Any of the 2020 DNC Presidential candidates 100% against abortion (aka murder)?

One can not be Democrat unless one supports abortion on demand, without restrictions. It would be like wanting to join the Nazi party (in Germany, during the Third Reich) but opposing persecution of Jews, or like join the Communist Party of the Soviet Union but favoring private property.

In all fairness, other cultures have allowed murder of children, such as the toleration of infanticide for a variety of reasons (e.g. birth defects), and in Rome a head of the family could order the execution of any descendant at any age. The American left feels that mothers should be able to kill their babies at least until birth, and some argue longer. If this boths you, become a Republican.

Reb Eliezer: The rich can also hire a hit man to kill people they dislike, whereas the poor have to risk getting caught and do it themselves. So should we decriminalize murder? Until the government, led by a bunch of religious fanatics put a stop to it, the rich could buy slaves and do whatever they wanted to with them, so are you arguing for repeal of the 13th amendment? The Democrats made a clear policy choice to allow (and insome cases, encourage) the murder of the weakest and most helpless persons in society. A Yid who owes his primary allegiance to HaShem should no more consider joining the Democrats thanone in the 1930 coudl have supported the National Socialists in Germany. If you decide that some lives aren’t worth living, how long before someone decides that our lives aren’t worth living (and do say it won’t happen, because there are still people old enough to remember when a major democracy voted to kills their “untermenchen” as they saw them.

The Republicans who let the poor suffer end up killing them.

Typical trolling.

How many people have died in ICE custody the past 3 years?
How many families separated ?
How many mass murders have there been in America the past 3 years?
How many refugees have we sent back to die in their own countries?
How many people would have suffered if they had lost their insurance due to removing obamacare?

When the republicans truly care about the living , I will vote for them .

These days abortion is no longer a question by Democrats.

They have moved on to supporting worse forms of murder like euthanasia and infanticide.

Halacha is not 100% against abortion. There are situations where abortion is mandated.

Yehuda Yona: Halacha is not 100% against killing. There are situations where killing someone is mandated.

Should killing be legalized?

“Reb Eliezer”, the Democrats are now for abortion. They are upset when abortion numbers decline, and demand an inquiry to find out why, and what can be done about it. The days when they pretended to want abortion to be “legal, safe, and rare” are long gone. And yes, it was a pretense; they never actually believed it.

There is also no evidence for the abortionists’ myth of “back alley abortions”. On the contrary, the example of Dr Gosnell — Philadelphia’s answer to Dr Mengele — the total suppression of media coverage of his crimes, and of the documentary about them, shows how legal butchers are protected by the Democrats from any criticism that could chas vesholom harm their holy cause of murdering as many babies as possible.

At least jackk is honest, labelling himself a typical troll.

How many people have died in ICE custody the past 3 years?

No more than would be expected. No more than die anywhere else. A person has to be somewhere when he dies. Most importantly NOBODY HAS EVEN SUGGESTED that ICE was in any way responsible for any death that occurred in its custody.

How many families separated ?

Why is this a problem? Every time a criminal is arrested a family is separated. Do you have a problem with this?

How many mass murders have there been in America the past 3 years?

No more than is normal, given the US’s demographics. What has this got to do with politics?

How many refugees have we sent back to die in their own countries?

Genuine refugees? Almost none. But tell me why we have any obligation to take in every person who wants to come here.

How many people would have suffered if they had lost their insurance due to removing obamacare?

None.

When the republicans truly care about the living , I will vote for them .

Liar. You would never vote for a Republican because you are a socialist, i.e. an evil person.

Klugeryid, I’m not an authority, but I believe that when the fetus is a considered a rodef, abortion is mandatory. For example, if continuing the pregnancy will result in the mother’s death. Joseph, killing IS legal in some circumstances.

YY: Just like virtually everyone agrees that killing is and should be legal in some rare circumstances, virtually everyone agrees abortion should be legal in some rare circumstances.

