Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[aris2chat]

The problem is that the libtarded proaborts actually think that there is a difference between a "developing human being" and "a human being that is undergoing further development."

Intellectually honest people who have actually passed an 8th grade biology semester know that "a human being" in the zygote, embryo, fetal stages of their life is ALWAYS a "human being."

Proaborts require the new child to develop past the arbitrarily decided point where they can't be denied anymore. . . and then MAYBE they will admit it's a child.

So much for their professed standing on equal rights, huh.

I like to think we're all "undergoing further development". Some intelligent people can see there is a difference between a fertilized egg and an adult human. One displays the attributes that make humans different from other animals, rational thought, self-awareness, curiosity while the other is collection of DNA without senses or feelings. The egg cell that is little different from the fertilized egg of any other species, in fact only by sequencing it's DNA can the species be known, whereas an adult human can be typed immediately, you might even be able to ask it.

To say the rights of a single, senseless collection of DNA has rights equal to an adult human is intellectually dishonest.

Can a child born with anencephalia (born with no capacity for thought, feelings or awareness) be murdered?

Yes or no?

It will never has a normal life.

We put down our pets, but we can't terminate humans suffering?

It can usually be detected with prenatal testing. Parents should make that decision early enough. Blood test for genetic issues should be done before deciding to have children.

Dear aris2chat
1. If assisted suicide were legal, what conditions would need to be policed to prevent ABUSES of this legality to "cover up murder" by disguising it as "willful assisted suicide." If there is no way to tell the difference, then by keeping assisted suicide illegal, then murderers cannot use this so freely. Currently people DO get away with murder by covering it up as suicide. Giving them assisted suicide would enable even more such murders.

2. RE: difference between animals and humans
Not sure about animals, but humans carry "generational ills" that have a cause and a cure, where patterns repeat in future generations (ie patterns of cancer, alcoholic addiction, domestic abuse carry down both physically psychologically spiritually and possibly genetically). We have a conscience that either forgives or doesn't, and this forgiveness/unforgiveness factor in humans has been studied as correlating with illness and health, and whether people choose forgiveness therapy to "break through" past cycles of addiction, abuse and sickness related. People can go through spiritual healing which has been shown to either heal the root cause of sickness, alleviate the conditions, or in some cases, heal third parties (such as a mother praying to heal her generational issues, and the result was her daughter was cured of sickness), OR letting people go naturally.

There is no reason why someone couldn't naturally die without forcing it; there are cases of heartbreak and depression that end in death by the person "losing the will to live" and dying on their own without committing suicide or needing help to do so, and cases of comatose patients who let go and die on their own without being forced. I talked with a man who reached a consensus with his family to actively remove life support and let someone die, but they never had to; at the point they reached this agreement, the person let go on their own. So spiritually it is perfectly possible to allow people to let go and die without forcing this unnaturally.

So unless we exhaust ALL means of remediating the cause of suffering, it is unethical to kill someone
without offering this alternative first. What if someone believes leprosy or TB is incureable and the person who wants to die should be allowed to be removed from all sustenance in order to hasten death? It makes sense to offer the cure for leprosy or TB, see if that works and then ask that person if they really want to die or live.

3. So that's fine aris2chat: If you want to add that condition to the law, that the person must first be offered and undergo spiritual healing to effectively remove all possible causes of the suffering BEFORE they consent to die, that might still prevent abuse by people seeking to kill someone for convenience and calling it suicide.

Spiritual healing if they don't believe in a god?

Again imposing one's faith on others? We have freedom of faith for a good reason, that includes the freedom no to believe in what you are selling.

If suicide is acceptable in their religion, you should not be allowed to interfere in their final wishes. Death is unavoidable and if they want to step forward to avoid unnecessary pain to themselves or their family, thy should be allowed to. I've know people who arranged for medical suicide and why they took that path. I've made my own arrangements if and when I decide it is time. Why should I be forced to go beyond my pain threshold? Why should I depend on others to decide when food is injected into my stomach or when my diaper is changed, especially in a poorly funded over worked medical system that is impersonal? I made my arrangements more than twenty years ago and I'm still going. I know what I have to look forward to, thanks but no thanks.

