…may be of-interest, based on having only acquired the audio.

First, I can’t find the Kansas straw-poll data on the Internet; please advise.

Second, I am “multiple choice” and Jewish, so some of you may find my reaction to reflect that of the non-Evangelical crowd.

Third, pivotal was the absence of Romney/Huntsman; if nothing else, they all acquitted themselves so well that a certain unanimity could emerge: NO ONE who ABSENTED himself should earn ANY support.

Fourth Luntz was sharp, start to finish; it elevates my assessment of his assessments throughout [although I still think he's been too hard on Perry on FNC, details deferred].

Fifth, I think Luntz slapped-down Perry ever-so-slightly when he acquired a fast-take on a part-time Congress [after Luntz had done him the favor of acquiring an audience reaction to his proposal for Federal judge term-limits]; the positive reaction was followed by a reactive offer: “You be pollster for a day if I can be governor for a day.” [This could be interpretable as "don't step on my turf, particularly after I had just done you a favor."] This was the only overstep, as I heard it, and the exuberance of the 2+ hour experience was otherwise shared genuinely by all.

Sixth, there was much to learn, some of which I knew and had reinforced [particularly related to the subject-matter jurisdiction limit discussion]; attacking the 9th District was predictable and came-off smoothly.

Seventh, the most fascinating insight available emerged from Santorum, when he discussed how he had duped himself regarding Trisomy-18; this is an object-lesson for us all ["I didn't want to love her because then her loss wouldn't be so bad."]. Cynics would advise him to apply this self-awareness to a potential over-commitment to campaigning, but I prefer to view it at face-value; he is a FAR GREATER MAN for having shared that deep-emotion.

Eighth, this compares/contrasts with Cain’s predictable reaction to the cancer-diagnosis; it was real, assuredly, but it would have been preferable had he deviated ever-so-slightly from his personal-narrative. As a medical oncologist, I may be perceived as a bit calloused in this regard, but it may have been more moving/revealing had he discussed how his personal struggles been affected–for example–by his self-perception of having been away from child-rearing for excessive time-stretches.

Ninth, although The Newt was the predictable orator, Michele consistently strung-together words, built words into sentences, invoked sentences to yield paragraphs…seamlessly. She demonstrated, perhaps more than the others, that she had pondered these forces throughout her life…AND that she had weighed them when dealing with policies [such as ObamaCare].

Tenth, the differences among the candidates [including Paul, thankfully] were negligible [and I don't conclude this because of any subliminal effort to avoid leaving Perry in the dust]. In the aggregate, I listened to a set of high-level potential-evangelists perform a high-wire act of self-revelation and consumer-education.

Without attempting to appear emphemistic, I would conclude that “a good time was had by all!”

…a thought comes to mind.

Remember how we have always found it wise to avoid taking ourselves too seriously?

I shared your sentiments, and I still adore Perry [notwithstanding any perceived emphasis on Christianity that pervaded the experience].

But I greatly appreciated learning more about them, for the following reason:

The key-conclusion that can be generated–on some level–is that they all had the capacity/bravery BOTH to “show up” and to “show candor”in this setting.

AND THIS makes it just a bit easier to accept any of them,, should Perry not be the nominee, because they all demonstrated inner-ethics that would contrast dramatically with whatever BHO might ever reveal. Note how all of them were comfortable interweaving religious philosophy with political advocacy…all within the realm of constitutional limited-government. Granted, each had his/her “take” [Perry on federalism, for example], but the aggregate effect was one big love-fest.

So, WCP, perhaps I react because I wasn’t trying to subject my political beliefs to scrutiny in this forum; in many respects, the “Grading System” best employed was “pass/fail”!

And they all “passed” with shining colors!

[Now, about that the thoroughness of the ongoing RedState vetting, we really must resume our efforts to focus on The Newt....]

…based on two key components of what transpired.

