Posted on 05/08/2022 11:31:18 AM PDT by artichokegrower
The Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade sent shock waves throughout our country when it was leaked this week. If the ruling stands, abortion access would be decimated in huge swaths of the country, and the rights of Americans everywhere will depend on whether they happen to live in a blue state or in a red state. Beyond being a violation of the human rights of pregnant people, limiting access to abortion is an imposition of governmental Christianity on us all.
And it infringes on the religious liberty of every American Jew.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfchronicle.com ...
So what source will you accept? Or are they literally all lying about how Jewish voters voted in 2020?
Reform Jews, yes.
I think some megalo dude named Adolph something or the other would approve.
Sorry, it’s not a joking matter but this crap from Bogard and Senn of the SF Chronicle cult needs to be pushed back in their faces for what it is, Jew-Hate garbage.
These people are Jewish nobodies who lie.
Here’s what actual legendary Jewish religious authorities have to say about this infanticide:
https://jewishprolifefoundation.org/rabbis-for-life
Thou shall not murder
Good slap across the face. Maybe, just maybe, it will wake some of them up.
It also works if you do this: "...but exceptions should be made for black women who want to kill their children." It depends on the audience and who needs to be awakened.
Suddenly, the Left is concerned about Jews. When Tlaib or Omar (not sure which one) said Jews are “all about the Benjamins” there was silence. When Tlaib or Omar (again not sure since they seem interchangable), accused Jews of dual loyalties again there was silence. When social justice warriors on college campuses campaign against Israel, and seek support for BDS, more silence. Now, however, Jews have finally reached the vaunted status of victimhood, not because of increasing anti-semitism, but because the Left fears the USCT will overturn Roe.
The Orthodox Jews I know seem to be firmly anti-abortion, except when there is a choice between the mother’s life and the baby’s life.
They differ from the most strictly anti-abortion Catholics in that way, as the latter do not make a distinction, last I heard.
It’s true that 40% of the Orthodox voted for Hillary for Senate in 2000, but that was explained to me as being necessary because of the benefits they need to support their large families. Not sure this is true, of course, it’s just what a prominent advocate for the Orthodox told me.
So of course I differ with the judgment that abortion is okay with Orthodox Jews. I’m not a Talmudic scholar, so I couldn’t argue about the sources. Doesn’t sound right to me, though.
So the group Ruth Sent Us is wrong. She didn’t send them. She was in favor of abortion but not in favor of Roe.
The presumption that the overturn of Roe v. Wade means that access to abortion is somehow prohibited, is pure and unadulterated horse puckey. The thrust of the overturn is that now each individual state sets its own rules concerning the medical and ethical standards for abortion, that it is no longer the purview of the Federal government, as it never was before Roe v. Wade.
If California has more liberal interpretations of the rules surrounding abortion, and Utah has a whole different take on the legal aspects, then state boundaries are easily crossed, and there is an abundance of agencies that will expedite the transportation and housing needs while the procedure is undertaken. The argument for “poor women” is demolished by the existence of number of “non-government organizations” that will take up the slack, because their motives are pure, you know.
Religious liberties are in no way impaired, they just have to redirect their emphasis from reliance on the Feral government to those organizations and individuals with deep pockets.
What about access to bump stocks and forced-reset troggers? Access to those has suddenly been criminalized.
I don’t read that verse to say what he says it does.
It’s talking about an accidental injury; nothing says or implies that the woman wished for a premature ending to her pregnancy.
Even considering the event to be an accident, the culprit has clearly done wrong and compensation is required.
Furthermore it refers to a child or children.
Since when do the Democrats not lie? Do you also believe the lie about 81 million legitimate votes?
And of course that would include the Democratic self-haters of the tribe of Judah.
All true, agreed. I am just not sure the Republican candidates will have the poise and savvy of your response, and could possibly stumble, creating an opening for a Republican defeat in November.
Roe v. Wade or any other Supreme Court decision should only be founded in a textual interpretation of the existing Constitution informed by the historic arguments that went into its writing. All the Dobbs v. Jackson Health decision did was force the Court to examine the reasoning of Roe v. Wade as a matter of law. Judge Alito expressed his opinion that it was bad law based on the Constitution. Other judges may disagree, but they can’t base their opinion on Judaic law. Alito pointed out that common law at the time of the founding outlawed abortion in all the states. This was rightly left as a state’s matter and now it is being restored to that status.
Pro-choice advocates will now have the opportunity to make their case for abortion at the state level as intended by our Federalist system of government. If they argue that a fetus is not the same as a living human based on Judaic law or modern science, the state legislatures are the place for this.
I fail to see anything pro-abort in those two chapters.
If abortion were a matter of religious liberty for Jews, why does a woman need approval of a committee in Israel?
from wikipedia:
Under a 1977 abortion law, a termination committee can approve an abortion, under sub-section 316a, in the following circumstances:
The woman is younger than the legal marriage age in Israel (which currently is 18, raised from 17 in April 2013), or older than forty. (This was later amended to also include women under the age of twenty.)
The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.), in an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.
The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.
Continued pregnancy may put the woman’s life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.
Does that mean the same heartbreaking tragedy could happen to ANY of us? AAAAAGHHH!
thou shalt not murder would have covered it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.