“The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them.That’s the essence of inhumanity.”

-George Bernard Show

The virologist came into the laboratory of biohazard level IV. He is an expert who works with the most dangerous viruses and he is aware of the risk of being infected by some of the deadliest pathogens ever.However,  he doesn’t give up to deal with the invisible killers and to try to stop them. For days. For months. For decades.Humans vs. nature, life vs. death. People are looking for an eternal life on the Earth, nature proves us wrong each time when sends some new disease or reminds us how powerless we are to protect ourselves from its anger.


Our scientist works on Ebola virus and he is  searching for a cure. Every morning when John comes  into laboratory, he is hoping to see that his patients are getting better. Unfortunately, the number of   rhesus macaques monkeys is reduced. Some survive but majority die.This is a typical image of daily routine in many global laboratories, especially in the  USAMRIID and the National Microbiology Laboratory of the Public Health Agency of Canada in Winnipeg which are experimenting on triple monoclonal antibody called ZMapp that could possibly defeat Ebola virus. The problem is not the attempts of science to win the biological threats to human race but the absence of any ethic when it comes to the laboratory testing and experiment projects on other living beings. The cruelty behind the controversial animal testing:“More than 100 million animals suffer and die in the U.S. every year in cruel chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests as well as in medical training, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments at universities.   Animals also suffer and die in classroom biology experiments and dissection , even though modern non-animal tests have repeatedly been shown to have more educational value, save teachers time, and save schools money. Exact numbers aren’t available because mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—who make up more than 99 percent of animals used in experiments—are not covered by even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted.Examples of animal tests include forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding dogs pesticides, and dripping corrosive chemicals into rabbits’ sensitive eyes. Even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to consumers. Conversely, just because a product was shown to be safe in animals does not guarantee that it will be safe to use in humans.”


It seems that the most problematic is the cosmetic industry in which are abused the millions of innocent animals just to prove that some lipstick is safe for women or some perfume is not harmful. At the end of the day, animals don’t smoke and don’t take drugs, do not use make up and do not drink alcohol, but they are exploited for those who do that and their lives mean nothing on he table of human calculation. The disturbing fact about the animal testing is not only the high expenses of research but also the long timeline and the potential failure on the humans because the humans and nonhumans definitely do not share the same genetic code and the same level of resistance or ability to adopt or to refuse something which should be considered as medicament. The world is fighting the big battle about this issue and the positive thing is that Europe, known as the  world’s largest cosmetic market,Israel and India have already banned all animal testing for cosmetics as well as the sale, distribution or import of animal-tested beauty products. I would say this is a victory of pet-friendly associations and I am sure they are doing a great job in the U.S. too but where is a big profit interest, there is usually a big ignorance about the damage they make or they will cause in the future.


If we open the statistics books of animal testing, we will be shocked about the high number of animals sacrificed for nothing. It is a truth that science can not make steps forward without testing and experimenting, but there are so many debates about the quality of animal testing for purpose of human benefits. Even the scientists claim that the research of animals is failing in 90% of human case studies. The logic says: 115 millions of animals are killed every year just  for 10% of progress in science. That is not only  morally unjust but that has about 450 alternatives and non-animal testing options, which wont cost taxpayers so much and which will offer more success when it comes to the area of homo sapiens problems. The top 10 animal testing countries in the world are the following:the USA, Japan, China, Australia, France, Canada, the UK, Germany, Taiwan and Brazil.


The most irritating situation is currently in the US because the state and the private laboratories are racing about leading the researches and to invent the final drug which will be highly effective and properly praised with dollars. The efforts must include the animal testing because they are not so familiar with non-harmful methods:“Animals are also used in toxicity tests conducted as part of massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded by U.S. taxpayers’ money. The Environmental Protection Agency, The Food and Drug Administration, The National Toxicology Program and the U.S.Department of Agriculture are just a few of the government agencies that subject animals to crude, painful tests.  The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and generous donors on animal experiments at universities and private laboratories instead of on promising clinical, in vitro, epidemiological, and other non-animal studies that are actually relevant to humans.”


On the other side, the EU is decreasing the level of animal testing but according to data from 2011, France, Germany and the UK are still the top 3 users of animals in medical experiments. The report from the same year informed that in testing were used 17,896 dogs, 3,713 cats, 358,213 rabbits, 6,686 horses, 6,095 monkeys, 675,065 birds, 77,280 pigs, 28,892 sheep, 30,914 cattle, over 1,000,000 fish and over 8,500,000 rodents. The scale is going down in last years, at least because of banning of animal testing for the purpose of cosmetic industry but clinical researches do not think of excluding the living animals from the testing platforms.