FIRST, it was recognized that Paul [whom we mostly detest due to his foreign policy neo-isolationism] had only received 89 seconds during the CBS-debate last week [during the first-hour, noting that the follow-up half-hour was difficult to absorb without interruptions via the Internet...via either access-site].

The effect of this fact is that the presumed intent to be “fair” has been dashed statistically; unless they all were to be stop-watched and equalized starting an hour into the event, the time-limits were a subterfuge.

SECOND, Luntz having invited the OWS-crasher to speak for an extended-period showed wisdom-incarnate. This reflects the attractiveness of spontaneity and candor…from the moderator-level. They still struck and maintained their theme, and they enjoyed the fringe-benefit of total rapture [sorry about the choice of words] from the listener [in the church and overhearing on the Internet].

The effect of this fact is to heap praise on this conversational approach [rather than merely to reinforce The Newt's clever positioning as the anti-MSM/LSM/ELM crowd-pleasing monitor].

We can still elicit comparisons/contrasts via this style and, indeed, they will predictably become less potentially-petty as a result.

…except I missed the momentary Perry -lapse; will watch the video-feed.

I didn’t mind Paul’s vignette, because you may note that he had prefaced it by observing how influential adolescent experiences prove to be, throughout life. He demonstrated having personalized a key threshold in life, regardless of its provocation [recalling what we learned from Clint Eastwood in "Magnum Force"]: “A man has to know his limitations.”

Can we all imagine how Romney would have demonstrated what we all saw Cain exude during that Milwaukee editorial-board interview?

…i’m going to provide another “take” while watching it; remember how those who listened to RMN/JFK thought the former won, but those who watched their debate saw RMN’s sweat and concluded JFK won?

For example, the reaction to the intro of Steven King [whom I once met in DC] was significantly greater than that of the other politicos.

Also, what was missing in the beginning was a rendition of “God Bless America.”

The video was great, mesmerizing even. That we got the entire “America the Beautiful” was…beautiful!

Question #1 was related to the oath-of-office ending with “so help me God.”

Paul was precise, but Cain was better; he noted both the pledge and the request for God’s help. Bachmann was wise when citing Washington’s innovation when adding this phrase, tying it into current-angst. Perry emphasized the second-half of Cain’s observation, noting the inability to function in the absence of spiritual support.

Question #2 was related to lost-values.

Santorum emphasized individual rights come from God, contrasting with Islam [when laws are automatically both religious and political]; he claimed the latter must “comport” with the former. He then portrayed his victory in 1992 as a miracle, although he claimed “God has to hit me over the head a bit harder than most others.” He was asked to cut-to-the-chase regarding what he had learned, and fixated on the positives…but never had sufficient time to address the negatives.

Gingrich would reinstill the importance of noting rights come from the Creator. “Secular” is from “Seculare” [century, in Latin] and reminds people of the need to measure actions by God’s greater plan. This was intended to counter secularity, temporal natures of some politicians.

Question #3 was related to hostility to family values.

Santorum cited his book “It takes a Family” and noted how leftists have taken control over the culture [including education]. He tried to fight this in the private sector [to help parents, using a tech-company, to stop filth from emerging from TV]. Need to reshape Hollywood is obligation for everyone; must confront challenge.

Paul noted the goal of government isn’t to mold people; it’s intended to preserve liberty [a recurrent theme in all his comments]..

Cain noted gap between those with/without faith, and also noted that those with faith have a range thereof. He lamented that those with faith have been too passive. He wants to fight-back, expressing faith without worrying about political correctness.

Question #4 was related to the fact that those who are faith-based are happy, etc.

Gingrich noted that the question answered itself; the secular-types are unhappy. He noted other authors have found comparable conclusions. [He was kidding-around with Luntz very effectively regarding who is supposed to tell the jokes around here.] He then noted the need to fight libertine when emphasizing liberty, attacking Pelosi for advocating education without values. He cited Himelfarb’s three-revolutions book in support thereof.