You don't get to tell other what they can and cannot do to their body, you are not a slave master.

 

[aris2chat]

Dear aris2chat Treating your beliefs and all others equal under law,
it seems equally wrongful to make any laws that assume either your beliefs or others
at the exclusion of each other; it makes sense that policies should be neutral of belief,
and either include and protect all, without discrimination,
or else govt should avoid making a policy at all establishing a bias in belief, to be fair.

I don't think it's necessary to deny the existence of life in the unborn child
in order to make the argument that
(1) govt should not intervene in private personal matters without consent
(2) abortion laws should not be enforced in ways that burden women
more than men by focusing on pregnancy instead of prevention

If we focus on areas we can agree are causing problems that need be solved,
this might be more effective than focusing on conflicting beliefs that go around in circles.
Govt should never be abused to make laws based on faith-based arguments,
so why not focus on areas or problems we could agree need attention to solve the root causes?

Making sure the heart is not beating is the first step of an abortion. At that point it become necessity to remove all the tissue before it become toxic inside the women.
In a miscarriage the body responds, most of the time, to expel the placenta. If not a D&C is scheduled. The idea of a screaming moving suffering fetus in the first couple of months is wrong, urban myth out out by anti-abortionists.
To keep or abort, either way the decision is made by the women. Not the general public in the streets with pitch forks and torches.

^ NOTE: "making sure the heart is not beating"
If someone is in a vegetative state, and cannot express their will because their brain is either dead or so reduced in function it can no longer support
any functions except the level of a baby in early stages in the womb,
it is still considered terminating life to stop their heart from beating.

The difference legally is that (1) the law already recognizes the comatose person as a person with equal will to live and rights,
but does not recognize the unborn individual in the womb who has not yet attained the status of a living person with human rights and ability to express their will;
and in abortion there is the added condition that (2) the body being
terminated is connected and carried by another living person whose choice over the other is recognized in the matter (such as if the comatose
person is a conjoined twin, and the other twin is recognized as having the choice of stopping the heart of the other twin to hasten death).

Functionally, if you have a grown person in the equivalent state of consciousness and brain function and control, or lack thereof,
as a baby in the womb, where their conditions are parallel,
then to "take actions to make their heart stop beating" is still the outside choice of other human beings to terminate life.

So question for you aris2chat what if we were looking at conjoined twins in a country that didn't recognize the human rights if
one of the twins is retarded or in another impaired state unable to communicate.
"LEGALLY" they just don't recognize that person's rights, the same way the US "LEGALLY" does not recognize
the rights of an unborn individual with no means of communicating their will and whose life depends on being carried by a person who can.

if "LEGALLY" it was recognized that the twin who is viable and able to communicate can
"choose to stop the heart and remove the conjoined twin so as not to burden the other twin"
wouldn't that still be an outside decision to kill that "person not legally recognized" by stopping their heart.

My point is just because it is legally recognized as a choice to stop the heart or terminate life at a certain given point, doesn't make it any less disturbing to people
who DO believe the other individual has the right to life regardless of their conditions (that aren't recognized legally by the laws in that country).

Embryo/fetus is not a person yet, that begins in the third trimester for legality like the killing of both mother and child in an accident, etc.
At that point, the baby might be able to survive at a preemie neonatal unit.

Every circumstance is different. All the hypothesize, what ifs, is not going to change the right for a women to control her body and decide if she wants an abort or carry the embryo to term.
If a legal guardian has been pointed for someone who is mentally ill or down syndrome. In those cases it usually ends with an abortion.

If no one forced a woman to get pregnant on her own free will: Why should force someone her child to have to be dead? On the other side: Why should we only kill her baby - why not the father of the baby too?

