Supreme Court’s Roe ruling would trample the religious freedom of every Jewish American

a reply to: grey580

In the case of disrespect some Muslims believe their faith demands honor killings. Do we need to allow those?

a reply to: tanstaafl

So we are in agreement. Would you personally or can you name one person that would be against allowing a woman to abort the baby if it meant she would die if she had the baby?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

I would be against it on religious grounds, for it on the grounds of their Constitutional right to defend their life. Not sure how that works in places like NY where it's murder if you defend your life and you have to try to run and hope you don't die in the process. So I guess in NY and other states like that you need to get a C-section?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Here's Louisiana's proposed law. I don't see anything in there that allows any exceptions where abortion won't be counted as homicide.

I do. I also thank you for an actual link to the law.

From ABORTION: Enacts the Abolition of Abortion in Louisiana Act of 2022:

Section 3. R.S. 14:2(A)(7) and (11) and 18(6) are hereby amended and reenacted and R.S. 14:29.1 and 33.1 are hereby enacted to read as follows:

§2. Definitions
A. In this Code the terms enumerated shall have the designated meanings:
* * *
(7) "Person" includes a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
* * *
(11) "Unborn child" means any an individual of the human species being from fertilization and implantation until birth.
* * *
§18. Justification; general provisions
The fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. This defense of justification can be claimed under the following circumstances:
* * *
(6) When any crime, except murder where the victim is not an unborn child, is committed through the compulsion of threats by another of death or great bodily harm, and the offender reasonably believes the person making the threats is present and would immediately carry out the threats if the crime were not committed; or

The reader should note that these are amendments to existing statutes. The stricken words are to be removed from the law and the underlined words are to be added. The other words, not stricken or underlined, remain as-is.

What this section boils down to is that the willful abortion of an unborn human is now considered homicide, yes, but there are legal defenses to homicide. One common defense is self-defense. If one can show self-defense, any killing so done is unable to be prosecuted because self-defense is a legal defense (also called a legal remedy in some cases and apparently a "justification" in Louisiana... leave it to the Cajuns to do things different). Louisiana has already got a type of self-defense law on the books in RS 18(6), but that defense is now expanded so specifically allow a woman (and her doctor, acting as her legal agent) to terminate a pregnancy where the pregnancy presents a threat of "death or great bodily harm" and the woman/doctor "reasonably believes that the person making the threats" (the unborn human) "is present" (duh!) and "would immediately carry out the threats if the crime" (the abortion) "were not committed."

There's a lot of legaleeze in there, but the intent and wording is also clear when broken down. A woman whose pregnancy endangers her life can abort the pregnancy with impunity from the law.

That said, there are a couple of things in here that I personally disagree with. The removal of the phrase "and implantation" does present one issue: it could be deemed to include the "morning after pill." I personally do not see an issue before the fertilized egg is implanted properly; before that time, the egg is a handful of non-specific cells that (so far as science can tell us) cannot feel pain or comprehend even that it is alive. I therefore believe the "morning after pill" is an acceptable alternative to abortion.

I noticed that it was necessary to add the phrase "where the victim is not an unborn child." As stated, this is akin to a self-defense clause, and it concerns me that murder of a person who is not an unborn child is not covered could mean that there is no self-defense against adults. It's a complicated way of stating the intent, and there might be other provisions I am not aware of, but that does concern me.

My point, however, is that this bill does indeed allow a woman or her doctor to terminate a pregnancy that endangers her life or health. I believe self-defense would be an acceptable defense against prosecution in other states even where it may not be specified under abortion restrictions. After all, we are talking about those cases where the unborn human presents a clear and present danger to the mother.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: sarahvital
they forget about the right to pursue life liberty and happiness? constitutional.

Is it now? $1 says you won't locate that in the Constitution.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: sarahvital
they forget about the right to pursue life liberty and happiness? constitutional.

Is it now? $1 says you won't locate that in the Constitution.

What if you looked in the Declaration of Independence?

originally posted by: network dude
What if you looked in the Declaration of Independence?

What if I did? That doesn't make it the Constitution like the Constitution-challenged person I was replying to thought.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
What if you looked in the Declaration of Independence?

What if I did? That doesn't make it the Constitution like the Constitution-challenged person I was replying to thought.

Just pointing out the location. You can keep the buck. I owe you a couple.

originally posted by: network dude
Just pointing out the location. You can keep the buck. I owe you a couple.

That person was the one in need of help with basic civics. You'd think people commenting on the Constitution might have actually read it but nooooooooo, that's hardly ever the case.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
Just pointing out the location. You can keep the buck. I owe you a couple.

That person was the one in need of help with basic civics. You'd think people commenting on the Constitution might have actually read it but nooooooooo, that's hardly ever the case.

you are really tempting me here...it's super hard not to draw a comparison to this, vs. talking about a movie you never watched. But that would be off topic, so I won't go there. at all. Not even a little.

originally posted by: network dude
you are really tempting me here...

Go ahead, do it. Or you can look at my post in that thread. One thing is factual, that the words 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' don't appear in the Constitution. The other is a LARP. Homey don't LARP.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
So Jewish religious rights trump Christian religious rights?

originally posted by: 20Eyes1974
a reply to: Xcalibur254
So Jewish religious rights trump Christian religious rights?

How would upholding Roe V Wade, or otherwise continuing to allow abortion access in the 50 states violate a Christian's rights?

Corporations will bail on any state that adopts the no abortion provision. There's also a negative side....

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: LSU2018

Is the life of an innocent child more important than the life of the mother? Because that's what we are talking about in this instance. In cases where the mother is in danger their religious freedom allows for abortion.

If the mother is going to lose her life then I understand the abortion.

a reply to: olaru12

Then another business will fill their spot in that half of the country.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

When a Christian Dr is told they have to perform the abortion or lose their license.

Religion really shouldn't even need to be involved though.

a reply to: olaru12

Not if people boycott products made or imported in Abortion States.

Things like that happen. What happens to China if California is boycotted?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Oh boy, you are so wrong it is no wonder you post false claims. The bible, even in Hebrew, states in many different sections that Elohim/God knows us even before we are in the womb, and knows who we will be. Which means our souls are tied to our bodies even before we are formed in the womb.

Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Jeremiah 1:5

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Psalm 139:15-16

For he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

Luke 1:15

For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O Lord, from my youth. Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you.

Psalm 71:5-6