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

So ONLY people who are citizens of this country have a right to life? And aliens both legal or illegal can be killed on the spot? A visitor standing at the grand canyon can be pushed over the side because they have no right to life?

I don't think the DoI which establishes our founding principles says

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life but only if they are a Citizen of the United States

 

No, your reply only made your perspective seem more convolute. You certainly opted for an inauspicious beginning, by claiming that you understood my position, and then going on to bizarrely misstate it. Perhaps, in following my common sense argument, you are aiming too high, for what you expect to achieve, at one vault. How about we try to just be capable of responding to what each other asks, for starters? Here is what I asked you, from the quote, cited by your reply:

DEFinning said: ↑
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...
[End quote]

The rest of my reply was only a simplified restating, and clarifying, of my previously stated view. Yet, instead of explaining your thinking, you are trying to put words in MY mouth. So, baby steps. Are you able to describe what you had meant, by your anything but lucidly clear reply:

MJ Davies said: ↑
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.
[End quote]

I repeat, in simplified form, my initial reply: WHAT?

I think it would be counter-productive, for us to go off in all the diverse directions which your response presents, at least before I even understand the opinion which you are trying to express. I am only quoting your opening, here, for reference, to point out the seemingly senseless comments, from which you are presumably expecting me to better comprehend your perspective.

How would the Florida LEGISLATURE'S PASSING a law, when there is now no federal law-- at least, into which your comments, so far, have delved-- contradicting it, be a case of "VIOLATING the law?" as your (if I may be honest) pathetic excuse for an analogy, would contend?

The only "explanation," of your own reasoning, that I could discern, was this feeble effort at equivocation:

As there is no precedent, or authority in Constitutional or, for that matter, even English, law which would justify your "example," of the government requiring the ingestion, by all citizens, of a particular food, it is hardly worth a response. There are, I assume you know, laws against killing other human beings (?). These are the basis of the Florida law which we are supposedly discussing, here. In essence, what Florida would be doing, is defining a starting point, for personhood, which has never been firmly set in law, except by individual states, to my knowledge-- and of which, again, you have made no mention. If, however, you actually had an argument, on the grounds that personhood had already been legally, clearly defined as beginning at birth, it would be a far stronger way to make your point, than to fabricate falsely alleged versions, of my own argument.

 

You need to reread Matthew Gospel.

https://www.whig.com/archive/articl...ee how Jesus said it,them but to fulfill them.
In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Let's not forget about giving unto Caeser what is owed to Caeser.

 

I made a mistake in taking you off ignore. Don't worry. I won't make that one again.

Best regards, Def.

 

The question is which law is Matthew 5:17-18 referring to. Here Jesus makes it clear the eye for an eye under the Old Testament is now turn the other cheek when slapped in the New Testament.

Matthew 5:38-40 American Standard Version (ASV) Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

 

Is that why the Jews hated Jesus. ?

 

I see, so the florida law allowing abortion up to 14 weeks is unconstitutional?

 

The best evidence, that "you can't handle the truth!" Or, for that matter, handle coherently relating your argument. I have repeatedly pointed out that, though I do NOT agree with Florida's decision, you have provided no reason to believe that, legally, they would have no right to define personhood, as beginning at some point during gestation. Hence, the killing of someone, beyond that point, is a crime. This is a strictly logical conclusion. And you respond to it, by comparing it to passing some absurd law, governing the eating of meat-- after alleging that I support Jim Jones, and his cyanide Kool Aid.

Then, laughably, you end here, again, not with arguing any case that you are supposedly contending, but by making the false implication, that it is I, who has been uncivil. All you have done is present an airtight case, demonstrating that you decide issues based, not on any reasoned assessment of information, but on just how you feel about them. And when another person sees it differently than yourself, you are comfortable, to the point of seeming unaware of your own tactics, with flagrantly misrepresenting their view and, if that does not suffice, of acting as if you have been treated with such rudeness, as to warrant the "ignore," function.

As I obviously put much more time, effort, and thought, into my replies than you have reciprocated, my only logical reaction to your assurance that you won't make the mistake of trying to engage me in another one of your mock debates, is, "good riddance."

 

The pharisees saw a young man who knew the laws better than they did. Jesus schooled them on the new laws as well. They felt threatened by him.

 

Stop dodging and respond to my post

So ONLY people who are citizens of this country have a right to life?

And aliens both legal or illegal can be killed on the spot? A visitor standing at the grand canyon can be pushed over the side because they have no right to life?

I don't think the DoI which establishes our founding principles says

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life but only if they are a Citizen of the United States

 

I did respond and I never said that.
Are you claiming that section gives rights to embryos?

 

You

So ONLY people who are citizens of this country have a right to life?

And aliens both legal or illegal can be killed on the spot? A visitor standing at the grand canyon can be pushed over the side because they have no right to life?

I don't think the DoI which establishes our founding principles says

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life but only if they are a Citizen of the United States

It applies to every human being from creation................

 

My point was that I don’t think it gives rights to a fetus when it specifically doesn’t give citizenship until birth. Not that only citizens have rights.
So based on that, you think ALL abortion is a constitutional violation? So much for states rights lol