In 1936 The German Supreme High Court ruled that the Jew was not a person.
In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court under Roe V. Wade Ruled that an Unborn Child is not a person.
2006-10-12 02:47:39 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Sure, lots of ignorants consider a blob of cells to have the same value as a human being. In fact many evangelicals care a lot more about fertilized eggs than about real human beings.
2006-10-12 02:51:25 · answer #1 · answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
hi, the weakness of any populace is derived from the zealots rejected by similarities, if I say hale Hitler, and some say hale Mary, who do they see? Certainly not Mary (the mother of Jesus Christ), they see Hitler, they want a God right here and right now, and no matter how bad or good they are or the cost.
Man /ak woman want to play at and think that they are gods, through their power over life and death. The current justice of U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a Jew. I think she would approve and reason out both similarities, and vote for both, and has directly and indirectly.
Pro-abortionists prefer the tern pro-life, what a joke, pro-life is the most undemocratic tern there is, they, pro-lifers take-life on whims, with no consideration for another life at all. Amazing how strong life is in the Muslim community, abortion is forbidden, and for that reason alone they will succeed to destroy us. I defiantly see the similarities. I believe some Jews know God has rejected them. And that’s why they became Bolsheviks, to this very day in every college, powerhouse and court there is, etc. etc.
2006-10-12 10:46:17 · answer #2 · answered by thomas 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, 1936 and 1973 both have a 1, 9, and 3. Spooky.
What point are you trying to make?
2006-10-12 10:09:21 · answer #3 · answered by Duncarin 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Incorrect. The Supreme Court ruled no such thing. A "Person" has always been defined as someone who is already born. Jews were 'Persons' since they were born into the world, and living and breathing. A mass of cells inside a woman's womb is not defined as a person to begin with, so the Supreme Court could not rule it to be NOT a person, since it wasn't a person to begin with. Big difference.
2006-10-12 09:59:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
A person is defined by philosophers as a being who is in possession of a range of psychological capacities that are regarded as both necessary and sufficient to fulfill the requirements of personhood. These are, in general, that it is capable of reasoning, that it is self-conscious, and that it has an identity that persists through time.
So, I don't know how would unborn Child be a person.
2006-10-12 10:02:11 · answer #5 · answered by nelli 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Both dates have a 1, a 9 and a 3.
2006-10-12 09:50:15 · answer #6 · answered by Hellsdiner 3 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Oh boy, what an interesting point. However we as humans have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to judge what is life and what isn't. If it exists and breathes it is life. Sorry pro abortionists but tis true.
However~ what you point out isn't the same outcome. To kill people who are out of the womb and experience life is not the same as a fetus. Altho I think both has the right to live, BOTH of those decisions (or should I say abominations) are wrong ~ DEAD WRONG>
"Judge not lest you be judged", these are for God to decide, making decisions like that means they are playing God, I wouldn't want to be even NEAR their shoes... God bless us all.
2006-10-12 09:54:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
A jew is a faith it cant be a person, a unborn child i really dont know about that one
2006-10-12 10:20:56 · answer #8 · answered by daisy322_98 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, Christians thinking that what a courts says mean anything compared to God's Divine purpose. They look for human answers, rather than those of God.
2006-10-12 09:51:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I see.
2006-10-12 11:42:15 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