South Florida synagogue sues over Florida’s new 15-week abortion ban

~ This lawsuit makes no senses. Another goofy act of theatrics and drama. Sadly this time from the Jews ...

• The new 15-week ban does not make exceptions for cases of incest, rape or human trafficking. It does allow an abortion if it would save the life of a pregnant person or prevent serious injury to them.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/14/1084485963/florida-abortion-law-15-weeks

~ Sad but apparently true ...

 

~ The TESLA self-drive ElectricMobile !

 

Not being religious does not preclude you from holding novel views on the rights of the unborn. Some view abortion through a self defense lens and oppose any restrictions at all, some view it through a personhood lens and view it differently based on their conception of personhood.

Most of Eastern Europe is 12 weeks. Poland is only to protect the life of the mother, otherwise 0 weeks. Portugal is 10 weeks, most of Western Europe is 14 weeks.

Australia varies but can be quite prohibitive. Queensland only legalised abortion in 2018.

 

NBC San Diego

What Are Abortion Laws in Other Countries? Map Shows How They Compare

LINK

 

If you say so. What if my religion says it's OK after birth and in fact is an act of religious faith, you say it would be OK to kill the baby.

Nope. Even if it is a baby posing an imminent threat to the mother's life and the only way to save the life of the mother is an abortion it would still be a baby. And would be a horrible situation where only one could possibly survive and since the baby cannot survive without the mother why do you even pose the question? But then the AMA among others has stated it is never necessary to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life, such emergencies can be managed with our current state of medicine.

• "The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." AMA President Daniel Johnson Jr., M.D., in New York Times, May 26, 1997.
• "According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D & X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about D & X." Report by Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, May 1997.
• "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement of Policy, January 12, 1997.
• "I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described -- you know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born -- is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a medical necessity for the baby." Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop in American Medical News, August 19, 1996, p. 3.
• "I have very serious reservations about this procedure ... You really can't defend it. I'm not going to tell somebody else that they should not do this procedure. But I'm not going to do it ... I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use." Abortionist Warren Hern in American Medical News, November 20, 1995, p. 3.
• "None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason. We and many other doctors across the U.S. regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer the same conditions as those cited by the women who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto ceremony. Never is the partial-birth procedure necessary." Drs. Nancy Romer, Pamela Smith, Curtis Cook and Joseph DeCook of Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) in Wall Street Journal, September 19, 1996, p. A 22.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...sus-partial-birth-abortion-is-never-necessary

 

~ The crazy Democrats barbaric push for late-term abortion is what changed many minds and "converted " some to pro-life.

 

I did not read the whole thread but here is my 2 cents.

95% of abortions occur by the 15th week and are still legal under that law.

Jews are not entitled to special rights the rest of us do not have.

This is just partisan political bullcrap.

 

Yes, but the argument here isn't should a person be exempt from the new act to protect their religious freedom but does the new act prohibit them from practicing their religious freedom.

Those are two very distinctive arguments.

 

They are not irreligious .. for one .. Poland is Catholic .. like Ireland .. nutzo .. so that one flopped .. .. same with Portugal .. uber Catholic .. was there just prior to Covid .. Catholic to the core.. .. but who cares .. what is the point .. what if they all banned abortion .. doesn't mean we should as well..

I will ask you the one question .. that will end the moral dillema - when does the soul arrive ? Same question can be asked to Secular .. so don't matter if one is religious.

and don't forget the "Why"

 

Exclusively pro christian?

That is nonsense.

 

A born baby has rights. One in the womb does not, not even this florida law claims that.
So it’s ok at 14 weeks and 6 days but murder at 15?

 

Sure when the mother consents to murdering it. When she doesnt, the murderer gets a homicide charge. Go ahead and continue with your daily left wing rhetoric.

 

Interesting. So by Jewish law, they should sue every state that has eliminated the death penalty.

 

You might be right about the leader of the congregation in Florida, but abortion is not such black-or-white topic in Judaism. Here's the traditional Orthodox point of view:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/529077/jewish/Judaism-and-Abortion.htm

 

No. By Jewish law, Jews should respect the laws of their countries. The Florida congregation in question is obviously not following Jewish law.

 

You will need to explain your thinking in clearer detail (see my own description, to which this was your response), for me to understand what point you are trying to make.

The abridged version of my previous explanation is that, if the state defines fetuses as human beings-- even if they are a class which, for practical reasons, do not have all the rights and procedures available to them, as do human beings who have been born (and there is certainly due precedent to set age requirements for certain "rights;" this does not define the under-aged as not being human, or not entitled to other rights which are not age-restrictive, or for which they have attained the required age)-- then this makes the practice of aborting them, beyond that stage of development, as illegal as killing anyone else. Your argument seems to be, that the state does not have the right to define anything as killing, for anyone who claims that to do so, would violate their religious beliefs. As this seems a ludicrous contention to me, I assume I misunderstand whatever distinction your reply did not allow the space, to explain in any detail.

I will reiterate the manifestly clear intent of my original reply, that this is not an argument based on my agreement with or approval of Florida's policy; it is merely, what I consider to be, a logical analysis of the situation.

 

That can change. That's part of the beauty of living within our civic framework. We can expand rights to various groups who didn't enjoy them previously. We've done it repeatedly throughout our history: slaves, blacks, Indians, Irish, women, 18-20-year-olds, etc. There's nothing that says we can't do more to guarantee the right to life for unborn children. We can, and we should.

 

I understand your position. Basically, you're saying that Jim Jones has the right to be a cult leader and tell people a bunch of crazy stuff to get them to isolate from the "outside" world but violating the law (his actions leading to group suicide) crosses the line from "religious freedom" to <various illegal crimes>.

In much the same way, Jewish people have Freedom of Religion (or Freedom from religion) and can believe whatever they want but, that can not break the law of the society in which they live.

Therefore, conversely, the laws of a society can't infringe on the rights of people to live according to their religion. For instance, let's say that a law was passed that everyone in the country is REQUIRED to eat pork (Jewish faith) or beef (Indian faiths). All the religions that prohibit consuming either or both would have a valid basis to argue infringement on their Freedom of Religion; however, vegetarians and vegans would NOT have a legal basis to argue it because those are lifestyle choices unrelated to their religious beliefs.

Does that help? If not, I'll try again until we get there.

 

Your comment does not seem to have any relevance.

 

Our founding document says otherwise.

Is that your position?

 

Where does our founding documents say that? 14th amendment says they aren’t even citizens until birth.
And no, the ? Indicates a question and not a statement of my opinion.

 

~ Are you Evangelical ... ?

 

Neither do current rightists.

 

You forgot to mention "Emaculate Conception" and I doubt you actually understand the meaning according to scripture

In other words "Free of sin" not without seed See below!