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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I love how you won't respond to that.

I have no idea what you're talking about or how it effects access to abortion or due process.

The argument is not allowing abortions violates freedom of religion. Liberals are decrying this violation of their religious freedom. I gave an example of a far more clear and egregious violation of that same right by liberals, to point out the hypocrisy. They actually don't care about this group's religious freedom and have no problem violating their religious freedom themselves.

As predicted, you ignore it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Take a look if you like. Here is another source.

From the 1600s up until the 1800s, abortion was completely legal in the United States. In fact, it was so widely practiced that it was advertised in papers and could be purchased from pharmacists, homeopaths, midwives, and even sent through the mail. In the U.S., abortion was legal before “quickening” (the point at which you can feel the fetus moving in the womb). Even the church remained unopposed to abortions at this point, believing it acceptable until “ensoulment” (also believed to be the point of quickening).

Link

a reply to: TheRedneck

If the unborn can be considered "persons" under the 14 Amendment, why aren't the unborn counted in the census?

14th Amendment: Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

a reply to: frogs453

Easy enough to disprove. Took me all of 5 seconds to find. I am sure I can find others as well.

Murtherously endeavoured to destroy or Murther the Child by him begotten in the Womb of the Said Susan Warren

books.google.com... omb+of+the+Said+Susan+Warren&source=bl&ots=N3soox_mJy&sig=ACfU3U1XdmTGIqqP91vt9pOSiLtx98CpXg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFnpaFk9r3AhWyIkQIHeSbBmQQ6AF6BAgDE AM#v=onepage&q=Murtherously%20endeavoured%20to%20destroy%20or%20Murther%20the%20Child%20by%20him%20begotten%20in%20the%20Womb%20of%20the%20Said%20Susa n%20Warren&f=false

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Thank you for a most informative post!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I gave an example of a far more clear and egregious violation of that same right by liberals, to point out the hypocrisy.

You didn't give me an example. You claimed that Jews are somehow forced to run for their lives.

YOU

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.

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.

I guess your referring to "Duty to Retreat" laws?

In law, the duty to retreat, or requirement of safe retreat, is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that a threatened person cannot harm another in self-defense (especially lethal force) when it is possible to instead retreat to a place of safety.

en.wikipedia.org...

I really don't see how that law violates this:

A rodef (Hebrew: רודף, lit. "pursuer"; pl. רודפים, rodfim), in traditional Jewish law, is one who is "pursuing" another to murder him or her. According to Jewish law, such a person must be killed by any bystander after being warned to stop and refusing.

en.wikipedia.org...

At any rate, it seems to me your argument is a straw man.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

You didn't give me an example. You claimed that Jews are somehow forced to run for their lives.

I guess your referring to "Duty to Retreat" laws?

You think? Here is my exact post, how are you unsure what I meant?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.

Jewish law states if someone is pursuing another to murder him, EVERYONE has to kill him after giving him a warning.

NY law states if someone is pursuing another to murder him, EVERYONE including the person being pursued has to run away and can do nothing to stop the person unless they can prove they tried to run and could not.

The two are 100% incompatible. One is a duty to flee, one is a duty to kill. If I see someone chasing another to kill them, rodef demands I intervene and kill the person, I have a duty to kill them. NY would charge me with murder because I had a duty to flee.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You're link isn't working, however, the text that you are referring is a judgment against a man who forced an abortion on a bondservant.

Captain William Mitchell was a member of the Maryland governor’s council because Cecil Calvert, proprietor of Maryland, pronounced him a man of “honour, worth, and good abilities.” However, as Mitchell in 1650 voyaged from England to Maryland accompanied by his twenty-one-year-old bondservant, Susan Warren, Calvert’s judgment proved poor. Mitchell tried to convince her to abandon Christianity; he did succeed in convincing her, or forcing her, to sleep with him. When she became pregnant, Captain Mitchell forced her to drink an abortifacient—a potion designed to produce abortion—which caused her to “break into boils and blains, her whole body being scurfy, and the hair of her head almost fallen off.”

Did Colonial America have abortions? Yes, but ...

Another one from your link...

