Challenge: Argue opposing viewpoint 2018

Saralle

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 4:05 pm

Advanced infertility treatments are not allowed according to halachah.
Many big rabbanim agree that advanced infertility treatments are against halachah. First of all, it causes zera levatala. Zera levatala is one of the worst aveiros and shouldn't be tampered with. There are many other halachic shailos that come up, such as procedures needing to be done on shabbos which is outright chillul shabbos. And it's not like it's for a choleh. It's completely voluntary, nobody dies from not having children.
Besides for all the halachic issues it brings up, there is also the issue of playing around with what Hashem wants. They say that these days "anyone can have children", and that is just not natural! Hashem made a world with rich people and poor people, and also some with large families, some with smaller families and some without children at all.If Hashem made it physically impossible for a couple to have children, they should accept it with love, and serve Hashem in a different way. They obviously have a different tafkid in life, which is no less important than raising a family.
Also, because people think doctors can do everything, they don't daven as much, and rely on the doctors instead of on Hashem.
Of course, if all the tests and treatments out there wouldn't exist, there would be much more potential for a nes. Since Hashem doesn't do open nissim for people in our generation who don't deserve it, He won't give children to couples who know it's not possible for them. But if they wouldn't be tested and therefore wouldn't know, Hashem would do this nes for them if they davened hard enough.

(Whew... this was really difficult. If my arguments sound stilted it's because I was forcing myself to write this. Hits really close to home, and Baruch Hashem this is just a game and I don't actually believe the above.)

amother

Mauve

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 4:07 pm

marina wrote:

I'll go first.

It is important to have a system of vetting people who want enter the country. Because otherwise people can take advantage of our bounty and ultimately we will not be able to be generous anymore, even to those who already live here.

Even if people claim that they are being persecuted, it is critical for us to have an organized and comprehensive system to evaluate these claims and set priorities. It is unlikely that we can extend our kindness to everyone who wants to enter and improve their lives and their children's lives so we will - inevitably - have to reject the vast majority of those who try to enter.

I'm sorry if I derail the thread, but could you please explain something to me? Are you saying that you actually think everyone who wants to enter the US should be allowed to walk on in without any vetting or checking who they are or anything like that? Because I've honestly never heard this opinion before. I thought even very liberal people think there should be some sort of checking system to make sure someone isn't a criminal. You're saying everyone should just be allowed in and go off to wherever they want in the US? No vetting anyone?

gingertop

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 4:14 pm

While it may be hard to understand why some Chassidish women don't drive, it is really consistent with a worldview that is centered around the home and a woman's inner life. Tznius is not just a dress code. It's about a life that is not about your career or your shopping or your dates with friends.

Driving may be convenient and empowering. But that very convenience and liberation is about getting out there and achievement in a man's world. It is about liberation from the "oppressive" domestic life. But if the home is to be the fulcrum of a woman's life, as in "hinei b'ohel", it shouldn't be a place just to sleep in, like a dormitory. It should be the place where things are happening.

A woman can of course have a career and a life besides for her husband and children. But what should be the focus? Everything is fleeting including the many conveniences of driving. But the relationships that a woman focuses on because that is her primary objective, are lasting. The relationship with Hashem which she develops from not being part of the rats race of today's world- that stays forever.

Taking an occasional taxi is not the same as driving. Although it might seem more untznius to drive as a passenger of man, it is really just a necessity today to somehow use some mode of transportation. While some taxi rides may be uncomfortable, it is still not comparable to the constant fast-paced life of a female driver.

Driving is simply inconsistent with a woman's raison d'etre.

Edited to remove unnecessary apostrophe.

Last edited by gingertop on Tue, Nov 27 2018, 4:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

Saralle

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 4:17 pm

sirel wrote:

Saralle, excuse me for derailing the thread, but can you post your real opinion about nursing? I'm confused.

Real opinion about nursing:

Nursing works for many (maybe even most) mothers and babies. It does not work for everyone. There are many babies who cry and cry and their mothers don't know why. Guess what? You don't have enough milk! Your baby is hungry!! Fed babies are happy babies (obviously there are exceptions to every rule)
Opening a tongue tie is a painful procedure. Your baby might not be able to nurse because of the tongue tie, but many times the procedure will not solve this problem because the baby is in pain when nursing (and once the pain goes away the association will stay in his brain)
I happen to nurse my babies, but have seen too many mothers make themselves and their poor babies CRAZY to have a strong opinion. One mother I know nearly drove herself to PPD with her nursing madness.
So when you see someone who doesn't nurse her babies, please don't judge. Maybe it makes her stain, maybe it causes continuous breast infections, and maybe it just doesn't fit with her lifestyle!
To paraphrase a very smart woman, First kill the la leche league.

edited because I had to run nurse a shrieking baby (ironic, I know) and still had what to say.

Last edited by Saralle on Tue, Nov 27 2018, 4:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

imasinger

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 4:27 pm

Marina, this is great!

It's perfectly reasonable for frum families to take money under the table so that they can go on and stay on government programs.