The ironic is that most of the drug’s researches show the inability of animals to perform the features of human immune system and the justification that killing monkeys for the sake of human’s survival of Ebola is nothing but  masquerade.  First, not all primates are the same and second, there are non-animal studies which are supposed to be relevant to human beings with their promising clinical attributes. They show more success in the long term research program and they must be taken as the priority when we talk about the experiments.


We all know that majority of laboratory animals are those taken from shelters and captivity sectors, but the ethical background of the whole process is everything but not ethic. Someone would suggest serial killers, mass murderers and  child rapists for this research program. They are the pests of the society and they will never be rehabilitated but they do have the characteristics of humans, at least in organic way. That is also not an ethical choice and we are not here to judge anyone about anything but to save our souls and to stand up for voiceless. Animals are not the slaves of humans, they have the equal rights to be on this Planet and to live their lives. What if some predators from the space come here and adopt our pattern of thinking? Who is the strongest is one who is killing all. We would be erased in one day as humans. That would be karma. Nothing more, nothing less. Animal testing in 21st century is proof that science is lazy to search and implement other techniques. It teaches us that we have nothing to teach our children, especially not about humanity and morals. We will maybe find cures against Ebola or cancer but we will be anyway dead, as thinking animals that have never understood the reason of life.



  1. Thank you so much, Sarah, for being the voice of the voiceless! You are an ambassador for those poor and defenseless animals!

    You are making a very good point as to why the usage of experimentation on animals should be abandoned. First, experimenting on animals for makeup testing is totally unjustifiable not to mention cruel. Second, and most importantly, you are bringing to light the existence of other methods of testing without the need to resort to animal testing and all the cruelty attached thereto.

    It is time our society became more humane and totally stopped testing on animals. I love the “alien” example you used to explain your point. I have used the same example over the years to explain why people should become vegetarian or vegan. I don’t believe that “humans ” would find it just if aliens, with better technology, came to planet earth, conquered it and started eating humans because they taste good. Nor would “humans” find it fair if those aliens started testing on them because they are inferior!

    Should this happen one day, it would be karma at its best! I hope that humans will learn before it’s too late !

    Thank you again for this very well-written and enriching article!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. In the context of human nature, it was inevitable that the worst aspects of the human psyche (e.g. noxious ignorance, primitive violent impulse and detrimental self-preservation) would be applied to the history of humans trying to predominate and control Nature. Again and again, scientists have come forward to declare their ‘error’ in committing themselves to this course of attempted management (e.g. Professor Oppenheimer), but if one scientist becomes conscientious, one thousand and more are ready to replace him/her… As long as Commerce dictates to how and why Science evolves, there can be no reformation, and animals will continue to be in the front line of this merciless and meaningless slaughter (i.e. humans are not really worth preserving as they are – the animals die to preserve a worthless species).

    The history of animal testing reaches back to the writings of the ancient Greeks in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, with Aristotle (384–322 BCE) and Erasistratus (304–258 BCE) among the first to perform experiments on living animals. Galen, a physician in 2nd-century CE Rome, dissected pigs and goats, and is known as the Father of Vivisection. Avenzoar, an Arabian physician in 12th-century Moorish Spain who also practiced dissection, introduced animal testing as an experimental method of testing surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.

    In the 1660s, the physicist Robert Boyle conducted many experiments with a pump to investigate the effects of rarefied air. He listed two experiments on living animals: Experiment 40, which tested the ability of insects to fly under reduced air pressure, and the dramatic Experiment 41, which demonstrated the reliance of living creatures on the air for their survival. Boyle conducted numerous trials during which he placed a large variety of different animals, including birds, mice, eels, snails and flies, in the vessel of the pump and studied their reactions as the air was removed.

    In the 18th century, Antoine Lavoisier decided to use a guinea pig in a calorimeter because he wanted to prove that respiration was a form of combustion.

    In 1921, Otto Loewi provided the first substantial evidence that neuronal communication with target cells occurred via chemical synapses. He extracted two hearts from frogs and left them beating in an ionic bath.

    In the 1960s, David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel demonstrated the macro columnar organization of visual areas in cats and monkeys, and provided physiological evidence for the critical period for the development of disparity sensitivity in vision (i.e.: the main cue for depth perception), and were awarded a Nobel Prize for their work.

