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

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Brotherman

No it means that taking the rights away from women is so egregious that Jewish Americans and Satanists are on the same side. Apparently law makers do not care that 70% of women in the country are pro choice.

Care to find a real statistic on that ? Cause it looks like it cane from somewhere stinky.

originally posted by: frogs453
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.

It clearly states she did not die, she was charged with having sex with him. Forcing someone to drink something that doesnt kill them is not murder, he was charged with mudering the unborn child, that was the charge.

Francis Brooke. Before Quickening, charged with murder.

Even though the child had died before “quickening,” court records state that “Brooke was brought before this court on suspicion of murder.”

Jacob Lumbrozo

After hearing such testimony, a jury of twelve men charged Lumbrozo with a felony because “she was with child when John Lumbrozo, he did give her physick to destroy it. …”

Not to mention in the late 1600s and 1700s science believed life started before 'conception', before the act of sex took place even.

Regardless, I have shown numerous people who were charged with murder for aborting a baby, before quickening.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

Sorry but that is not what the ruling was. The guy came up to his face with a weapon and said he was going to kill him, after previously stabbing him. The ruling says when someone is literally in your face, with a weapon, and says they are going to use that weapon to kill you, after previously stabbing you with a weapon, you have to run inside and hope he doesn't kill you as you retreat.

That was the ruling, nothing you make up matters, I quoted the ruling from the Judge.

Rodef DEMANDS the person be killed, a clear violation of religious rights according to Democrats .. oh wait they are the ones violating it though so they nor you care.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

One case I've seen? And the man was charged? That's all I saw on the link. You cannot poison or give something that can harm them or any of their organs or things inside of them legally. You're really not making your point with this one case I'm sorry to tell you.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Define 'pro-choice'.

a reply to: frogs453

I already quoted several more. If I make you drink sweet tea against your will can I be charged with murder if you don't die?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Make a thread about it and cite the actual case. I'm not going by your word for anything.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Good thing I cited it and quoted the judge, and gave you a source. I guess it's better to cover your ears and scream LA LA LA.

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...

I don't need to make another thread. This thread is about Jewish Americans religious freedom requiring their ability to practice rodef, and any restriction preventing that is unConstitutional. Liberal hypocrisy at it's finest.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I would say it's the pro-choice side refusing to include science, ignoring the science, and saying everyone against it only has religious reasons because there are no others.

I would agree. I would also point out that is the same general political philosophy doing this that then claims one should "follow the science" on other issues.

Science is not something one can invoke when convenient and ignore otherwise. Either one follows the scientific method or one dies not. It's the same with religion: either one accepts the tenets of their religious preference, or one does not. The thing that separates science from religion is science's agnostic position: we may think we know how something works, but we pledge to always be open to new information.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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

I would say because according to the first section, the unborn are not citizens. Non citizens do not have a right to vote, therefore need not be counted in apportionment. Plus, it would be extremely hard to determine an exact number, since a woman can be pregnant in the early stages and not aware of it. this was especially true in the 18th century when the Constitution was written.

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.

A person can be a person and not a citizen. A person can be unborn and not a citizen. A person can be un-naturalized and not a citizen.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I would say because according to the first section, the unborn are not citizens. Non citizens do not have a right to vote, therefore need not be counted in apportionment.

That's not what it says.

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.

There is no qualification that the "whole number of persons" are citizens only.

Everyone who resides in the 50 states of the United States is counted, including noncitizens. U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States are also counted

www.census.gov...

By that logic nearly government on Earth should be overthrown for endangering their citizens. Everything since 2020 has proven they are acting against our best interests. Kill 'em all-for radaf?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's not what it says.

Fair enough; you are correct in that. That leaves the difficulty in determining if a woman is pregnant.

That section in the 14th Amendment is one i disagree with. It appears to me to be an omission. The purpose of the census is to determine the correct number of citizens eligible to vote so that each citizen has roughly an equal voice despite living in different states.

I'd have to do some more research to fully answer that question. And right now, to be honest, the old guy with the bad heart is tired and hungry. Maybe I can continue later.

Good conversation so far Sookie. Thank you.

TheRedneck

I stopped taking advice from the Jews the last time one convinced me to buy my bologna from a mohel....

First of all, the Supreme Court is no taking away anything. They are merely saying that abortion laws are a state issue. We live in a representative republic. That means the majority elects the law makers. This means the majority gets the laws that they want. If you are the minority, you don’t. That’s the way it should be. If you want a law passed, go lobby for it. Louisiana is passing the laws that the majority in Louisiana want. If that law is so important to you ,and you can’t get it changed, move to another state. The minority does not, and should not ,make the laws in any state.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: LSU2018

If your 2nd Amendment rights take precedence over the lives of school children, why wouldn't the 1st Amendment rights of Jewish people take precedence over fetuses?