Joseph, killing IS legal in some circumstances.

I considered making that argument, but realized that while true,
it wasn’t a counter to his parallel to on-demand abortion.

“Reb Eliezer”, are you now admitting to also being jackk?!

I didn’t call you an evil person yet, but if you are a socialist then I’m calling you it now.

You’re also a liar. Trump has done nothing at all against immigrants. He has acted, properly, against illegal immigrants, taking them into custody for their crimes, and therefore separating them from their innocent relatives just like any other criminal. Since you have no problem with separating robbers and rapists from their families, why do you object to this?

It is also a lie that Trump “supports the rich by only givihg them a tax cut”, though indeed he should do that. The rich are the ones who pay almost all the taxes. You can’t cut the taxes of someone who doesn’t pay any. And you can’t give a big cut to someone who only pays a tiny amount. The fact is the rich pay far more than their fair share according to halacha. The halacha is clear that a person may be taxed only in proportion to the benefit he will get from that tax. Our progressive tax system violates that law, so the top rates should be cut without any cut to the lower rates; but that’s politically impossible, so it hasn’t been done.

You also lie when you claim “Some are fanatic and don’t allow abortions in any case even when the mother is in danger when a child is a rodaf”. NOBODY of any importance in the pro-life movement is proposing to criminalize abortions in those extremely rare cases where it’s necessary to save the mother’s life. Under even the most radical proposals out there, the defenses of necessity and defense of others would remain available to any such abortionist.

The Torah regards killing an unborn baby exactly the same way it does killing a nochri. A nochri who kills another nochri, whether born or not, or an unborn yisroel, is executed for it. A yisroel who does the same is not executed. Does that mean it’s not murder? You tell me. But whatever you say about killing an unborn baby you have to say the same about killing an adult nochri.

Also, if abortion were not murder we wouldn’t need to justify it when the mother’s life is in danger by invoking the law of a rodef. A baby who is attacking its mother and putting her life in danger is killed exactly like anyone else who is doing the same thing. If someone is pointing a gun at an innocent person and about to pull the trigger it doesn’t matter whether that person is 20 years old, 2 years old, or minus two months old.

A simple Google search shows otherwise, although it seems
Jackk got the agency wrong.

An NBC article, Why are migrant children dying in U.S. custody?, begins as follows:
At least seven children are known to have died in immigration custody since last year, after almost a decade in which no child reportedly died while in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

@Milhouse our objection to abortion is based off our beliefs. I.e. The Torah.

What right do we have to tell our host country what their laws should or shouldn’t be?

The Torah also forbids killing (unless in exceptional circumstances, like the death penalty, and even then decided upon by a base din who try their best to exonerate the accused etc etc).

Do you oppose the death penalty this strongly too?

Republicans believe that life begins at conception. Democrats believe life begins at birth.
Democrats believe life ends at death. Republicans believe life ends at birth.

Or so it seems. Republicans believe in self reliance (hey, Kim Jong Un! #Juche), they don’t support any kind of safety nets or health care.

please explain to me why are socialists evil who help the needy.

Because they don’t help the needy, they steal from other people to help the needy. Or just stam, because they don’t think people should be rich.

The rich should pay more because they use the benefits of the country more because they have more to lose.

The top 20 percent of households pay 88 percent of federal income taxes. They certainly don’t get anything even remotely approaching 88% of the benefits. The top one percent pay 40%; you can’t claim they get 40% of the benefit.

They are not all criminals who are separated from their families.

Yes, they are all criminals. They all entered the country illegally, which is a crime for which they are arrested.

If they are illegal, then the whole family is illegal.

The children have not committed any crime. And under the Flores consent decree they can’t be kept in custody for more than 20 days. In any case you can’t have it both ways; you can’t complain both about children being in custody and about children being separated from their criminal parents when the parents are arrested.