    During the 1950s and 1960s, the USSR used dogs for sub-orbital and orbital space flights to determine whether human spaceflight was feasible. In this period, the Soviet Union launched missions with passenger slots for at least 57 dogs. The number of dogs in space is smaller, as some dogs flew more than once. Most survived; the few that died were lost mostly through technical failures, according to the parameters of the test. A notable exception is Laika, the first dog to be sent into orbit, whose death was expected from the outset.

    Before humans went into space, several other animals were launched into space, including numerous other primates, so that scientists could investigate the biological effects of space travel. The US-government launched flights containing primate cargo primarily between 1948-1961 with one flight in 1969 and one in 1985. France launched two monkey-carrying flights in 1967. The Soviet Union and Russia launched monkeys between 1983 and 1996. Most primates were anesthetized before lift-off. Overall thirty-two monkeys flew in the space program; none flew more than once.

    Sarah’s article is one that should be included in the course curriculum of all medical undergraduates (i.e. The Hippocratic Oath should include animals – First No Harm) and in the journals of scientific research (R&D institutes) across the world: either humans stop living life on Earth without logic and common sense, or they continue on the path of imminent self-destruction. The question is, if this occurs, can Nature reclaim itself and regenerate life on Earth, as it did after the asteroid impact of 65 million years ago? The Earth does not heed humans, but humans need the Earth…

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Wow, fantastic blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?
    you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is magnificent,
    let alone the content!



    IN GERMANY 1936
    The German Supreme Court refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as legal “persons”. From that point on they had no rights or protection under the German Constitution. Shortly thereafter the Nazis began their “final Solution” – putting over 6,000,000 Jews to death.


    “The sub-human, that biologically seemingly complete creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than an animal… For all that bare a human face are not equal. (Pamphlet published by the Race Settlement Main Office, Germany, 1942)


    “The Jew was always only a parasite in the body of other peoples.” (Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 419.)


    “It had nothing to do with humanity, it couldn’t have; it was a mass – a mass of rotting flesh.” Franz Stangl, Treblinka commandant explaining how he viewed his part in the destruction of almost 1,000,000 men, women and children. (In interview with author Gitta Serenny which later appeared in the book Into That Darkness: An Examination of Conscience (1983).


    An official Nazi report of the fate of 15,000 Jewish women and children killed in the area of Serbia in mobile gas vans was discovered. Jews were locked up in the air-tight rear container while exhaust fumes from the truck’s engine were fed in to suffocate them. The report simply stated that they had been “evacuated to the East”, just one more in a long list of euphemisms for “killed”.


    To left the concentration camp experiments Dr. August Hirt supplied this rational, “These condemned men will at least make themselves useful,” he said. “Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to execute them and send their bodies to the crematory oven without giving them an opportunity to contribute to the progress of society.”
    (Aziz, Doctor of Death, 3, 305)

    IN AMERICA1973
    The U.S. Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision ruled that unborn babies are not legal “persons”. From that point on they have had no rights or protection under our constitution. Since that decision, over 45,000,000 babies have been put to death by abortion in this country.


    “Fetuses, especially those as old as five or six months, elicit our sympathy… because they look disconcertingly like people… But, this sympathy is misplaced… While [it] may, perhaps, possess some flickering of sensation, or some capacity to feel pain, this is equally true… of creatures like fish or insects… a proper respect for the right to life requires that it not be respected where it does not exist.” (Commentary on “Can The Fetus Be An Organ Farm?”)


    “A woman would have the right to abortion just as she has a right to remove any parasitic growth from her body.” (Gloria Steinman, author and feminist leader, on CNN, Sept. 9, 1981.)


    “What is aborted is a protoplasmic mass and not a real, live, grown up individual.” This statement was made by Drs. J.F. McDermott and W.F. Char in an effort to pacify nurses at a Hawaiian hospital when they became extremely upset by “dead fetuses and pieces of limbs, fingernails and hair” in the operating room.” (Sereny, Into that Darkness, p. 201.)


    Between 1970 and 1977, California millionaire-abortionist Dr. Edward Allred was personally responsible for destroying 35,000 human lives before birth, including some 7,000 mid-trimester abortions by salt poisoning. When asked by a reporter what happens in an abortion, Dr. Allred said: “the contents are evacuated.” (Assignment Life, New Liberty Films)


    In 1980, Dr. Martti Kekomaki justified conduction experiments involving slicing open the stomachs and cutting off the heads of live late term aborted babies, “An aborted baby is just garbage and that’s where it ends up,” he declared, “Why not make use of it for society?” (National Examiner, 8-19-80 pp. 20-21.)