Dear zaangalewa
In addition to rape and incest, there are lots of other ways
that relationship abuse and relationship fraud can involve
COERCION and "breach of contract" that is against
someone's consent.

I went through a relationship involving fraud and abuse, where
at first my partner promised me I could have and keep the baby,
but then reneged on me and threatened suicide. Had I known at
that point it was his fault not mine, I would have let him do it. But
I was convinced it was "all my fault" and "all my responsibility"
to "fix the problem by aborting the baby."

This was COMPLETELY against my will, my beliefs, everything
I believe thought willed planned and consented to. It was only
that my boyfriend threatened to commit suicide that I thought
I had made the mistake and I was wrong about having the baby
and I needed to fix it by sacrificing what I was told was a mistake "on my part."

Looking back, later I understood how Andrea Yates could have been coerced
into killing her kids thinking it was the right thing to do. It is so easy to
manipulate coerce bully and brainwash people emotionally into doing
things we would normally be against and never consent to.

Until it happened to me, I never would have believed that was possible!

Now I find it hard to judge people who believe things even that are
harmful because they really believe it is the right thing and better to
do than the alternatives.

Coercion fraud and abuse are so prevalent, it is hard to distinguish.
Men complain about being abused and defrauded by women, too,
it goes both ways. They feel "led on" to believe they can have X Y Z
from a woman, such as sex without commitment or relationship, but
find out there are conditions/terms attached they don't agree to.

Because the abuse happens both ways, that's why I suggest the
complaints and counseling for abuse NOT require "blaming one
side and proving their fault" as in civil and criminal law.

I would recommend "health and safety" codes people can opt into
voluntarily (similar to consent forms that private colleges can require
of members to sign before engaging in sexual relations
if they are going to enroll there as part of the school policy) that just
treat the abuse as a problem that both partners are required/have
agreed in advance they would seek counseling for TOGETHER as
a JOINT issue, if a complaint
of abuse is reported by either partner or a child of the relationship.

zaangalewa from looking into cases of abortion, rape, incest and complaints
of relationship abuse from both a prolife and a prochoice perspective, I've found
more cases involve MEN coercing women, than women coercing men.

Because there are plenty of cases of women aborting babies against the father's will,
of course, those cases would have to be included equally in relationship abuse and fraud.

But on the whole, the general findings and consensus is there is a disproportionate
percentage of cases of men coercing the women. In trafficking cases, the men
deliberately get the women pregnant to control them, and letting CPS and govt
agencies take care of the kids so they don't have to deal with that. The women
who manage the pimping still aren't the ones who actually get the women pregnant.
So whether it's men or women doing the manipulation in those cases, there
are more women abused sexually and criminally than there are men.

With rape, trafficking, incest, and other sexual abuse, there are more women who are coerced and forced into sex, pregnancy, abortion and childbirth than men.

Some countries recognize the problem is on the men's/demand side and police their laws to
criminalize the men. But the root cause of sexual abuse and criminal predatory behavior and addiction
is spiritual sickness that has been cured by deep level spiritual therapy to remove the cause of the
dangerous addiction and behavior. That is on such a deep spiritual level it cannot be legislated by govt.
At most it could be proven by science, and such criminal people could be required to seek treatment
until they pass medical tests proving the sickness is gone and they are cured beyond the risk of relapse.
But dictating HOW the counseling and therapy takes place is not the place of govt, unless it can be defined completely medically and scientifically which may not be possible due to the spiritual nature of these ills.

Where I would draw the line is to give people and communities the "option" of
setting up a local policy on complaints of abuse where residents agree to seek
counseling, conflict resolution and mediation until the problems are resolved.
If everyone in that district agrees freely to such a policy, it can be locally practiced
by voluntary compliance in order to live in that district; and possibly offer incentives
such as tax breaks where this abuse prevention is shown to reduce the crime rate
and fewer people from that district end up in prisons, so it saves taxpayer money.
Then more money can be invested in health clinics and medical education programs
to prevent abuse, and provide facilities and services for sustainable health care.

