without committee approval, which is illegal, although the authorities do not monitor or discipline private abortion providers.​

 

[rosends]

This is how the law reads:


I read this as a woman can’t get an approved abortion through the state if she is married and does not fulfill any of the other requirements.

“You can apply for a legal abortion in any of the following cases”

• you're not married ….

and if you ARE married, then there are other claims you can make when applying. None says that it requires a husband's consent.

 

[irosie91]

The restriction that married women cannot get a legal abortion on the equal basis that an unmarried woman can get, does exist.,

i24NEWS

www.i24news.tv

"A married woman under 40, in good physical and mental health and whose pregnancy does not present any risk, has practically no chance that her abortion request will be accepted by the committee. Even though she may have other good reasons for not wanting to have a baby," explains a representative of the association, pointing out that in the event that her request is validated, the cost of the procedure remains at her expense.​

the "representative" represented the OFFICIAL religiously sanctioned Israeli
party-line which is 'having babies is good' HOWEVER the fact is---any woman can get an abortion by claiming "if I have another baby---I will kill myself"
In a practical sense---the person who ends up not being validated is the one
who claims---I am healthy, married but just do not want a kid. Ie--on the record, "ABORTION ON DEMAND" is not sanctioned. I know Israeli women
who have had abortions---LEGALLY IN ISRAEL---healthy, married, even employed

 

[Arlette]

Stepping away from religion is the right thing to do.

 

[rosends]

The restriction that married women cannot get a legal abortion on the equal basis that an unmarried woman can get, does exist.,

i24NEWS

www.i24news.tv

"A married woman under 40, in good physical and mental health and whose pregnancy does not present any risk, has practically no chance that her abortion request will be accepted by the committee. Even though she may have other good reasons for not wanting to have a baby," explains a representative of the association, pointing out that in the event that her request is validated, the cost of the procedure remains at her expense.​

the restriction is stating that an unmarried woman is already automatically in the category that a married woman would have to be in -- having and raising a child as a single mother could be considered a risk to her well being. The basis (risk to the mother) is the same, but one is automatically placed in that category whereas the other is assumed not in that category.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

whereas the other is assumed not in that category.

What does married or unmarried have to do with anything?

there’s really no need for the disqualification of being married if it’s a health issue. I’m saying it’s obviously not a health issue. I suspect it has to do with husbands having a say, and whether their wife gets an abortion or not. Even though that’s not written into the law.

 

[rosends]

What does married or unmarried have to do with anything?

I just explained -- unmarried is automatically a risk category.

there’s really no need for the disqualification of being married if it’s a health issue. I’m saying it’s obviously not a health issue.

Yes, it is exactly a health issue. An unmarried woman is more likely to be unable (for many possible reasons) to birth and raise a child without damaging her health.

I suspect it has to do with husbands having a say, and whether their wife gets an abortion or not. Even though that’s not written into the law.

so this is your suspicion. Your suspicion is wrong. Here is a decision from the Israeli Supreme Court in which (under Heading "Judgment", item 9) a husband's consent is explicitly said to be unnecessary.

Terms | Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project

versa.cardozo.yu.edu

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Here is a decision from the Israeli Supreme Court in which (under Heading "Judgment", item 9) a husband's consent is explicitly said to be unnecessary.

Fo you have a case involving abortion!?
This was a case about a divorced couple following an attempt at IVF

Facts: Ruth and Daniel Nahmani, a married couple, were unable to have a child because of an operation that Ruth underwent. They therefore decided to try in-vitro fertilization of Ruth’s ova with Daniel‟s sperm, with a view to implanting the fertilized ova in a surrogate mother.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The restriction that married women cannot get a legal abortion on the equal basis that an unmarried woman can get, does exist.,

i24NEWS

www.i24news.tv

"A married woman under 40, in good physical and mental health and whose pregnancy does not present any risk, has practically no chance that her abortion request will be accepted by the committee. Even though she may have other good reasons for not wanting to have a baby," explains a representative of the association, pointing out that in the event that her request is validated, the cost of the procedure remains at her expense.​

What do you have against the letter “W”?