The cases where abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life are extremely rare; almost to the point of nonexistence.

At least seven children are known to have died in immigration custody since last year, after almost a decade in which no child reportedly died while in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

And who is suggesting that the government is responsible for these deaths? Nobody. It’s a ridiculous idea. Every one of those children died because they were sick, and they didn’t become sick in custody. They just happened to be in custody when their time came. And of course there are more of them now than 10 years ago, because in case you haven’t noticed we now have hordes of invaders crossing the border, including children, which we didn’t have before..

Ah simpelton*, but what if the baby isnt attacking the mother? What if cancer is attacking the mother and chemo would kill the baby.

In such a case you are not killing the baby, you are treating the mother. The baby’s death is an unfortunate side-effect, which you very much don’t want, but have to accept because life is cruel. Psik reisha delo nicha leih. In such a case even lehavdil the Catholic church permits it. And there is certainly nobody in the pro-life movement proposing that it be banned.

My point is WHO should decide You? the state legislature? congress? Or the patient and their Rabbi?

The same people whose job is to decide whether any killing is justified. The legislature to set standards, and the courts to determine whether they apply in a particular case.

It is not possible for the exact same act to be murder when a nochri does it and not murder when a yisroel does it. Murder is murder, regardless of who is doing it. The penalties may be different, but the act is the same.

how cheap can human life be to you that mass murders are “normal”

Murder is normal. Given a certain population size, you are going to have a certain number of murders. And different demographics are going to commit murder at different rates. After adjusting for demographics the US murder rate is lower than in many western countries. And mass murder is so rare that it’s a statistical blip. It’s impossible to tell whether it’s falling or rising, because the sample size is so small.

The Torah is not at all socialist. It does not oppose ribbis; on the contrary, lanochri tashich, and nochrim are expected to charge each other interest too. We Yisre’elim are not to charge each other interest not because it’s somehow wrong but because we’re supposed to treat each other like family, and you don’t charge family interest. It’s a subset of the mitzvah of ahavas yisroel. The obligation to give tzedokah is also a subset of ahavas yisroel. There is no mitzvah to give to nochrim, and if you do give you get no sachar for it, because there’s no mitzvah to love them. Nor are they expected to love one another, so they too get no sachar for giving each other tzedakah. The same applies to that whole set of mitzvos; this is not the normal moral standard of how we’re to treat people; on the contrary, the idea is that we are to treat our fellow Yisre’elim BETTER than standard, to do them favors we would not do for a normal person, because they’re not normal people, they’re our own flesh and blood.

What right do we have to tell our host country what their laws should or shouldn’t be?

Are you crazy? We have the right and duty to tell the whole world what is right and what is wrong.

The Torah also forbids killing (unless in exceptional circumstances, like the death penalty,

Stop right there. The Torah supports and requires the death penalty. One of the seven mitzvos is dinim; the nations are REQUIRED to enforce the other six laws with the death penalty. And part of Losheves Yetzoroh is a particular requirement to enforce it in the case of murder and robbery. And no, the court is not supposed to try to exonerate a murderer. On the contrary, “the earth cannot be forgiven for the blood spilled on it, except by the spiller’s blood”. Even among Yisre’elim the batei din must be supplemented with the king’s courts, which make sure murderers don’t live to murder others. For nochrim there are no procedural barriers at all.

I think that’s enough for now.

only rav miller zatzal felt that this was a policy worth making an issue over even if it meant losing clout, funding,,,,,what is clear is that most gedolei hador DID NOT share that view as far as ” our response” . some even felt that it was a brocho
rav miller zatzal cheshbon was 3 fold ; A. shitas haraved that tochacha is principal oriented not goal oriented (i was there when rav miller called rav pam when the aguda honored joe lieberman)
B. a chilul hashem that the catholics were anti publicly and not am hanivchar
c. that al pi zohar aveiros as these drasticly cut the shefa milmallah and its NOT what does it have to do w/ us .