Perry noted “Pastors and Pews” events on 8/6/2011 ["The Response"] whereby people are encouraged to pray for America, and would want pastors to discuss values from the pulpit. He wants OUR values/virtues of Judeo-Christian America. He wants them to emphasize this over discussion of overt politics [people are smart enough to draw own conclusions]…a point that was later-on disputed. He emphasized the importance of American Exceptionalism in the process of extolling individual morals.

Paul also differentiated liberty/libertine. He tied it to economics, noting the danger of a nanny-state. Fears loss of liberty.

Bachmann notes greatest amount of censorship in America being manifest on pulpits. [This is reminiscent of Glenn Beck's Black-Robed Regiment.] He feels Blackstone is being trumped by LBJ, advocating first-amendment rights everywhere [without irs-implications].

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/danielschultz/3237/glenn_beck%E2%80%99s_black-robed_regiment/

Cain noted that people can go to another church if they don’t like what a pastor might say. He sees people intimidated on the conservative-side [noting the IRS fear] preferentially.

…First, Mitt is “HISTORY” throughout the Evangelical [and, then, by extension, the TPM] world, and not just in Iowa.

…Second, the Cain/Gingrich love-fest was a joke, except to the degree to which it emphasized the need to disband the circular-firing-squad.

[3] is down-below, sorry.

I’m now @ 1:03, and it may be recalled that there was a break after the first hour of the event [which would probably be anticipated to be @ 1:05, or so].

Will not annotate times; just want to capture concepts.

*

Question #4 probed the world-view [freedom, responsibility, morality].

Paul emphasizes freedom when he speaks with youth. You have no right to seek a nanny-state; you must face consequences.

Bachmann has biblical world-view; God created people and government [citing Isaiah] and wrote the Owner’s Manual.

Cain said “freedom without responsibility is immoral” citing “unallienable rights” and doesn’t want people to infringe upon the freedom of others [seguing to "the unborn"].

Perry noted the narrow-view of the Constitution by the Founding Fathers [and Framers], seguing into the 10th Amendment [and then education/health] and concluding with the fact that, morally, these issues are best handled @ state-level [and then re-cited the zero-based budgeting Foreign Policy point...emphasizing how Israel would pass the test...and concluded the horror of sending Billions to a China that aborts 35K babies daily]. He had started [and ended, less overtly] with his view of the General Welfare clause [Article I, Section 8].

{Comment: This was a bit more policy-laden than the other comments, but I think he was mopping-up based on points made in the debate of a week ago.}

Santorum decries “no-fault freedom” of Leftists [discussed in his book] and quoted The Newt’s corruption of the concept of liberty. It is what people ought to do, not what they might want to do. Law should comport with this moral vision, for it is a “teacher” [repeating this point from earlier discussion that compared USA with Islam]. He concluded there are absolute right/wrong [and truth].

Gingrich quoted Jefferson’s observation that people can’t be ignorant and free, and then John Smith’s admonition to aristocrats that they work for food. He then attacked the OWS [@ 1:09] culminating in a crowd-pleasing patter: “Go get a job after you take a bath.”

Cain then said The Newt had just illustrated what he [Cain] had previously said [got a good laugh].

Question #5 relates to Lincoln’s quote that States don’t have right to do wrong, alluding to nullification.

Cain said yes, if they’re wrong. {Luntz queried “who decides?”} The Constitution is the determinant. This was set high, purposefully, and had a difficult time rectifying the 3/5-rule with his portrayal thereof. He then ended-up agreeing with the need for the Feds to have protected the Civil Rights movement.

Paul said States, when wrong, are corrected by D.C.; the Constitution is a restriction on D.C. [not states or individuals]. He culminated in a desire to destroy the Education Department.

Perry added “The Energy Department too” and [when queried by Luntz about any ideas regarding a third department he'd like to cut] segued into thanking The Newt for his having written the intro to “Fed Up!” He recognized that the Constitution allows for Amendments [which can encompass social issues]. He cited Human Rights Amendment as an example of what can be adopted [albeit with difficulty, purposefully] and the states must comply. A POTUS could help campaign for virtuous efforts in this regard.