 

[BreezeWood]

Stepping away from religion is the right thing to do.

- the restriction is stating that an unmarried woman is already automatically in the category that a married woman would have to be in --

- of course without regard for any actual chosen topic rather a reference for general jurisprudence ... for who digresses the legal / religious document being necessary for their lock on life.

coincidentally - the unmarried, pregnant, living in cohabitation by a couple openly and in display indeterminately ... somehow was a reality in the 1st century not condemned by the prevailing religion of the time - - think again, the historian ... were they under a spell.

and surly not equal the aberration of burning bushes - when in fact what is the courage of those individuals by those same congregations is given condemnation against the same heavenly display they not the heavens object too.

is it called a double standard. the true story and actual heavenly revelation occurrence of the 1st century. that prevailing religion during that time found reason to terminate.

 

[Coyote]

I have been posting here but rarely. I even walked away for a while. Recent events have made me understand my culture and faith on a higher level. I am a Jew, a son of parents whose parents fought the Nazis in the old Soviet Union. I lost a vast amount of my ancestors to WW2 and the Holocaust. There are very few of us left in the world. The vitriol against Jews remains high. With my kids ready for college, I cannot have them be under fire because of the hatred. We saw on our college campuses how most colleges took the side of protesters and even told Jewish students to study remotely. They cancelled graduations. They appeased those who would call for the end of Israel and for blatant antisemitism.

What unified both the far left and far right is their hatred of Jews. I get it form the Left. They see Jews as wealthy oppressors and white. That to them means evil. I see it from the Nazi alt right too. They want Hitler to finish what he started. What was troubling is that the moderates began to hate too.

Why?

Then it came to me. We bring this upon ourselves. People like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Chuck Schumer, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Alejandro Mayorkas (yes he is a Jew), etc.

Let’s take Schiff for example. He bashed Hur for calling Biden a senile old man only to now ask Biden to step down because, well he is a senile old man. Why? Their lies were exposed. Schiff always knew this but lied to the American people. This feeds into the hateful narrative that Jews are deceitful.

Many, hell most Jews still vote Democrat despite the party overtly telling us they don’t want our vote just our money.

The faith is no longer with me. I ll pretend while my parents are still here. But once they are gone, so goes my faith and allegiance to Judaism. Same for my kids.

We are all walking away.

I share this here because despite all the hate this site has, it also has honesty and I respect that.

Writing this will likely result in some posts slamming me. And that’s fine. Actually therapeutic. In the end while I despise low life antisemites, I have to admit that I despise Democrat Jews equally.

Its time to leave the faith.

Thank you for reading.

I just read this…but I’m curious. It sounds like you are allowing transient political situations to control your faith?

 

[rosends]

Fo you have a case involving abortion!?
This was a case about a divorced couple following an attempt at IVF

Facts: Ruth and Daniel Nahmani, a married couple, were unable to have a child because of an operation that Ruth underwent. They therefore decided to try in-vitro fertilization of Ruth’s ova with Daniel‟s sperm, with a view to implanting the fertilized ova in a surrogate mother.

If you had looked at the section I directed you to, you would have seen this

"A woman is entitled — in certain circumstances — to have an abortion. She does not need her husband’s consent, and she may do it notwithstanding his opposition. The right of a woman to her own body is what gives her the freedom to terminate a pregnancy without the husband’s consent (CA 413/80 A v. B [2] supra. See also C. Shalev, ‘A Man’s Right to be Equal: The Abortion Issue’, 18 Isr. L. Rev., 1983, 381). "

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I just read this…but I’m curious. It sounds like you are allowing transient political situations to control your faith?

Yeah. Lisa and co talked me off the ledge.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah. Lisa and co talked me off the ledge.

Ah, ok…I read the OP but tbe thread was waaaay too long to read the in between. Glad to hear it. Faith should not be bound by. Politics