That's what I would recommend. If the parties who don't agree with abortion funding
and/or who want to afford universal health care for all would get together and create such a program with a focus on addressing abuse upon first sign of complaints, this might provide a better avenue toward more cost effective or free health care instead of imposing taxes or laws on people against their consent.

And if a rape victims does not choose to abort, is it fair to her to be tied to her rapist forever because he has a right to custody, even from jail? She has to schedule her life around visitation rights to his prison? She has to explain to her child why her father is in jail? She can't take her child out of state without his permission? He should be emotionally raping her over and over for the next twenty years?

 

[Chuz Life]

The right to life does not come with a right to be kept alive by others on life support machines indefinitely. But, that can not be taken to mean their deaths can be hastened by those who want to see them pass on.

So if a fertilized egg is removed intact from the mother her responsibility to it is done since it can be implanted in another womb or left to die in a test tube. Works for me.

You have a serious reading & comprehension problem. Don't you.

 

[Chuz Life]

... Can a child born with anencephalia (born with no capacity for thought, feelings or awareness) be murdered? Yes or no?

A baby with anencephalie is not able to survive. In this case it's good to find a way which causes a minimum of traumata for the mother. So an abortion seems to be the best of all possible solutions we have today. But neverthelless we have to find out where this problem exactly comes from and what we can do to eliminate this danger for everyone worldwide. Abortion - a cheap 'solution' - should not be able to stop the progress in medical research.

Children have survived for several years after birth with that condition and several of them have had issues that has led to some very significant courts rulings related to their rights and such.

In the Matter of Baby "k" (three Cases), 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994)
Argued Oct. 26, 1993. Decided Feb. 10, 1994


Here is a link you might consider reading. It will shed a lot of light on the legality of these cases and from that, you should be able to see for yourself how the argument that "self awareness" and "brain function" are not legally required for personhood or for the equal protections of our laws.

 

[aris2chat]

... Can a child born with anencephalia (born with no capacity for thought, feelings or awareness) be murdered? Yes or no?

A baby with anencephalie is not able to survive. In this case it's good to find a way which causes a minimum of traumata for the mother. So an abortion seems to be the best of all possible solutions we have today. But neverthelless we have to find out where this problem exactly comes from and what we can do to eliminate this danger for everyone worldwide. Abortion - a cheap 'solution' - should not be able to stop the progress in medical research.

Children have survived for several years after birth with that condition and several of them have had issues that has led to some very significant courts rulings related to their rights and such.

In the Matter of Baby "k" (three Cases), 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994)
Argued Oct. 26, 1993. Decided Feb. 10, 1994


Here is a link you might consider reading. It will shed a lot of light on the legality of these cases and from that, you should be able to see for yourself how the argument that "self awareness" and "brain function" are not legally required for personhood or for the equal protections of our laws.

Difference between life and existance

 

[Chuz Life]

... Can a child born with anencephalia (born with no capacity for thought, feelings or awareness) be murdered? Yes or no?

A baby with anencephalie is not able to survive. In this case it's good to find a way which causes a minimum of traumata for the mother. So an abortion seems to be the best of all possible solutions we have today. But neverthelless we have to find out where this problem exactly comes from and what we can do to eliminate this danger for everyone worldwide. Abortion - a cheap 'solution' - should not be able to stop the progress in medical research.

Children have survived for several years after birth with that condition and several of them have had issues that has led to some very significant courts rulings related to their rights and such.

In the Matter of Baby "k" (three Cases), 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994)
Argued Oct. 26, 1993. Decided Feb. 10, 1994


Here is a link you might consider reading. It will shed a lot of light on the legality of these cases and from that, you should be able to see for yourself how the argument that "self awareness" and "brain function" are not legally required for personhood or for the equal protections of our laws.