    Not everything a government allows is moral, ethical, or right. Sixty years ago the Nazis tried to change reality by changing words. With new words, they were able to put 6,000,000 Jews to death. With new words, we in America are killing our unborn at nearly the same rate that Hitler killed Jews – only we have killed 45,000,000 in our brazen efforts to exterminate unwanted babies.
    Judge for yourself. Are we killing babies? Or is this just some unwanted piece of garbage? Reality cannot be changed because we call abortion a “choice” or if we make the debate about “woman’s rights” instead of what it really is.


    1. In the Suction-Aspiration method, the cervical muscle ring must be paralyzed and stretched open. The abortionist then inserts a hollow plastic tube with a knife-like edge into the uterus. The suction tears the baby’s body into pieces. The placenta is cut from the uterine wall and everything is sucked into a bottle.

    2. RU-486 abortions are done after the mother misses her period. It can be used up to the second month of pregnancy. It works by blocking progesterone, a crucial hormone during pregnancy. Without it, the uterine lining does not provide food, fluid and oxygen to the tiny developing baby. The baby cannot survive. A second drug is then given that stimulates the uterus to contract and the baby is expelled.

    3. Prostaglandin is a hormone that induces abortion in mid to late term pregnancies. The baby usually dies from the trauma of the delivery. However, if the baby is old enough, it is born alive. This is called a “complication.” To prevent this, some abortionists use ultrasound to guide them as they inject a drug that kills the fetus into the unborn baby’s heart. Prostaglandin is then administered and a dead baby is delivered.

    4. Dilatation & Curettage (D & C). This is similar to a suction procedure except a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife, is inserted into the uterus at 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy. The baby and placenta are cut into pieces and scraped out into a basin. Bleeding is usually very heavy with this method.

    5. Dilatation & Evacuation (D & E) is done after the 3rd month. The cervix must be dilated before the abortion. Usually Laminaria sticks are inserted into the cervix. These are made of seaweed that is compressed into thin sticks. When inserted, they absorb moisture and expand, thus enlarging the cervix. A pliers-like instrument is inserted through the cervix into the uterus. The abortionist then seizes a leg, arm or other part of the baby and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the body. This continues until only the head remains. Finally the skull is crushed and pulled out. The nurse must then reassemble the body parts to be sure that all of them were removed.

    6. Partial Birth Abortion or Dilatation & Extraction (D & X). This abortion is also used on mid and late term babies, from 4 to 9 months gestation. Ultrasound is used to identify how the unborn baby is facing in the womb. The abortionist inserts forceps through the cervical canal into the uterus and grasps one of the baby’s legs, positioning the baby feet first, face down (breech position). The child’s body is then pulled out of the birth canal except for the head, which is too large to pass through the cervix. The baby is alive, and probably kicking and flailing his legs and arms. The abortionist hooks his fingers over the baby’s shoulders, holding the woman’s cervix away from the baby’s neck. He then jams blunt tipped surgical scissors into the base of the skull and spreads the tips apart to enlarge the wound. A suction catheter is inserted into the baby’s skull and the brain is sucked out. The skull collapses and the baby’s head passes easily through the cervix.
    What do you think?
    Do you see these aborted babies as “masses of tissue”, “sub-human” or a “parasitic growths”?
    Or do you see human beings whose lives have been tragically and violently ended?

    by Roger Price
    February 1, 2013
    That different Jews have disparate views is not news. What is news is when most Jews agree on a particular idea or approach. And so it is with the curious consensus of Jews on abortion.

    In mid-2012, the Public Religion Research Institute (“PRRI”) published its findings from a 2012 survey of Jewish values (the “Jewish Values Survey”). The survey sought to measure the opinions of American Jews on a wide variety of political and economic issues, as well as with respect to certain religious beliefs and practices.

    While Jews varied considerably in their views of a wide range of topics, on one – abortion – they were not only reasonably cohesive in their attitude, but strikingly different from other groups. Given the emphasis in the Jewish tradition on valuing life, on equating the preservation of one life with the preservation of a world and, conversely, the destruction of one life as the destruction of the world (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5), this result, on its face, seems as anomalous as it is clear.

    First, let’s look at the PRRI data. Essentially regardless of denominational affiliation or demographics, American Jews think abortion should be legal in all (49%) or almost all (44%) cases. That is, fully 93% of all American Jews support legalized abortion in some fashion. Even political leanings, while influential, are not determinative. Among Jewish Democrats support is 95%, but 77% of Jewish Republicans also favor legalized abortion in all or most cases, far exceeding the rate of other groups studied.

