Do liberals understand that the SCOTUS is not debating whether to ban abortion?

[Votto]

Jesus is not the one who was around when scriptures were written concerning how a nation treats foreigners.

Leviticus 19:33,34 – “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

I'm sorry, where is the part about tax payers flipping the bill for all their needs via a massive bureaucracy? I must have missed that part. In fact, they had no welfare at all run by the government. In fact, they had no human king till the people demanded one, which God interpreted as a rejection of himself as king. He tried to warn them of the abuses of a human king would inflict on them, but they refused to listen. Yay democracy! A few human kings later and the entire nation split in two, and next thing you know they were in the ovens of the National SOCIALISTS in Germany.

But why burden you with facts when Left wing talking points are much more fun.

 

[SavannahMann]

I swear, every time I talk to a liberal, I SMH at how misinformed they are - and how deceitful the liberal media is. Just yesterday I spoke to a liberal, and in addition to her usual moaning about Republicans (to me, knowing I am a Republican), she bemoaned the “fact” that “Trump’s Republican Supreme Court” (her words) may ban abortion. When I corrected her, she said that MSNBC made it sound as though all abortions would be banned.

Listen up: for any of you libtards getting your news through MSNBC, the SCOTUS is not debating a ban. It doesn’t even have that right, just as it didn’t have the fight to force states to make it legal. It is merely debating whether the decision in Roe v Wade was constitutional, and if not, THE DECISION GOES TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

Ok. What other rights should be up to the states?

 

[Moonglow]

I'm sorry, where is the part about tax payers flipping the bill for all their needs via a massive bureaucracy? I must have missed that part. In fact, they had no welfare at all run by the government. In fact, they had no human king till the people demanded one, which God interpreted as a rejection of himself as king. He tried to warn them of the abuses of a human king would inflict on them, but they refused to listen. Yay democracy! A few human kings later and the entire nation split in two, and next thing you know they were in the ovens of the National SOCIALISTS in Germany.

But why burden you with facts when Left wing talking points are much more fun.

Moses and Ancient Israel’s Social Welfare System​

Posted on April 25, 2015
Modern Christianity tends to be very individualistic. Many think the only biblical obligation we have to the poor is personal charity, giving to the poor themselves or giving to charities to distribute it. Some Christians even think it is wrong to have a social welfare system with laws and taxes to fund it. But God expects nations and rulers to look after their poor too, and condemns nation who don’t. Israel was meant to be an example to nations around them, and the Old Testament Law established the nation of Israel with a comprehensive social welfare system to take care of the poor.
Tithes: Levites weren’t given an inheritance of land in Israel, they were meant to look after the Israelites spiritual needs not spend their time farming and herding flocks. As such they were among the poor in the land. They were to be provided for through the tithe,10% of all produce and herds going to 8% (1 in 12) of the tribes. So a generous provision for the poorest tribe. However the tithe was not just for Levites, they were also a provision for other poor people, for widows and orphans, and for immigrants especially those living in cities. Deut 14:27-29, 26:12&13. Unlike the misery of modern tax returns paying your tithe was mean to be a great big party for you all you household too Deut 22:14-27.
Gleaning: The poor living in the countryside were also supported through gleaning. Land owners were not allowed harvest all their crop, only allowed for example to beat their olive trees once, they could not go over them a second time as more olives ripened. The same applied to grapevines and all the grain and sheaves that had fallen to the ground in those pre-combine harvester days. These gleanings were for the poor and immigrants Deut 24:19-21.
Fallow Ground: Every seven years, the Sabbath Year, fields were to be left fallow. But wheat would still grow in wheat fields, olive tree and vines would still produce their fruit. Again this was for the poor and for immigrants. Also included were wild animals, so a very green social policy, Exodus 23:11, Lev 25:2-7. This was a social welfare contribution of up to 14% of harvests on top of the 10% tithe. The Sabbath year of the land should have been an abundant source of provision if the wealthy landowners didn’t cheat on their obligations. Proverbs 13:23 The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice.
Redistribution of wealth: The most politically radical of Moses laws were wealth redistribution through the cancellation of debt and return of land and houses. The debts of Israelites were cancelled in the Sabbath Year when the land was allowed lie fallow Deut 15:1.
Every 50 years this went even further in the Jubilee year: Land, the main source of wealth in an agrarian society was redistributed from the rich who had accumulated it over the previous 50 years and given back to the families and clans who owned it before. Houses in walled cities were not included in this, though the houses in cities belonging to Levites were returned. Outside cities, houses were returned in Jubilee years too Lev 25:10-55. All of this was meant to reset the economy every 50 years so the wealth that had been accumulated in the form of land and debts owed to the rich (read: banks) could be turned back to the more level playing field created by the Jubilee 50 years before.