Difference between life and existance

Incomplete sentence and indiscernible babble noted.

 

[aris2chat]

... Can a child born with anencephalia (born with no capacity for thought, feelings or awareness) be murdered? Yes or no?

A baby with anencephalie is not able to survive. In this case it's good to find a way which causes a minimum of traumata for the mother. So an abortion seems to be the best of all possible solutions we have today. But neverthelless we have to find out where this problem exactly comes from and what we can do to eliminate this danger for everyone worldwide. Abortion - a cheap 'solution' - should not be able to stop the progress in medical research.

Children have survived for several years after birth with that condition and several of them have had issues that has led to some very significant courts rulings related to their rights and such.

In the Matter of Baby "k" (three Cases), 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994)
Argued Oct. 26, 1993. Decided Feb. 10, 1994


Here is a link you might consider reading. It will shed a lot of light on the legality of these cases and from that, you should be able to see for yourself how the argument that "self awareness" and "brain function" are not legally required for personhood or for the equal protections of our laws.

Difference between life and existance

Incomplete sentence and indiscernible babble noted.

Best argument is to criticize my grammar?
LOL

 

[Chuz Life]

... Can a child born with anencephalia (born with no capacity for thought, feelings or awareness) be murdered? Yes or no?

A baby with anencephalie is not able to survive. In this case it's good to find a way which causes a minimum of traumata for the mother. So an abortion seems to be the best of all possible solutions we have today. But neverthelless we have to find out where this problem exactly comes from and what we can do to eliminate this danger for everyone worldwide. Abortion - a cheap 'solution' - should not be able to stop the progress in medical research.

Children have survived for several years after birth with that condition and several of them have had issues that has led to some very significant courts rulings related to their rights and such.

In the Matter of Baby "k" (three Cases), 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994)
Argued Oct. 26, 1993. Decided Feb. 10, 1994


Here is a link you might consider reading. It will shed a lot of light on the legality of these cases and from that, you should be able to see for yourself how the argument that "self awareness" and "brain function" are not legally required for personhood or for the equal protections of our laws.

Difference between life and existance

Incomplete sentence and indiscernible babble noted.

Best argument is to criticize my grammar?
LOL

You made no point. So, no argument was necessary.

 

[alang1216]

The right to life does not come with a right to be kept alive by others on life support machines indefinitely. But, that can not be taken to mean their deaths can be hastened by those who want to see them pass on.

So if a fertilized egg is removed intact from the mother her responsibility to it is done since it can be implanted in another womb or left to die in a test tube. Works for me.

You have a serious reading & comprehension problem. Don't you.

I guess so. Please explain the difference between taking a vegetative stoke victim off a feeding tube is any different from not feeding a fertilized egg?

 

[IndependantAce]

Interesting to see parallels between abortion and the ritual child sacrifices to Molech mentioned in the Bible as well as those of other world cultures like the Aztecs.

 

[Chuz Life]

The right to life does not come with a right to be kept alive by others on life support machines indefinitely. But, that can not be taken to mean their deaths can be hastened by those who want to see them pass on.

So if a fertilized egg is removed intact from the mother her responsibility to it is done since it can be implanted in another womb or left to die in a test tube. Works for me.

You have a serious reading & comprehension problem. Don't you.

I guess so. Please explain the difference between taking a vegetative stoke victim off a feeding tube is any different from not feeding a fertilized egg?

Let's see. . .

Do you mean other than the fact that a vegetative stroke victim who has NO prognosis for a normal life continuance at all is only being kept alive artificially while the fertilized egg typically has a much better prognosis and a NON artificial life support system?

Do you really think a doctor (any doctor) would remove life support from a stroke victim that has anywhere close to the same prognosis for further life, growth and development that a child even in the zygote stage of their life has?

or what?