Cain cited the Individual Mandate as an example of what states could block.

{Luntz noted inability of Romney to reply to this assertion.}

Bachmann noted problem that ObamaCare trumps states.

Santorum concurred, segueing into attack on Gay Marriage [which he would aggressively oppose]. “America is an ideal, a set of morals and principles….The states can’t violate them.” Said he was only candidate who came to Iowa to oppose Justices [SCOTUS?]

{This last assertion appeared a bit out-of-place,in isolation, but the listener could surmise the thrust of his self-portrayal of social-activism.”

…and have sparked conversations simply by carting it around.

Question #11 related to personal failures.

Gingrich said he was born in Harrisburg, started as Lutheran, learned good/bad and heaven/hell. Felt increasingly hollow, the more he had accomplished. Noted that he had symptoms of alcoholism, and read books related to AA. Noted that step #2 [accepting Higher Being] was crucial [and was told that the entire system---except this one crucial component--could be adequately funded by government]. Learned human limitations as a result

Paul considers himself to be his own worst critic. {Lame.} Can’t ID any one incident, segueing into overall attitude of being gratified with life and family. He then discussed problem [discussed earlier] of effect of athletic limitations encountered as teenager. {Less lame, hearing it again.}

Cain discussed having had series of little-failures…including not having spent sufficient time with children as they grew-up. {teared again, realistically}

Perry said, “If you want to see God laugh, tell Him your plan!” [He then was introduced to Organic Chemistry...and became a pilot; he then praised his wife.]

Question #12 [from someone other than Luntz] related to Federal Marriage Amendment.

Paul supports DOMA, but that’s it; focus is on states. Wants these issues ideally dealt with via Church. {This seems illegal.} Segued into Biblical Judges [not kings, prior to entreaty of people to Samuel requesting government and rules] and loss of family control. Reductio-ad-absurdum was to surmise the UN might assume such responsibility.

Santorum again cited need to fight on state-level and drive for federal uniformity; suggested same could occur with marriage. Again cited his work as having provoked the ONLY congressional vote on this issue. Family is bedrock and, if not protected, will yield fall of America.

Bachmann concurred with need to prioritize this issue [noting her efforts as state legislator, despite death-threats]; Minnesota will have plebecite in 2012, but notes inevitability of SCOTUS having final authority in this interpretive task. Decried this, feeling that Congress should have primary control.

Cain would try to overturn any SCOTUS decision overturning DOMA.

{@2:28 is when Luntz invited Perry to comment, but then Gingrich started talking.}

Gingrich then repeated his assertion that Congress could act.

Question #13 [from a mother in the audience] related to pursuit of a “common good.”

Gingrich said Founding Fathers would have defined structure, and then people could then legislate in this area.

Perry cited Article I, Section 8 as being narrowly-defined. Public Safety is vital, but then noted failure of Feds regarding drugs entering from Mexico. THIS is what should be focus. Also sees this on an economic level [citing flat-tax, deregulation] to achieve common-good [and cited defense, as well].

Cain noted need for law-enforcement [as cited by Perry] and level playing-field [equal opportunity] and fairness/respect [Civil Rights, etc.].

…the “atmospherics” last night were not focused on probing specific policies.

“Man proposes….”

…because in both citations the crime isn’t equivalent to murder; that differentiation explicitly emerges via the Exodus penalty.

…but disagree that Jewish fealty to the D’s is not driven by abortion-issue.

Granted, we need to contend with inertia that started with FDR and was accelerated by JFK, but it’s do-able if an ounce of Zionism can be ID’ed in the target-population. Having spoken with senior-citizen D’s [notably in 2004] and having listened to Podhoretz lecture on the topic and having interacted on multiple levels with Main Line Jewesses [and their families] and having chatted candidly with D-politicos, I can assure you that this social-issue–over the years–remains a driving-force. Regretful it assuredly is, but undeniable.