    The comparable numbers for other faith groups is quite different not only in their overall support or opposition to legalized abortion, but in the internal differences within each group. Jews are the only group surveyed in which a plurality support abortion in all cases. While about half of all Jews support abortion in all cases, in no other faith group does such support exceed 25% of the population. Moreover, in comparison to the 93% total of Jews who support legalized abortion in all or most cases, the only other group surveyed that showed clear majority support for legalized abortion was white mainline Protestants (59%). The comparable numbers for black Protestants and Catholics are 50% and 48%. Just one-third of white evangelicals support abortion in all or most situations.

    Moreover, while the survey found that just 6% of Jews oppose legalized abortion in most cases and 1% did in all cases, the other groups surveyed were much more diverse in their views. For instance, while 19% of Catholics thought abortion should be illegal in all cases, 31% said only in most cases. Similarly, 21% of white evangelicals opposed legal abortion in all cases, but 44% only opposed it in most cases.

    So, why are Jews so much different from others on this issue? Is there something in the Jewish tradition which leads inexorably to the overwhelming consensus most Jews have reached?

    The Torah itself, indeed the entire Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), is silent on the topic of abortion. A passage in the Torah, however, does reflect a biblical view of a fetus. The passage concerns an injury to a pregnant woman which causes a miscarriage of her fetus. The Torah states that such conduct warrants financial compensation but nothing greater, specifically not the same penalty that would be imposed for murder. (See Exodus. 21:22-23.) In other words, this passage considers the fetus as not fully a nefesh, a person, and more akin to personal property.

    When the ancient sages talked about abortion, they did so in the context of the knowledge of their day and with at least one eye on the Bible. Consequently, as a matter of principle, abortion was generally prohibited because, for example, it destroyed something created in God’s image (see Genesis. 1:26-27; 9:6), and that destruction was also contrary to the first commandment, to populate the world (see Genesis. 1:28).

    At the same time, the sages’ understanding of fetal development was quite limited. Within the first forty days of pregnancy, they thought the mother to be carrying “mere fluid.” (See BT Yevamot 69b.) In later stages of pregnancy, they viewed the fetus as a part of the mother like a limb or appendage of the mother. (See, e.g., BT Gittin 23b.)

    By the middle ages, essentially two positions existed. The great commentator Rashi (1040-1105 CE) accepted the principle that the fetus was not a person. The philosopher and physician Maimonides (1135-1204 CE), took a different view, though. When considering a threat to the mother’s life from a fetus, Rambam analogized the fetus to a rodef, or pursuer, for whom one was not to have pity. Abortion was justified, even though the fetus was of high value, because the fetus was characterized an active endangerment to the mother.
    The position of contemporary American Jewish leaders is remarkably, although not entirely, uniform. In responsa, resolutions and other literature and statements, non-orthodox rabbis express a reverence for the sanctity of life, reaffirm the traditional Jewish belief that personhood, and the rights attendant to it, begin at birth, not conception, and support the “right” of a woman to choose an abortion, not on demand or for trivial reasons, but in cases where, for instance, continuation of a pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm.

    The issue of abortion in the Orthodox community is hotly debated, indeed seen by some almost as a litmus test of one’s commitment to Modern Orthodoxy or, alternatively, to a pre-modern, culturally conservative orthodoxy. The latter tends to hold that abortion is permissible only where the danger to the mother’s life is clear and direct and generally forbidden otherwise. But there are exceptions. And one can even find rulings of respected Orthodox rabbis permitting abortions in cases of substantial emotional difficulty such as when the expectant mother becomes suicidal or when pregnancy is the result of adultery.

    Consequently, while it is clear that for over two thousand years, Judaism has understood (1) personhood begins at birth and not conception and (2) that the life of a mother supersedes that of a fetus which threatens that mother, the notion reportedly expressed by roughly half of American Jews that abortion should be permissible in all cases is absolutely unwarranted by Jewish tradition and values, whether filtered through an Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist or Reform lens. For instance, and without limitation, abortion for purposes of gender selection, convenience or purely economic reasons, especially at any time in gestation, is not defensible Jewishly.

    To be clear, the 2012 Jewish Values Survey did not describe the reason(s) for the hypothetical abortion being considered. Consequently, it is not even clear that a majority of American Jews really do approve of abortion in “most” cases, though they surely do in many cases. To the extent the view of American Jews on abortion is premised on the argument that abortions are not properly the subject of criminal laws, that view finds stronger support in the Jewish tradition.

