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

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What did Jews do prior to 1972?

Oy vey-va-jay-jay procedures.

(I'll show myself out)

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


I don't agree with our tax dollars being spent on that or lots of things. Banning it here will not stop our tax dollars from going overseas anyway. They also forced sterilized indigenous people here well into the 70s, that is always wrong. Do you have demands on other people for things that our tax dollars are spent on? Anything you think they should be forced to do?

I'm sure you're smart enough to know that abortions will not stop. It's been around for thousands of years and will continue. However you will just see more women die or become sterile.

You want an entire country to live by laws that you believe come from your Christian God. However this country is made up of a population that believes in other forms of God, or even no God. You speak of the left forcing its will. 70% of the country support some form of pro choice, yet it is the minority forcing their will and that of their God on the majority. Bills in the works for full bans such as Louisana are using church leaders to help write them.

It's very simple. You don't want one? Don't get one. You don't believe in IUDs? Don't use one. Don't believe in Plan B? Don't buy it. You don't believe in in vitro because of wasted embryos? Don't use it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's both apparently for Judaism.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You're comparing apples to oranges. The OP spells out the reasons for the abortion.

Honest question.

Let's change this "Rodef," from an unborn baby to a full grown human.

Would not current self-defense rules regarding lawful killing in the defense of self or others run afoul of this alleged Jewish religious freedom?

I mean, stand your ground and self-defense laws and the legal requirements to invoke same as a defense in any murder charge vary. If you as a good Jewish religious person felt that someone was in danger of being killed and you acted on that feeling, killing the aggressor and saving the victim, but a court found that your assessment of the situation did not meet the legal requirements of self-defense (defense of another) and found you guilty of an unlawful killing - wouldn't that violate these alleged Jewish religious requirements?

If so, then I feel that this Jewish religious thing is just being used as a pro-abortion thing because I don't think (at least I've never heard argued) that anyone has ever made that kind of argument as relates to self-defense. It kind of smacks of dishonesty to me that one would use the whole "rodef," thing in relation to abortion and not in the case of self-defense laws. Not calling you dishonest, just saying the argument sorta smells off.

ETA:

Oh, forgot to add. Wouldn't this "rodef," need to have some bad intent as relates to the victim in order for it to even be considered a "rodef?" I mean, an unborn baby wouldn't have the required mens rea to form intent to kill the mother (or anyone else). Otherwise, I'd have a lot of lawful killing I could get away with that needs doing.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You're comparing apples to oranges. The OP spells out the reasons for the abortion.

And in NY, and many liberal states, it is ILLEGAL to defend yourself. You have a duty to flee, and can not harm the person trying to kill you, unless you can prove you absolutely could not flee.

Seems liberals are already violating Jewish freedom of religion, and they don't seem to care about it. So when they change their laws to be in line with 'rodef' and the fact the aggressor not only 'can' be killed, but MUST be killed, then you can let me know.

Here's a few examples that might provide some perspective.

My pregnancy was fine, but at 31 weeks I felt the baby moving irregularly. A scan showed that the baby was having seizures and extensive intracranial bleeding. The baby was going to be severely brain damaged, with a horrible prognosis. It was suffering, or not suffering — I don’t know, I don’t want to think about it.

The pediatric neurologist recommended that we have an abortion.

We consulted with a prominent Orthodox rabbi, who consulted with both medical specialists and leading Halachic experts and guided us to go ahead with it.

We kept this quiet — we live in a conservative suburban Jewish community, and we were concerned about how we would be judged.

Given that we were after the cut-off mark of our state, we had to go to a clinic in Colorado. I went to a dinky clinic with a doctor that completely lacked bedside manner. He charged us over $10,000; we put it on our AmEx.

The doctor said he saw frum people before; he told us that we are not the first people with yarmulkes.

They took me down to the basement — my husband wasn’t allowed to be with me for the actual procedure — and I received an injection and… waited for the heartbeat to stop.

I flew home to deliver. I delivered three days later, after being induced. It was a relief.

My rav paskened that we not see the fetus, or the gender, and that we not be involved at all in the burial.

Baruch Hashem, we had a rav, a wonderful posek, who was really amazing, who helped us through the entire process, helped us understand this experience through Halacha. We found so much comfort in the fact that Halacha had an answer, a system with which we could deal with the loss.