Don’t worry about the Paulistas; they’ll always have their 10%-GOP-tithe….

…by citing the source.

Exodus 21:22-25
New International Version (NIV)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A22-25&version=NIV
22 ?If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman?s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Numerous efforts to soften my interpretation are available on-line…
http://www.errantskeptics.org/Exodus2122.htm
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/the-misuse-of-exodus-2122-25-by-pro-choice-advocates
http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2009/02/todays-scripture-exodus-2122-25.html
…but none of these efforts undermines the fundamental conclusion therein.

The penalty when trauma leads to pregnancy-loss is monetary; the penalty when trauma leads to maternal death is death.

None of these essays invokes the Talmudic explanations [crowning, etc.] of when a potential-life transits into life [including the built-in contradictions].

But it is not possible to explain-away this Biblical distinction.

…after one scratches the surface, even if “tribalism” is a unifying force.

Much as I’m annoyed @ Ann Coulter, citing “Godless” as an example of how this “ritual” is tied to the “religion” of secular/progressivism…correlates with the above paradigm. Hope-springs-eternal that some internal “switch” can be ID’ed and flipped, yielding some enhancement of basic enlightenment potential.

As Jews have gained economically, the $-component of the WASP-history has abated…and there’s plenty of room for the anti-Semitic label to be affixed to leaders of the D’s. The glacier is melting on all surfaces.

Illustrating how out-of-touch the ADL [for example] has been, it was noted during one of the speeches last night that Foxman has devoted ~3% of his press-releases to the Islamic etiology of anti-Semitism. Jewish institutions are reflexly D-oriented, unfortunately, except for the ZOA [and few others, such as JINSA].

In any case, if abortion isn’t THE etiology, it remains a MAJOR etiology [when tethered to related policies]. Even when people are told that the D’s are extreme while the R’s are flexible [3rd trimester, public funding, parental notification/consent, etc.], most remain intransigent.

…citing the Hammurabi Code reference, first.

“if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life”…mandates that the “VARIABLE” here is what occurs to the woman after she has been pushed/traumatized.

the CONSTANT is the fetal-loss.

THEREFORE, if the fetal-loss [which is invariably "fatal"] were to be factored-in with regard to this initial sentence, the penalty ALWAYS would be DEATH.

Because the fetal-loss–in the second instance–does not automatically yield DEATH to the pusher, that means that this component is not perceived as having constituted DEATH of a human being.

GET IT?

YES, it is true that both instances were initiated by the woman being pushed.

BUT, it is also true that both instances involve fetal-death.

*

“If the woman has a premature birth but neither she nor the fetus is harmed, the negligent batterers are still fined reckless endangerment” makes no sense as a supposition; by-definition, the “premature birth” harms the fetus.

” if there is harm to either the woman or the fetus, then the punishment of the defendants depends upon the severity of the harm” is also faulty for, again, the fetus is invariably harmed.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/culturebox/2000/08/what_do_orthodox_jews_think_about_abortion_and_why.html

Note intro…and then the “beefy” ‘graph:

“Readers of this column may have heard the Jewish joke about the rabbi who is asked to settle a dispute. After listening to one side’s argument, the rabbi declares, “You’re right!” After listening the other side’s argument, the rabbi nods and says, “You’re right, too.” His wife, who is listening, declares, exasperated, “Rabbi, this is absurd! They can’t both be right!” The rabbi sighs and replies sadly, “You’re also right!” ”

*

“Naturally, depending on where you’re disposed to end up on the abortion question, you’ll start with a different biblical text. If you’re basically willing to tolerate the practice, you’ll cite a passage in Exodus (Ex. 21:22) in which two men fight and one of them accidentally hits a pregnant woman in the belly, causing her to miscarry. If she is not harmed in any other way, the Bible says, then the man who struck her has to pay her husband damages. From this one can deduce that feticide isn’t murder, because the penalty for murder is death. Rather, removing a fetus is said to be like amputating a limb–which a woman is still not allowed to do for mere economic or cosmetic reasons, since that would be self-mutilation, which is forbidden.