    At the same time, we have knowledge and tools and insights today that the ancient sages surely lacked. We know how a fertilized human egg develops from zygote to embryo to fetus and then, on birth, to a baby. We know, for instance, that by the fourth week of pregnancy, in an embryo barely one-twenty-fifth of an inch long, the embryo’s brain and spinal cord and its heart have begun to form, and arm and leg buds have appeared. Within two weeks, the heart starts to beat, blood to flow, and the embryo is the size of a lentil, maybe a quarter of an inch long. Brain activity commences. By the end of the eighth week, all essential organs and external body structures, including eyes and eyelids, have begun to form. The embryo is about an inch long, but still weighs less than one-eighth of an ounce.

    The fetal stage begins after week eight. In an uneventful pregnancy, the fetus will grow to about three inches and almost an ounce at week twelve and to four to five inches and almost three ounces at week sixteen. A translucent skin begins to form and the fetus can make sucking motions. If you want to read detailed descriptions or see images of fetal development, they are readily available.

    Moreover, we also know today, and really only recently, that while only one-fifth to one-third of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, by week 24 fifty percent or more do. By week 26, over ninety percent of babies born prematurely can survive.

    Science can and should inform the discussion in the Jewish community way more than it does. Among other things, science teaches that an embryo in its first forty days is more than “mere fluid.” No, the embryo is not at all viable at that stage, but to deny that it is alive and might, without interference, emerge someday is at best disingenuous.

    Similarly, science teaches that a fetus throughout pregnancy is neither a “mere limb” of its mother nor a pursuer. Through sonograms in the first trimester of pregnancy we can literally see the shape and specific features of a fetus. We can see its head, monitor its heart beating. What we cannot do – or ought not do – is deny its essence. Assuming viability, an abortion not related to saving a mother’s life cannot fairly be analogized to ridding one’s self of personal property or amputating one’s limb. Nor, although a fetus may well be the direct or indirect cause of a mother’s life-threatening condition, is it accurate to say that the fetus is a “pursuer.” There is no evidence, and really never was in Rambam’s day either, that the fetus possessed the capacity to form an intention to kill its mother or, indeed, do any harm.

    Yet, to acknowledge that life is present and that Jewish tradition is based on archaic concepts is not to conclude the inquiry. Science cannot, for example, extinguish the rape or incest that may have caused the pregnancy. In short, medical science is informative, but not dispositive of the questions to be considered with respect to abortion.

    In fact, modern medical science perhaps raises more questions than it answers. For instance, just as it can provide information that make the fetus appear to look more like a baby, today medical science can also tell us if that potential child is afflicted with a serious defect or disease. Today the human genome has been mapped, and many of us can get tested for genetic anomalies at relatively nominal cost. What do we do with the information we learn? If we find that a female fetus has a mutation on either gene BRCA 1 on chromosome 17 or on BRCA 2 on chromosome 13, and therefore has a statistically significantly greater likelihood of developing breast cancer than a mutation free female, what then? What about a finding of a mutation of the ApoE gene on chromosome 19, which suggests an increased chance of Alzheimer’s after age sixty? What of the literally dozens of diseases that affect groups of Jews disproportionately, from ataxia-telangiectasia to Werner syndrome? We have only just begun to have a discussion about the need to have a discussion about these issues.

    Dennis Prager sees the approach of American Jews to abortion as a matter of “moral disappointment,” but also as part of the substitution of “leftism” for Judaism. Prager’s frustration with American Jewry on abortion is understandable, but his argument is not persuasive. Whatever he may mean by “leftism,” it seems hard to sustain that assertion when the statistics indicate that 93% of the group is on one side of the issue. That is, if almost everyone is on the “left,” then there is no “left” anymore, or “right” for that matter. Invoking the left/right dichotomy is generally not very helpful or productive on political matters. On issues as knotty as abortion, it is next to useless.

    And Prager’s suggestion that one can be pro-choice, i.e., anti-criminalization of abortion, and still recognize that “many abortions have no moral defense” is not on much firmer ground. He wants pro-choice Jews, “especially rabbis,” to say that they regard “most abortions” as “immoral.” But, to be polite, this approach lacks precision. How can “most abortions” be immoral if only “many abortions” have no moral defense? Exactly which cases is he referencing and what is the source of his data? What precisely does he mean by “moral” and “immoral” in this context? And why “especially” rabbis, as if (1) they have an impeccable track record on moral issues and (2) the rest of us are too obtuse to understand what’s at stake?