Before crazy nutters like Nina Jankovicz were put in charge of government disinformation, we already had such people in ATS such as "Xcalibur254..."

The second amendment doesn't take precedence over school children... The second amendment is a right because the Founding Fathers knew that idiots in government, and in life, who are nothing but authoritarians would love to take away the 2nd amendment, to disarm law abiding citizens, and would make up the most absurd arguments and would make up excuses to implement nothing but the most draconian dictatorial laws. People like you are authoritarians and dictators wannabes.

In fact people like you have been in favor of real criminals, like the 3 people who attempted to murder Kyle, from day one which makes me think those like you are actual criminals. Which is why you don't want law abiding citizens armed, and which is why you make up absurd claims that are nothing but lies.

originally posted by: 00018GE
First of all, the Supreme Court is no taking away anything. They are merely saying that abortion laws are a state issue. We live in a representative republic. That means the majority elects the law makers. This means the majority gets the laws that they want. If you are the minority, you don’t. That’s the way it should be. If you want a law passed, go lobby for it. Louisiana is passing the laws that the majority in Louisiana want. If that law is so important to you ,and you can’t get it changed, move to another state. The minority does not, and should not ,make the laws in any state.

That's the problem though.

They don't want a representative republic.

They want to centralize power and all governing authority.

Returning a ruling to 50 individual states is an anathema to them.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
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 law against it? No, I'm not in favor of any such law.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That's not what it says.

Actually, that is exactly what it says. Democrat leaders/far leftists, and even RINOs have just been ignoring what the U.S. Constitution states. Which is why now New York made 800,000 non-citizens able to vote and which is part of the democrats and the anti-Trump crowd in the swamp are doing illegally to steal elections.

As for unborn children, they are persons. They are human beings. Only the most evil people on the planet would say this is not so. Is it a wonder YOUR SIDE/democrats have put crazy people who have a mental illness in charge of no longer the education but indoctrination in schools of children? These crazy people think that children as young as 5-6 years old should be sexualized, and parental rights should be taken away...

Literally your side is the side of CRAZY PEOPLE who ignore actual science and make up lies as science...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
There is no qualification that the "whole number of persons" are citizens only.

See how you try to ignore what it says in the rest of section 2? You need to take in consideration what it says throughout on section 2 and you just attempt to completely ignore those other statements, and what is implied on section 2.

If you actually read the entirety of that section, 1 fact should be apparent. In that section WOMEN are not mentioned. In fact there is only mention of males because women's rights hadn't been established yet when this section of the U.S. Constitution was written and implemented.

Browse the Constitution Annotated
Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship, Equal Protection, and Other Post-Civil War Provisions

Section 2 Apportionment of Representation

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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

constitution.congress.gov...

So for the purpose of this section when they mention "persons" they are not mentioning "illegals." They are mentioning women and those males who are not of 21 years of age. In other sections of the U.S. Constitution it is made clear that only citizens of the U.S., including naturalized U.S. citizens, have a right to vote in our elections.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Everyone who resides in the 50 states of the United States is counted, including noncitizens. U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States are also counted

www.census.gov...

As DEMOCRATS changed it in their continuous attempts to make non-citizens and even illegals able to vote in our elections... You can't deny this anymore, the U.S. Constitution states only citizens can vote, but in DEMOCRAT areas, not to call them hell holes, like New York DEMOCRATS have made it so that non-citizens can vote in our elections, and they openly have been stating the illegals they have been allowing into the U.S. they want to allow them to eventually also vote in U.S. elections. This is being done because your corrupt democrat leaders think illegals will vote for them, which is why DEMOCRATS are breaking the laws of the land left and right.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: frogs453

So if I look back I won't see any trials/convictions for abortion from the 1600s?

A little more detail about those times and subsequent developments:

Abortion: What the Professionals Say (Awake!—1980)

...

Dramatic changes have taken place on the legal front over abortions. English common law considered abortion a crime​—a lesser crime in the first half of pregnancy because the baby had not yet stirred, hence was not considered alive. But with the mother’s “feeling life” during the second half, the baby was alive and abortion thereafter was a felony, murder. These laws were applied throughout the early United States until after the Civil War. [whereislogic: it's my understanding that a "crime" is describing something illegal, rather than the description "completely legal" used by the last article used by frogs453, it seems that source is misrepresenting history somewhat in order to advance their preferred ideology, while accusing others of doing that. The Isaiah 5:20,21 thingy.]

Conception, the union of sperm and ovum, was first accurately described by a German scientist in 1827. Thereafter it was appreciated that life began at conception rather than at “quickening,” as previously believed. After the Civil War the new American Medical Association sent its scientists to testify before committees and state legislatures, informing them that life began at the time of the egg’s fertilization. In response to this new information, every state in the union during the 1870’s and early 1880’s passed new laws making abortion a felony from the time of conception. AMA testimony: “We were dealing with nothing less than human life.”

...