“If you sternly oppose abortion, you’ll point to Genesis 9:6. This verse is more of a stretch, but by Talmudic standards, it works. It reads: “He who sheds the blood of man through man [that is, through a human court of law], shall his blood be shed.” In Biblical Hebrew, “through” can also be “in,” so one Roman-era rabbi who was probably disgusted by his country’s occupiers’ practice of experimenting on fetuses re-interpreted the phrase as saying, “He who sheds the blood of man in man [that is, kills a fetus], shall his blood be shed.” That made abortion a capital crime, but for reasons too complicated to get into here, one whose penalty can only be imposed by God, not man. (Since the rabbis all but abolished the death penalty by making it impossible to enact, saying a crime was capital didn’t have much effect anyway.)

“The one thing everybody agrees about, whether abortion resembles murder or not, is that in the case of a threat to the mother’s life, Jewish law requires you to save her rather than the fetus. (Catholics save the fetus, on the grounds that the mother bas been baptized and will go to heaven, whereas the fetus has not and is condemned to limbo, if not to hell. Jews don’t worry as much about the afterlife.)….”

Genesis seems too vague–compared with Exodus–although it must be honored.

Also, curiously, the Catholic reference is akin to a Talmudic one, in that the reason devout Jews eschew abortions is that there would be one fewer human being alive who could praise the Lord…which is a key Mitzvah.

In any case, this tutorial provided a useful reworking of how to interpret this Parasha, and just know that I’m not writing any Rx’s for the rest of the day!

…and, in this case, that entails the direct translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the version published by the Jewish Publication Society based on the Masoretic Text [1991, pp. 125-126.].

First, the intro states, “Unfortunately, the Hebrew text is replete with difficulties….”

Second, the word “miscarriage” is employed, with the footnote reading, literally, “her children emerge.”

Third, the word “damage” is viewed as referring to the potential death of the mother, per Rabbinic tradition; the reference [#55] is “MdRY Mishpatim 8, pp. 275-276; so Targums.” These abbreviations relate to “Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael. Per the below-citation, this in-turn reflects the fact that “most of the anonymous maxims in the work were derived from the same source, so that it also was known as the ‘Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael.’ ” And the Targum refers to the Arameic translation of the Torah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekhilta#Mekhilta_of_R._Ishmael
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum

Fourth, citing Numbers 35:31, it is noted that “the killing of a human being cannot be compensated for by the payment of money.”

*

Therefore, it would seem that the model I articulated and referenced is c/w this viewpoint, which is [I would attest] the mainstream interpretation of the Torah in the Jewish world [all movements], all academics].

This is abbreviative, but point #3 is particularly telling; the “damage” relates to the MOTHER [and not to the fetus].

…215=459-4877.

…if I merely “reported” what was in the book.

My interpretation is that “children” was one of the words that prompted the pronouncement that this interpretive task was “replete with difficulties.”

The word “miscarriage” is concluded NOT to be political if, indeed, the “damages” are limited to the MOTHER [as had been determined elsewhere].

Finally, I concur that the $-penalty was levied [in the former instance, v. 22] when the effects were nonlethal.

I see your viewpoint; do you see mine?

…it is notable that this discussion traverses other languages (from Hebrew to English) and doesn’t cite “Jewish” interpretive sources (relying exclusively on Christian-oriented thinkers).

I’m not decrying this fact; I’m merely noting it…and its potential impact on how the discussion evolves [particularly when compared with that in the JPS-Torah].

Instead of fixating on the character of the references, however, I want to “deliver” a “fair/balanced” presentation, recognizing that the JPS-authored compilation [which I only excerpted, albeit providing the complete reference] is assuredly not “political” [as perceived within the Jewish Community, a conclusion drawn from multiple conversations over the decades].