    The difficult challenge here is not whether to be pro-choice or pro-life. Those are false and incomplete options, especially in Judaism which is neither really pro-choice nor pro-life as those terms are commonly used today. Moreover, while American Jews are not in sync with Jewish tradition, Jewish tradition is not in sync with modern medical science. Instead of knee jerk reactions, we need nuanced reflections. We all do, rabbis and laity, physicians and patients.

    Fortunately, the biblical view on the status of the fetus is not one of those rules literally or figuratively written in stone. Nor is the tradition that developed subsequently. We remain free to struggle over how and where to draw the line we inevitably must draw when faced with situations about which we would rather not know much less contemplate and resolve. The true challenge, when considering matters of life and death, is to be cautious when others are certain, to be sensitive when others are strident, and to exercise humility when others exhibit hubris.
    Note: Another version of this post was published previously at


    Foreword — Daat Emet
    In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:

    “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”

    That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.

    For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:

    Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
    A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
    A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.
    The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
    A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
    The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
    One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
    A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
    One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
    A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
    One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
    The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
    One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbour” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
    One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”
    Gentiles are likened to animals.
    If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
    The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
    One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
    An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
    Their members (genitals) are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.

    Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought
    R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article:
    “It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
    On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.
    In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article,

    “Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written:

    “And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.



    Tzfi’a 3


    Rabbi David Bar Chaim

    Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav

    Jews are the GREATEST RACISTS in the world, and this document will proves it 100%.
    People talk about the NWO, but are ignorant of who it is who wants a NWO.

    “The mashiach [Jewish messiah] will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15)…The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come…In the Olam Ha-Ba, the whole world will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the Jewish religion as the only true religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9).”

    — From “Mashiach: The Messiah”, Judaism 101 —–

    “With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”

    — David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of the Jewish State of Israel.


    [Shalom Welcome to my website. I am Rabbi Solomon Cohen and I am happy to be your host. Please feel free to browse around the different topics that I will be discussing here by clicking on the individual tabs at the top of the page. This site is currently a work in progress and it is my hope to continue adding to it in the coming days. Kol Tuv, Rabbi Solomon Cohen]

    In the Torah it is written:

    “It shall be a jubilee unto you; and you shall return every man to his possession and you shall return every man to his family.” In the Torah, the word for תשבה, teshuva, “return” is missing the letter ו (vav), ordinarily it would be spelled תשובה. The Zohar tells us that the Torah writes teshuva without the letter vav to hint at the year when the Jewish people will return to our land from the long and bitter exile. The gematria (numerical value) of teshuva is 708 (tav = 400; shin = 300; bet = 2; vav = 6). Therefore the missing vav in the word תשבה, as written in the Torah (which equals the number 6) was a prophecy that the Jews would be allowed to return to Israel minus 6 million of our people: “You shall return minus 6 million”; while the combined numerical value of the word teshuva = 708, indicates the year of our return.

    Now you can see that the “Holocaust” was planned by Jews.


    The Treaty for War; The War Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28th June 1919 was the work of International Bankers. They took all the measures necessary to ensure the next World War. The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, wrote:

    “The international bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all to one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs. The American President, Woodrow Wilson, was “advised” at Versailles by (JEW)Bernard Baruch, The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, was “advised” by (JEW) Alfred Milner, Rothschild employee, and Sir Phillip Sassoon, a direct descendent of Mayer Amschel Rothschild,

    The French leader, Georges Clemenceau, was “advised” by his Minister for the Interior, Georges Mandel, (JEW) whose real name was Jeroboam Rothschild. The interpreter was Mantoux; and the Military Adviser was Mr. Kish. Interestingly all the advisers were Jews most of them representing International Bankers. The “leaders were hazy about geography. However, their Jewish secretaries were very much on the spot on such matters. These Jews met at 6 p.m. in the evenings to plan the next World War; and accordingly, mapped out the decisions for the following day’s conference of the “Big Four”.

    Under the War Treaty of Versailles, Poland was given a “corridor” to the Baltic Sea, along with large areas of West Prussia that were populated by Germans. This “corridor” completely separated East Prussia from the Reich, making trade and communication difficult or impossible. During Allied discussions on the peace treaty, Lloyd George, the then British Prime Minister, tapped this spot on the map and probably echoed the words of his secretary said an evening before;

    “This is where (we have planned) the next world war will begin!”

    Unknown to Hitler this was how International Bankers had planned 2nd World War to begin 20 years earlier on 28th June 1919. Under the War Treaty of Versailles, Jewish International Bankers cut Germany in several pieces and gifted it to other European Countries.