We have gone through infertility before; I’ve had multiple natural miscarriages. But nothing prepared us to go out of state to an abortion clinic. The fact that we had to travel out of state, and go to an abortion clinic with a doctor that we didn’t trust, because we had no other option — and have an abortion in a basement of a medical complex that was not our hospital, without our regular support staff — was so difficult. It was undignified. It was a simple two-second procedure — why did I have to go all the way to Colorado? God forbid if it happens to anyone — where are we supposed to turn? Where will we send women? We almost had to go to Israel to be able to follow Halacha. Israel recognizes that there is room for this, in Halacha.

When you don’t have a choice, you really don’t have a choice. This was a very wanted pregnancy. We are frum. I follow Halacha (I ask a rabbi for permission to use birth control). We went to a rabbi for this decision — and we knew that this was the Halachic response that was most appropriate.

The challenging part for us was that the American legal system made it so difficult for us to follow Halacha.

It had taken me over a year to get pregnant. At my 12-week scan, they discovered a small “shadow” to the side of the uterus. I had a twin pregnancy: one healthy fetus in one side of my uterus, and a molar pregnancy in the other side.

In London’s best hospital, we were given a dark prognosis: I was at risk of cancer because of abnormality of cell growth. The definitive study showed less than 30% of survival for the baby if I decided to carry on the pregnancy. The likelihood would be a very premature birth, and also a high chance I’d need to be operated on, which if that happened before I reached a certain point in the pregnancy, this would have high risks for future fertility.

I was devastated. Our local Orthodox rabbi was very supportive and from the outset said that it is I who determines the decision and that Halacha supports both decisions. He referred us to a dayan (rabbinic judge) as well.

Our rabbi was amazing. He sat with us. He told us of a personal loss that he has never discussed with anyone. We all cried. He was sensitive and respectful, and he did not try to throw any agenda or ruling onto us. His wife followed up with support and meals delivered to our home.

I had a D and C to terminate the pregnancy.

Two years later, after a high-risk pregnancy, I gave birth to healthy twins.

I often think back sadly to the baby that was healthy, that I decided to abort. It still saddens me, even though I know it was probably the right thing.

During my 20-week anatomy scan, the sonographer detected severe problems with the baby.

It was agony. This baby was beyond wanted. But his prognosis was so bad that we knew he would have no quality of life if he were to even make it to birth, and that continuing the pregnancy would severely impact our family.

We spoke to our rabbi, who consulted with a gadol [great rabbi]. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but the message was that, not only was this halachically permissible, given the prognosis of my baby, it was something I should do.

I went through a range of emotions — grief, agony, despair, anxiety, acceptance — and back again. Right before the procedure, it felt horrible. To know that you are submitting and lying there while doctors end your pregnancy and while you want a child more than anything. Even if it’s the right decision, it defies comprehension.

When it was over, I held my baby. He was lifeless, but beautiful. You couldn’t tell what was wrong with his insides. We buried him.

The emotional aspect of it was the hardest afterwards. It was grief and pain. It’s recovery from pregnancy and childbirth without a baby. It’s your milk coming in with no baby to feed. It’s avoiding the room you expected to turn into a nursery.

To anyone who hasn’t been there, abortion is a theoretical issue. And no one ever thinks they will have to deal with it on a personal level. Until you do.

It’s all well and good to have your opinions about abortion, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about until you’re in the situation. Halacha is compassionate and we should be, too.

forward.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If we are catering to Jewish Rodef, we should start by removing 'duty to flee' laws, right? You know, when someone is actively trying to kill you and you have to run away.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So religious freedom for Jews is more important than the life of an innocent child?

Got a problem with the religious freedom of the Jewish people?

Also, neither a zygote, nor an embryo, is a "child."

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So religious freedom for Jews is more important than the life of an innocent child?

Got a problem with the religious freedom of the Jewish people?

Also, neither a zygote, nor an embryo, is a "child."

Are you in charge of definitions, Kevin?

Just asking, Kevin, because it sure seems like you think you get to define what other people think, which is really authoritarian, Kevin.

Zygotes and embryo’s are considered life forms are they not? Or are they below the definition of single cell bacteria???

So confused 🤔

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So religious freedom for Jews is more important than the life of an innocent child?

Got a problem with the religious freedom of the Jewish people?

Also, neither a zygote, nor an embryo, is a "child."

NY does. They force Jewish people to run away when someone is trying to kill them.

Zygote, embryo, child, just words that can mean anything you want, and that meaning can change over time. What can't change is the scientific and medical fact that all 3 describe a living being that is of the same species as you and I.