Meir: “Some even felt WHAT was a Brocha”? And “most gedolei hador” felt WHAT was not worth “making an issue over” and an issue WHERE?

TO say either political party really cares about anything other then power seems to me to be a stretch and there is a pretty specific MIshna in Pirkei Avos about exactly what the leaders of a country wish.

That said.
To say that President Trump signed a Tax Cut for the rich and not the poor is simply false.

When I say false, I mean objectively false.

If one wishes to state that more discounts went to what is termed rich, that would be true.

However at the same time we should realize that the overwhelming majority of taxes are payed by the wealthy.

In fact the poor already do not pay Income taxes in fact tax deadline is a money making time for a large part of America.

How are you supposed to discount the taxes of those who do not pay taxes.?

I also wonder how the passage of a bill that led to what is objectively one of strongest job markets in years the actual beginning of a raise in salaries across the spectrum and hundreds of thousands of unemployed individuals finally finding work able to be called anti-poor?

smerel i dont deny the predictions but factually please elaborate on any other godol , that joined rav miller zatzl ( not that rav miller needed other haskamos) but these are the facts. the gedolim chose either a total shev veal taaseh or a minute machoh , ( like an article in the observer) specificly ( rav yakov & rav zelig…
joseph; you are passionate about this issue ill explain a bit – not stopping a politician from voting pro choice or pro toayva is very very far from bearing responsibility and this was a yesod in the diff approaches. as far as the brocho hameivin yovin i cant explan in eng. on a public forum

@Ben L
Socialism may be a dirty word, but capitalism isn’t all that great either. Wealth creates further wealth. So whilst there are 10s of millions who barely break even every month, the wealthiest are only getting wealthier.

And with corporate lobbying the way it currently is, it allows the richest to ensure laws are enacted to allow for them to preserve their wealth.

Wealth disparities have widened over time. In 1989, the bottom 90 percent of the U.S. population held 33 percent of all wealth. By 2016, the bottom 90 percent of the population held only 23 percent of wealth. The wealth share of the top 1 percent increased from about 30 percent to about 40 percent over the same period.

Which is why certain socialist policies may lend a healthy balance within an otherwise capitalist system.

It’s not a question of jealousy, it’s that 99.9% of individuals would benefit from a policy that perhaps may make it a little more difficult for a single person to buy a $400m yacht, but would mean another million children don’t have to go bed hungry at night.

These policies work in European countries, yet Americans are so keen to argue against them, when the country would certainly benefit from them.

Take the UK’s NHS as an example. Universal healthcare no matter how rich or poor you are. It may not be perfect but it affords each and every individual the security of knowing if their health were to take a turn for the worse, they were to break a leg or have a complicated north, they’ll be taken care of without the threat of falling into debt. Paid for through taxes which means the wealthy pay in disproportionately.

Bottom line is the current system is failing millions to the benefit of the few. This isn’t just my humble opinion. But also Ray Dalio a man worth $17 billion who only stands to lose by socialist reforms.

Furthermore to state that in the US people are going hungry one must examine why so many Democrat policies have failed.
a) Food Stamps
b) Public Schools
c) School Lunches
d) Medicare & Medicaid
e) Obamacare
f) WIC
g) Social Security
h) Earned Income Tax Credit
i) HUD
The existence of all these policies combine to create what is known as the Social safety net and should ensure no child goes hungry or is homeless.

Are you saying these socialist policies have failed?

@Ben L

Ugh your NHS comment is bothering me too much.

You’ll never find a Brit that says they’d prefer the American system. Because for every person you do find that is waiting for dialysis, you’ll find a million not concerned about how to pay for their insulin or epipen, going to the emergency room just in case without the worry of a huge bill, wondering how they’re to afford having a baby or stuck with a bill because their doctor is no longer covered by their insurers.

The american health system is a failure, don’t even bother defending it.