The importance of growing the frum population, and the Torah learning of both children and grown men is the purpose for which Hashem made the world. So, in making every possible dollar go towards Torah, frum Jews are ultimately benefiting everyone, and adding great gifts to Jews and non Jews alike, far more than if the father's went to work, and the families relied on their own income and paid taxes.

amother

Indigo

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 4:50 pm

amother wrote:

wow ima singer- I was cringing with every word you wrote but you did a good job. is that really what people believe-wow

Yep, a good percentage of the frum community believes that and much more. But this should probably be a spin-off.

Last edited by amother on Thu, Jul 11 2019, 11:29 am; edited 1 time in total

fmt4

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 4:54 pm

InnerMe wrote:

Here's a loaded one:
Printing women's pictures in magazine is actually a bad idea. Firstly, how would editors know which photos to allow and which to disallow. They'd literally have to hire another team to sift through the appropriateness of each photo. It may seem like "hey what's the big deal? Collar bone. Check. Knees. Check. Elbows. Check. No cleavage. Check." but if you think about it it's a lot more nuanced then that. For example, in a right wing magazine people may be offended by a picture of a women with a full face of makeup. Now, whose to determine whether it should or shouldn't go in?
This whole deciding process would take up way too much time and resources for already overloaded and overworked editors.

In addition, it can cause bad feelings if a picture is rejected as being not in line with the publications tznius standards. The subject may feel hurt and rejected, especially if she feels like she fits the modesty expectations of this magazine, and that is definitely not something we want should happen.

I was going to do this one!

princessleah

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 4:55 pm

People who don't believe in Medinat Yisrael should not have to go to zahal.
First of all, there are too many people in the army anyway.
Second, having a compulsory draft may border on unethical, especially if they would get enough volunteers to fully staff the military.
Finally, those who do not go to the army fulfill another purpose by learning Torah and keeping spirituality going in a different way. There has always been a Yissachar and Zevulun, and this model is based on that. Not everyone is cut out for military service, and service to Hashem or the country in other ways (e.g., sherut) is just as valuable.

sushilover

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 5:03 pm

Saralle wrote:

Reading this is so much nicer than reading the argumentative threads talking about the same things. Because nobody really believes what they're saying, they're posts are emotion-less, and therefore much more coherent. Thanks Marina Smile

I agree!
Maybe we should try that in the next argumentative thread. Ban emotions. Twisted Evil

Saralle

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 5:11 pm

smileforamile wrote:

Yep, a good percentage of the frum community believes that and much more. But this should probably be a spin-off.

Come on.. what most people who work under the table probably believe is this;

It is okay to work under the table because we have no choice. The way America is set up, the middle class is at a disadvantage. If I wouldn't work under the table I would be making too much money to get any benefits, and it's impossible to live a frum lifestyle without it. Medicaid is the biggy... I can't afford insurance. And once I'm earning under the table anyway, I might as well get everything I can, such as food stamps, section 8 and WIC.
The money is coming from the government, and they have tons of money. The government's money goes in the billions for stupid things like aid to countries you never heard of, and to pad all the politicians pockets so that they can sit around in meetings doing nothing all day.
So if I get a few hundred (or thousand) dollars it won't hurt anybody. Don't worry, nobody is feeling the lack in their pocket. You think that if I stopped making money under the table, your taxes will go down?
This way I can give tzedakah, put away money for making chasunah, and pay tuition without having a heart attack. And besides, everyone does it. The government even expects it... you can't be expected to make it on the amount we report. It's their fault that they even believe it.

(That said, I don't work under the table... the above is in the spirit of this thread.)

Ravenclaw

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 5:17 pm

Legalizing gay marriage is ridiculous. If we define marriage as two people who love each other, where will it stop? Will people begin to get marriages for friendships, or siblings if it is convenient? Marriage is and always has been about a male and female building a family together, and in that case a gay couple does not qualify. Also, by legalizing it we are promoting a culture that accepts and values immoral behavior.

Extra credit
My Opinion: people are going to live together anyways, so why does it bother you if they are legally married or not? You don’t have to do it, but why should they not be allowed to marry just because you disagree with it. It’s just a certificate and ceremony in today’s world anyway (a rose by any other name...) so why do you care if they have a joint bank account?

Answer: it is not simply about a certificate, it represents so much more. By legalizing it we are expressing approval and then there is no going back. It diminishes the value of a real marriage between a male and female, by turning it into a joke. And if all it is is a name, then why do they care so much? They can live together without it being called a marriage. We can’t start redefining words just to be politically correct.

marina

Tue, Nov 27 2018, 5:24 pm

amother wrote:

I realize that the rules allow people to articulate positions they do not believe in at all. That's fine and it is still a useful exercise in understanding your opponent.

I used this opportunity a little differently - to articulate a part of the opposing position that I *do* agree with. In short, I believe in every word I wrote here, even though I usually argue in favor of decreasing current restrictions on refugees and asylum seekers:

Quote:

It is important to have a system of vetting people who want enter the country. Because otherwise people can take advantage of our bounty and ultimately we will not be able to be generous anymore, even to those who already live here.

Even if people claim that they are being persecuted, it is critical for us to have an organized and comprehensive system to evaluate these claims and set priorities. It is unlikely that we can extend our kindness to everyone who wants to enter and improve their lives and their children's lives so we will - inevitably - have to reject the vast majority of those who try to enter.