Moses and Ancient Israel’s Social Welfare System

Modern Christianity tends to be very individualistic. Many think the only biblical obligation we have to the poor is personal charity, giving to the poor themselves or giving to charities to distri…

simianinthetemple.wordpress.com

In Judaism, views on abortion draw primarily upon the legal and ethical teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, the case-by-case decisions of responsa, and other rabbinic literature. While all major Jewish religious movements allow (or even encourage) abortion in order to save the life or health of a pregnant woman, authorities differ on when and whether it is permitted in other cases.

Judaism and abortion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rabbinic Judaism does not regard the fetus as a full human being. While deliberately killing a day-old baby is murder, according to the Mishnah, a fetus is not covered by this rule.[7] In the reading of Biblical homicide laws, rabbinic sages argue that homicide concerns an animate human being (nefesh adam from Lev. 24:17) alone, not an embryo... because the embryo is not a person (lav nefesh hu).[8] An embryo is not deemed a fully viable person (bar kayyama), but rather a being of "doubtful viability".[9] Hence, for instance, Jewish mourning rites do not apply to an unborn child. The status of the embryo is also indicated by its treatment as "an appendage of its mother"[10] for such matters as ownership, maternal conversion and purity law.[11] In even more evocative language, the Talmud states in a passage on priestly rules that the fetus "is considered to be mere water" until its 40th day.[12] Elsewhere, the Talmud speaks of a "moment of determination" and a "moment of creation" in regard to different stages of the fetus.[13] Rashi explains that the moment of creation is when bones and arteries begin to form[14] and in other places he says that the "moment of creation" is at the 40th day.[15]

 

[FA_Q2]

An unborn child in the womb is every bit as much a person as a three year old child, and should have the same protection under the constitution as a three year old child. Abortionists should also be charged with murder.

How hard is that for you to understand?

This not hard for anyone to understand.

What is a bit confusing is how you can remain consistent in your ideology AND also decide that the mother who is seeking to murder her child is suddenly not liable, legally speaking, for the act?

Does it not say something about the continuity of thought that the woman is not held liable for the 'murder' but the doctor is? Why does such a philosophy not apply to someone hiring a hitman for instance?

If you are consistent in your application of the logic, it seems you would have to jail the mother as well but nowhere is that on the table.

Explain how that is morally viable or are you of the impression that the mother should be charged the same as if she had hired a hitman to kill her born child?

 

[OldFlame]

Since you think abortion is murder why such a light sentence? Why not life in prison or the death penalty? If you're going to support theocracy might as well go whole hog. Maybe bring back burning at the stake. That used to be popular with people who tried to use the law to do the lord's work.

Sorry, but you need to take the bullshit 'theocracy' argument out of there, we're done with that, no one is forcing any religion on anyone by banning abortions. Why not legalize murder or theft or anything else the Bible says is a sin, I mean you don't want to force religion on anyone by making them illegal, right? Banning abortions has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with right and wrong, or are we banning that concept as well? Sure seems like we're further down that road every day.

 

[Lisa558]

Yet, that body is not independent.

First, it can be, depending on the gestation point. That liberals are OK with aborting a viable fetus is reprehensible.

Second, so what if that body is not yet independent. In many cases, it is just a few weeks shy of living life on its own, and can feel torture at that point.

Third, a person on life-saving drugs is not independent, either. Does that make it OK to murder them?

 

[Lisa558]

Ok. What other rights should be up to the states?

That’s already been answered in the Constitution. Anything not specifically given to the federal level remains with the states.

 

[SavannahMann]

That’s already been answered in the Constitution. Anything not specifically given to the federal level remains with the states.

Ok. Awesome. Now help me out. The First Amendment clearly states that the Congress is prohibited from passing any law. Why is the Rights protected by the First Amendment an individual right in which the States are prohibited from violating?

 

[Lisa558]

Ok. Awesome. Now help me out. The First Amendment clearly states that the Congress is prohibited from passing any law. Why is the Rights protected by the First Amendment an individual right in which the States are prohibited from violating?

I’m leaving for Bible study now. I will answer you later when I’m not in a rush.

 

[Moonglow]

First, it can be, depending on the gestation point. That liberals are OK with aborting a viable fetus is reprehensible.

Second, so what if that body is not yet independent. In many cases, it is just a few weeks shy of living life on its own, and can feel torture at that point.

Third, a person on life-saving drugs is not independent, either. Does that make it OK to murder them?

The act of abortion was always allowed before the quickening until the 1880's in the USA.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Having raised four kids of my own you speak like you are three years old.

Raised two of my own, but worry not, I get the message. I'll cease treating you with respect. Not the first time you've snapped at me for no discernible reason. Whatever..

 

[Unkotare]

....How do you tell an abortion from a miscarriage? ...

Are you kidding?

 

[BlindBoo]

They've already allowed Texas the right to force gestation on to the women of Texas, stripping them of the right that women in the other 49 states have. They are GOP Hacks.

 

[BlindBoo]

First, it can be, depending on the gestation point. That liberals are OK with aborting a viable fetus is reprehensible.