Maryland, 1656: From abuse to abortion
Francis Brooke (or Brooks—spellings in the legal records vary) impregnated his servant and was angry about it. Witnesses testified to brutal treatment:

He did beat her with a cane and he break it all to pieces because she would not give the dog a pail to lick before she fetched water in it. Another time, he had a loin of veal roasted and she was going to take a rib of the said veal and took an oaken board and broke it to pieces on her. He followed her with pair of tongues [sic] and did beat her with the great end, and your deponent followed him and asked him if he longed to be hanged and he said he did not care if she did miscarry. …

Finally, Brooke went all the way: “he gave her wormwood to drink and she fell in labor one night … the midwife came and when the child came it was all bruises and the blood black in it.” Midwife Rose Smith testified that when she delivered the tiny unborn child, “he was a man-child about three months old. …” Even though the child had died before “quickening,” court records state that “Brooke was brought before this court on suspicion of murder.”

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Did you read it? The man was charged.

I found no information regarding a woman aborting her child which was legal until "the quickening".

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The two are 100% incompatible. One is a duty to flee, one is a duty to kill. If I see someone chasing another to kill them, rodef demands I intervene and kill the person, I have a duty to kill them. NY would charge me with murder because I had a duty to flee.

How is that any different than a good guy with a gun shooting a bad guy shooter? Is that illegal?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It would also open the state up to a lot of habeas corpus suits. It would mean for every pregnant woman sitting in prison there is at least one other person sitting in prison that was not convicted of any crime.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Every baby in the womb is in prison.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, it is. You will go to prison in NY for that. If me and you are on the front porch, your ex bf pulls up, takes out a knife and screams he's going to kill you while charging, rodef demands I take out my gun and kill him. NY law calls that murder and demands we run inside the house.

a reply to: frogs453

He was charged because she was not a willing participant. If abortion is legal how was he charged for doing one to her?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What? It is not illegal for her. It's illegal for him to force or do it against her will.
If I want to punch myself in the face or light myself on fire, it's not against the law. However, you punch me in the face or light me on fire, it's against the law.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes, it is. You will go to prison in NY for that. If me and you are on the front porch, your ex bf pulls up, takes out a knife and screams he's going to kill you while charging, rodef demands I take out my gun and kill him. NY law calls that murder and demands we run inside the house.

You're being hyperbolic. I don't believe you.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So an abortion was wrong, and deemed the murder of a person ... are we suggesting 'personhood' is granted only to those who are wanted, and unwanted people can be killed because they are not people?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Uh I believe she died as well. This is the only case you have? As stated, abortion was legal. Not much more to say about the matter.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes, it is. You will go to prison in NY for that. If me and you are on the front porch, your ex bf pulls up, takes out a knife and screams he's going to kill you while charging, rodef demands I take out my gun and kill him. NY law calls that murder and demands we run inside the house.

You're being hyperbolic. I don't believe you.

That's because you are ignorant.

People V. Aiken

Chief Judge KAYE.

Before defensively using deadly physical force against another, does a defendant standing in the doorway between his apartment and the common hall of a multi-unit building have a duty under Penal Law § 35.15 to retreat into his home when he can safely do so? We answer that question in the affirmative.

www.courtlistener.com...

If you are in your doorway, and someone charges you to kill you, you MUST run inside and can NOT defend yourself before running away.

In 1997, following a heated verbal exchange, the victim stabbed defendant in the back, hospitalizing him for two days. Although the families remained next-door neighbors, separated only by a common wall, from 1997 to 1999 the victim repeatedly threatened to shoot, stab or otherwise injure defendant. He made these threats to defendant's face, to his father and to neighbors — at one point even brandishing a boxcutter.

Not only was he threatened, he was actually stabbed in the back by the guy in a previous altercation. He was found guilty because he did not run away when the guy came up to his face in his doorway and said he was going to kill him, after having already tried to kill him.

Hyperbole? Nope, fact.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sounds to me like the guy had to opportunity to deescalate the situation by just stepping back and closing his door. But instead he escalated the situation and killed the guy.

Sounds like one for the courts, judge and jury. Not me.

I could cite what I think are equal injustices that are brought about from stand your ground laws, and laws that prohibit warning shots.