Barbara Billauer

Abstract: Under traditional Jewish Law (halacha), assessment of human reproductive cloning (HRC) has been formulated along four lines of inquiry, which I discussed in Part I of this paper. Therein I also analyze five relevant doctrines of Talmudic Law, concluding that under with a risk-benefit analysis HRC fails to fulfill the obligation ‘to be fruitful and multiply’ and should be strictly prohibited. Here, I review of the topic from an exigetical Biblical and Kabbalistic perspective, beginning with exploring comments of the Ramban (Nachmanides) which suggest Kabbalistic insights very much in keeping with current biology. In this Part II of the paper, I expand and annotate statements of the Ramban on the interrelationship of the reproductive faculties of an organism and its soul by examining the development of the spiritual states of plant, animal and human and noting the commensurate evolution with its reproductive facilities. Speculating that the reproductive mechanism of each species is indelibly related to its soul-state, I suggest that interfering with human sexual reproduction by HRC has the same effect the Ramban argues is the result of Kilayim (interbreeding), i.e., wrecking havoc with the Universe. In Part III, I postulate a biologic explanation for warnings found in the Golemic Literature and suggest that these allude to the importance of maintaining human genetic diversity through sexual reproduction. The conclusions I reached after evaluating the propriety of HRC under a Kabbalistic/metaphysical index comports with those I reached using a traditional legal /halachic inquiry in Part I. Thus, both systems arrive at the conclusion that HRC is in violation of the divine and natural order and constitute a distinct biological threat to the survival of the human species, a conclusions in accord with current scientific thinking.

The status of abortion as murder, and therefore amenable to governmental intervention and criminalization, has been asserted by some segments of the populace. Their opponents claim a superior right of privacy exists under the Constitution, vesting in a woman the right to decide activities and actions that affect her physical corpus. Those belonging to the pro-life movement claim no Constitutional right superceede the mandate of the government to regulate violation of a societal norm - killing a fetus, which they contend enjoys the same rights as a live-born child. This article examines the earliest societal codes of conduct, cited as the predicate for the contention that murder is abhorrent to a civilized society, and hence amenable to criminalization, by extension contending this practice applies to fetucide. The article then examines the various differing positions of the major Judeo-Christian religions, only one of which regards fetucide as murder, and finally sets forth the true meaning of natural law, often raised in support of the premise that abortion is violative of the basic code of conduct of societal norm. This article suggests that while murder may be amenable to governmental regulation, this injunction pertains only killing of human beings, and then only under certain circumstances . Finally, the article demonstrates that abortion or fetucide is not considered either murder or even killing of another human by most traditions, and that the penal status of abortion as sin, rather than crime, should be left to religions determination rather than governmental intervention. In that the varying religions differ on whether abortion is considered murder, the matter falls under religious doctrine, coming under the rubric of Freedom of Religion. As such, the first amendment to the Constitution specifically would bar any legal intervention barring the practice, whether legislative or by judicial fiat.

The importance of oratory and the value of rhetoric have emerged as one of this year‘s leading campaign issues. The power of speech has been venerated by some of the greatest thinkers, from Aristotle to Miamonides, and its influence demonstrated by some of our greatest leaders - from Churchill to Roosevelt. The effects of the eloquence of Mahatama Ghandi and Abba Eban established them as great statesman, and our own history books memorialize the patriotic contributions of Jefferson (Thomas) and Jordan (Barbara) - through the power of their words and the delivery of their dreams.

Oratorical talent and the ability to forge unity and bipartisanship have been touted as important qualifications for our next president. Many assert these traits are necessary to lead us out of our current quagmires, e.g. recession, war, and the crisis in health care. This article examines the fallacy of these claims, and suggests that oratory and peace-making abilities are cosmetic characteristics that may result in more harm than good. Some characteristics determinative of a true leader are illustrated.