{If the JPS weren’t viewed as the prime repository for disparate input, I would have been the FIRST to note this accusation; its HQ is here in Philly and I have met one of the editors of one of the books in this series. It is not tethered to any one Jewish movement, and the references draw from 18 Biblical translations, per page 1776.}

To be explicit, if it is assumed that the former instance yields NO damage to the mother while the fetus COULD have died, then a $-penalty [only] would have resulted from loss of “life” [rather than "potential life"]. In this instance, therefore, abortion would not result in the “death” of “life” and, therefore, the “fetus” would not yet have assumed the status of “life.”

([{Please don't kill the messenger!)]}

…to focus on one concern ["... I fail to see how this is specifically excluded from the Masoretic text."] by distilling the point #3 [truncated]:

“The word ‘damage’ is viewed as referring to the potential death of the mother, per Rabbinic tradition articulated by Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael.?

This is the description of this document:

“A JPS classic reissue of the critical volume, based on manuscript and early editions.

“Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael is a classic collection of midrash. It contains commentary on a large part of the Book of Exodus (chapters 12 to 23) and represents the two main modes of interpretation: the halakhah (legal doctrine), and the aggadah (moral and religious teachings). The work also contains allusions to historical events and ancient legends not found elsewhere.

“A new introduction by noted scholar David Stern highlights the work, now published in a convenient two-volume set. It retains the original text from the JPS 1933 edition, reset in a modern, readable typeface, with Hebrew and English on facing pages and the original indexes.

“This classic work is widely recognized as a model of meticulous and thorough scholarship. Its translation is accurate, straightforward, and usable by scholars, students, and lay readers. Out of print for many years, it will be heralded as an important reissue that should belong to every rabbi, rabbinical school, and Jewish Studies professor, and will be an important addition to synagogue libraries and public libraries with Judaica collections.”

http://jps.org/product/9780827606784/mekhilta-de-rabbi-ishmael

*

Thus, we are dealing with Midrash ["a homiletic method of biblical exegesis. The term also refers to the whole compilation of homiletic teachings on the Bible. Midrash is a way of interpreting biblical stories that goes beyond simple distillation of religious, legal or moral teachings. It fills in many gaps left in the biblical narrative regarding events and personalities that are only hinted at."].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

This is NOT the musing of some obscure Medieval rabbi; rather, it has roots in Roman times, virtually contemporaneous with when the application of the Torah was being transformed in-writing for practical application.

*

This is viewed — by many people with whom I’ve chatted over the years — as the major reason why a pro-Choice component of Jewish thought has been promoted, notwithstanding the potentially-offsetting references cited elsewhere [rooted in the Talmudic extension of the Genesis-quote].

It would be wise for the Christian Community to accept this POSSIBILITY, ok?

…was that you consider the POSSIBILITY of this interpretation to be legitimate.

Citing the classic Jewish concept [quoted elsewhere on this site as the humorous intro to an analysis of this issue] of multiple-opinions [Hillel and Shammai initiated this type of debate], the point that must be emphasized is that this disputational approach yields greater understandings of the forces at–play.

Citing one opinion with which you disagree hardly impugns this overall approach, and the citation of these ancient writings in conjunction with interpretation of the Masoretic Text suggests some degree of homology.

And, I might add that there is particular dispute with a point you made earlier regarding whether the two lives [mother/fetus] should be treated equally if one is endangering the other. Therefore, it’s OK to have beliefs, but let’s limit the discussion here to the ability to draw documentation into the discussion, as much as possible.

Your “goring” metaphor is particularly unrealistic, for it is generally understood that the application of the Death Penalty by the Sanhedrin was non-existent. [I'll skip the accompanying aphorisms.]

There is one loose-end, here, namely the Jeremiah 1 citation.

I’ve done my part, and it may not be possible for much resolution to occur if you can’t accommodate the possibility that a differing approach can be viewed as legitimate.

…that we both agreed to disagree AND that there is some legitimacy that we both can cite to support our conclusions?

…believe it or not, I divorced my belief-system from this discussion!

…without injecting my own viewpont {which is “multiple choice”].