Abortion law was created to circumvent personal responsibility. We never make decisions to address the issue. We always treat the symptoms. Always. We have a very hard time with actually working to solve the problem. We put bandaids on them, massage some egos and move along as if everything is good.

You are adults. Take some responsibility and act like the adults that are needed. Life cares very little for your opinions or your feelings. Life will give you nothing and expect everything.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. Are you a wolf or a sheep.

a reply to: frogs453

First of all, what is it that you pro-abortionists don't understand that the Supreme Court ruling to overthrow Roe vs Wade would only make the issue of abortions to be dealt by each and every single state and the people in those states?

If the Supreme Court overrules Roe vs Wade it is not going to abolish all abortions... It will make sure each state decides what to do according to the people of each state.

Abortion is NOT a right. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in any documents that founded the U.S. do you find that abortion is aright. It isn't.

However, not only does the Declaration of Independence state no person can be denied the right to life, but the 14th Amendment states in specific:

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

constitution.congress.gov...

As per the U.S. Constitution no person can be denied the right to life. The definition of a person includes the unborn.

noun

noun A living human. Often used in combination.
noun An individual of specified character.
noun The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
noun The living body of a human.
...

person

You/pro-abortionists want to claim that this is not a human life...



But it is obvious it is a human person. A LIVING HUMAN BEING. It is not cancer cells, it is not a "clump of cells," or any other false claims you pro-abortionists want to make.

"No one can deny that the unborn child is a distinct human being, that it is human, and that it is alive. It is unjust, therefore, to deprive the unborn child of its fundamental right to life on the basis of its age, size, or condition of dependency."
...

The Humanity of the Unborn Child

The claims and beliefs that "human unborn are not really human" came from false claims of eugenicists, nazis, and white supremacists like Margaret Sanger who wanted "racial progress/racial purity."





So instead of "demanding abortion/the murder of human unborn on demand," why is it that you find it so hard for those of you who believe "human unborn children have no rights" should instead sterilize yourselves?

No one is asking you pro-abortion crowd to multiply. But you are demanding that even those of us who know that killing unborn humans is murder we must pay for your abortions as many times as you want them?

Sterilize yourselves. You don't want to pro-create? ok, then use your free choice to sterilize yourselves instead of forcing Americans who know "killing unborn is murder" to have to pay for all your abortions and as many times as you want them.

1. A legal category in a religious sect is not a legal category at all. Separation of Church and State supersedes any religious notion. This goes for pro-life arguments that rely on sacred texts and interpretations as well.
2. RvW didn’t legalize abortion. It merely prevented many forms of abolition legislation.
3. If you can abort a fetus, you can deliver it. It may not live, but if the point is to save the mother, this can be tried and is already a common thing to happen when such circumstances arise.
4. Vote with your feet. Move where the laws meet your lifestyle choices.


And



5. This isn’t about abortion. This is about removing the legal precedent of bodily autonomy. We are closer to forced abortions than abolition of them.

-D

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

However, not only does the Declaration of Independence state no person can be denied the right to life, but the 14th Amendment states in specific:

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is about due process and only applies to the "state", i.e. the government, not private citizens. Due process isn't a right endowed on the unborn, as per the 14th Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You don't need due process to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, but you might need your due process rights afterwords.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

You don't need due process to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, but you might need your due process rights afterwords.

Yes, because Democrats refuse to allow Jewish people to practice their religion in regards to rodef. I love how you won't respond to that.

a reply to: DINSTAAR

False. Biology, you know the science you leftists/pro-abortionists deny exists, tells us that unborn children are human living beings. Take away all religious definitions, and BIOLOGY still states "human unborn children are human beings."

Again, you don't want to pro-create? no one is forcing you to. Sterilize yourselves if you believe human unborn children's lives do not matter.

What's more, you pro-abortionists are the very same people always arguing about "but climate change, our carbon footprint, blahblah blah..."

What do you think millions of aborted humans beings does to your carbon footprint? Each and every one of those "aborted/murdered humans beings is a carbon based life form, and as such they each increase your carbon footprint.

So instead of "abortion on demand for whatever motive" sterilize yourselves. You will help the "environment" your "carbon footprint" will be a lot less, and you won't be forcing people to pay for your abortions and you won't be killing human beings you deem do not deserve life...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If we are catering to Jewish Rodef...

Shouldn't we be concerned about all women that find themselves in the same situations, whether or not they have the support of their religious leaders?

we should start by removing 'duty to flee' laws, right? You know, when someone is actively trying to kill you and you have to run away.

Don't see how that would help, or how it even applies in any of the situations posted above.