Dana Weinstein was 31 weeks into her second pregnancy, preparing to welcome a daughter, when she and her husband were given horrible news: A critical piece of the brain had not developed properly.

"[We were told] that our baby would have seizures 70% of the time — that was a best-case scenario; that when we delivered her, that we'd need to have a resuscitation order in place because she would most likely seize to death," Weinstein said.

Almost a decade later, Weinstein and her husband are the parents of three active children — a boy and two girls. She's 48, living in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and working for a nonprofit.

She still tears up when she talks about that diagnosis and the difficult decisions that surrounded it. Fearing a short and painful life for their baby, Weinstein and her husband chose to travel to Boulder, Colo., to end the pregnancy, at one of the few clinics in the country that offer third-trimester abortions.

Weinstein has been speaking publicly about her experience for years. But she decided to tell her story again recently, amid renewed national debate over decisions like hers.

 

[Lisa558]

They've already allowed Texas the right to force gestation on to the women of Texas, stripping them of the right that women in the other 49 states have. They are GOP Hacks.

Not really. The woman can still kill her baby - she just has to decide In the first few weeks. If not, and she decides later, she can take a bus to a neighboring state.

 

[Lisa558]

Dana Weinstein was 31 weeks into her second pregnancy, preparing to welcome a daughter, when she and her husband were given horrible news: A critical piece of the brain had not developed properly.

"[We were told] that our baby would have seizures 70% of the time — that was a best-case scenario; that when we delivered her, that we'd need to have a resuscitation order in place because she would most likely seize to death," Weinstein said.

Almost a decade later, Weinstein and her husband are the parents of three active children — a boy and two girls. She's 48, living in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and working for a nonprofit.

She still tears up when she talks about that diagnosis and the difficult decisions that surrounded it. Fearing a short and painful life for their baby, Weinstein and her husband chose to travel to Boulder, Colo., to end the pregnancy, at one of the few clinics in the country that offer third-trimester abortions.

Weinstein has been speaking publicly about her experience for years. But she decided to tell her story again recently, amid renewed national debate over decisions like hers.

There are always exceptions.

I could also come up with examples with babies aborted half-alive, ripped limb from limb.

 

[Lisa558]

Ok. Awesome. Now help me out. The First Amendment clearly states that the Congress is prohibited from passing any law. Why is the Rights protected by the First Amendment an individual right in which the States are prohibited from violating?

OK….I’m back.

The First Amendment doesn’t say that Congress is prohibited from passing any law! My G-d, but you liberals are so soft on crime that now you’re going to argue that Congress isn’t allowed to pass laws? What do you think the purpose of Congress is?

 

[SavannahMann]

OK….I’m back.

The First Amendment doesn’t say that Congress is prohibited from passing any law! My G-d, but you liberals are so soft on crime that now you’re going to argue that Congress isn’t allowed to pass laws? What do you think the purpose of Congress is?

You misunderstand my point. I’ll elaborate what I believed erroneously was patently clear.

Regarding the rights enumerated in the First Amendment. It does not say those rights are individual. It does not say the people have a right to.

First Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Amendment I​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So why are the States restricted from doing this? It clearly says Congress. That is Federal isn’t it? Shouldn’t this right be restricted just to Congress?

We have from the Right that the Supreme Court striking down Roe would just return it to the States to decide how they feel is best. So Abortion is not an individual right. Why is Speech and Religion and the rest? What did the Founders intend?

 

[Lisa558]

You misunderstand my point. I’ll elaborate what I believed erroneously was patently clear.

Regarding the rights enumerated in the First Amendment. It does not say those rights are individual. It does not say the people have a right to.

First Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Amendment I​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So why are the States restricted from doing this? It clearly says Congress. That is Federal isn’t it? Shouldn’t this right be restricted just to Congress?

We have from the Right that the Supreme Court striking down Roe would just return it to the States to decide how they feel is best. So Abortion is not an individual right. Why is Speech and Religion and the rest? What did the Founders intend?

This would be a good discussion, but I think you should start a separate thread. But briefly, the founders wanted to make sure that citizens of the new country would not be oppressed under a forced religion, such as was experienced in England. My guess would he there was similar oppression regarding free speech, but perhaps someone else can speak to that.

And to your question as to why religious expression and free speech is specifically given on the individual basis, and not abortion, the answer is obvious to me: it was seen as a positive to allow freedom regarding religion and speech, but the founders did not consider the ability to to abort one’s own baby as so fundamental to freedom that the same right was not granted. The same could be said as to why freedom to smack people’s heads onto rocks was not granted as an individual right.

 

[Grumblenuts]

And to your question as to why religious expression and free speech is specifically given on the individual basis, and not abortion

That wasn't the question either. Again,

It does not say those rights are individual. It does not say the people have a right to.

See, the presumption is that they are not. Why can't the States do it since the Constitution doesn't? That's his question.