    A piece of Germany – Alsace-Lorraine was gifted to France, A piece of Germany Saar Region of Coal mines was forcibly brought under French Protectorate, A piece of Germany – Eupen, Malmedy, Moresńet, and St. Vith was gifted to Belgium, A piece of Germany – Northern Schleswig was gifted to Denmark, several pieces of Germany – Hultschin and Opava was gifted to Czechoslovakia, several pieces of Germany – West Prussia, Danzig, Posen and Upper Silesia were gifted to Poland, several pieces of Germany – Rhineland and Memel were brought under the League of Nations and people of these regions were to vote in future, to decide whether they want to remain in Germany or not. League of Nations also took control of land won by Germany under treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Some of this land was gifted to Poland and some made into new states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latavia.

    Jewish International Bankers also cut Habsburg Empire in several pieces and these pieces gifted to other nations. First it was cut into two separate countries; Austria and Hungary who then had to sign two separate treaties;- Austria was forced to sign Treaty of Saint Germain Hungary was forced to sign Treaty of Trianon Hapsburg Empire was not only cut in two but large piece is further cut out of Empire to form a totally new country Czechoslovakia. Several Pieces of Hapsburg empire i.e. Bohemia, Moravia, Opava Silesia and the western part of Duchy of Cieszyn, Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia formed the new Czechoslovakia. Several Pieces of Austria i.e. Galicia, eastern part of Duchy of Cieszyn, northern County of Orava and northern Spisz were gifted to Poland. Several Pieces of Austria – Bolzano-Bozen and Trieste were gifted to Italy. Several pieces of Hungary – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, and Vojvodina were gifted to Serbia to form the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later Yugoslavia. (Several ethnic minorities were deliberately merged in Yugoslavia by International Bankers so that they can earn money from future wars between these ethnic minorities). Several pieces of Habsburg Empire Austria-Hungary – Transylvania and Bukovina were gifted to Romania. All states of Eastern Europe became hub of large national minorities. One eighth of German population found themselves in the newly created countries as minorities. One third of ethnic Hungarians found themselves living outside of Hungary as minorities.

    From its borders before World War I, it lost 72% of its territory, which was reduced from 325,111 square Kilometers (125,526 sq mi) to merely 93,073 square Kilometers (35,936 sq mi). It also lost 64% of its total population, which was reduced from 20.9 million to 7.6 million, and 31% (3.3 out of 10.7 million) of its ethnic Hungarians, who suddenly found themselves living outside the newly defined borders of Hungary. Hungary lost five of its ten most populous cities and was deprived of direct access to the sea and of some of its most valuable natural resources.


  6. Le persone ricche stanno beneficiando delle cure costose, ma le persone normali e i poveri stanno morendo come questi poveri animali che sono massacrati per la scienza. Questi test sono fatti per aiutare i ricchi. Viviamo in una società illusa.. che tristezza 😢


  7. I definitely wanted to make a note to be able to appreciate you for the amazing items you are posting on this site. My incredibly long internet research has at the end been honored with pleasant suggestions to write about with my friends. I would tell you that we visitors are really blessed to dwell in a fantastic place with very many perfect individuals with useful plans. I feel extremely lucky to have used your entire webpage and look forward to many more thrilling moments reading here. Thanks again for everything.


  8. This design is steller! You certainly know how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Fantastic job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!


  9. Thanks for your valuable post. In recent times, I have been able to understand that the particular symptoms of mesothelioma are caused by a build up of fluid between lining of your lung and the upper body cavity. The condition may start within the chest place and propagate to other areas of the body. Other symptoms of pleural mesothelioma cancer include fat reduction, severe inhaling trouble, vomiting, difficulty eating, and puffiness of the face and neck areas. It ought to be noted that some people having the disease never experience any serious symptoms at all.


  10. Very good blog! Do you have any hints for aspiring writers? I’m hoping to start my own blog soon but I’m a little lost on everything. Would you recommend starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? There are so many choices out there that I’m totally overwhelmed .. Any suggestions? Thank you!


  11. Have you ever considered about including a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is valuable and everything. Nevertheless think of if you added some great visuals or video clips to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with images and video clips, this blog could definitely be one of the greatest in its field. Very good blog!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

About Sarahowlgirl1982

I am a master of Political Sciences, with special focus on Security Studies, Islamic Counter Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction. I enjoy discovering and commenting things which are " in the air" but still not spoken.I also do like science writing and planing to move myself into the pure science journalism !