 

[aris2chat]

The right to life does not come with a right to be kept alive by others on life support machines indefinitely. But, that can not be taken to mean their deaths can be hastened by those who want to see them pass on.

So if a fertilized egg is removed intact from the mother her responsibility to it is done since it can be implanted in another womb or left to die in a test tube. Works for me.

You have a serious reading & comprehension problem. Don't you.

I guess so. Please explain the difference between taking a vegetative stoke victim off a feeding tube is any different from not feeding a fertilized egg?

Let's see. . .

Do you mean other than the fact that a vegetative stroke victim who has NO prognosis for a normal life continuance at all is only being kept alive artificially while the fertilized egg typically has a much better prognosis and a NON artificial life support system?

Do you really think a doctor (any doctor) would remove life support from a stroke victim that has anywhere close to the same prognosis for further life, growth and development that a child even in the zygote stage of their life has?

or what?

Modern medical care give the embryo a better chance, but the woman's body treats it like an invasion. Miscarriages in the first trimester are common.

Unplugging someone at the end of life or unplugging en embryo from the umbilical connection to the women is a legal right. In some case there is even medical assisted suicide that is legal. Five state even allow euthanasia.

If someone wants to get pregnant or even raise a child with that person's DNA. Why should women who are not ready to raise a child be forced to keep it? When food is scares or there is some danger, some animals can actually put their pregnancy on hold till a better year. Women can put their eggs in storage to be used at a later time. Why is it necessary for a woman be required to carry her pregnancy to term? There are a few million children that need homes, adopt all of them by loving people before the need for more unwanted chidren. 30% of children have only one parent.

Consider the conditions and the ability of the women to care for a child and what type of life it will have. In times of war, natural disaster or catastrophic injury or illness either of the woman or someone she cares for. A child at that time endangers the woman, the person she cares for the child itself.

What ever the reason, it is the woman that needs to decide and her medical records are not open to your examination or judgement.

Some people by culture or religion have no opinion about abortion. Your morality should not trump theirs or you making you beliefs above someone elses. Your religion or morals are yours alone. You should not proselytize or force you ideas on others.

You don't get to decide if a person wants to end their life with dignity or if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy.

you only get to decide for your own body or if someone give you legal proxy to make decisions for them if they are unable to

Most responsible pet owners get their pet spayed or neutered. Why should people not decide if and when they are ready for become parent.

With the spread of STDs, all men should wear condoms, not leave birth control up to the women. Girls and young women should learn how to use nature to birth control, abortions and prenatal. They should be taught some moves to protect themselves as well.

Sex is health for body and mind. Just because you have your view based on your religion does not mean other share you ides or moral opinions.

You object to abortion, don't get one. Don't tell others what to do.

 

[zaangalewa]

Dear aris2chat Treating your beliefs and all others equal under law,
it seems equally wrongful to make any laws that assume either your beliefs or others
at the exclusion of each other; it makes sense that policies should be neutral of belief,
and either include and protect all, without discrimination,
or else govt should avoid making a policy at all establishing a bias in belief, to be fair.

I don't think it's necessary to deny the existence of life in the unborn child
in order to make the argument that
(1) govt should not intervene in private personal matters without consent
(2) abortion laws should not be enforced in ways that burden women
more than men by focusing on pregnancy instead of prevention

If we focus on areas we can agree are causing problems that need be solved,
this might be more effective than focusing on conflicting beliefs that go around in circles.
Govt should never be abused to make laws based on faith-based arguments,
so why not focus on areas or problems we could agree need attention to solve the root causes?

Making sure the heart is not beating is the first step of an abortion. At that point it become necessity to remove all the tissue before it become toxic inside the women.
In a miscarriage the body responds, most of the time, to expel the placenta. If not a D&C is scheduled. The idea of a screaming moving suffering fetus in the first couple of months is wrong, urban myth out out by anti-abortionists.
To keep or abort, either way the decision is made by the women. Not the general public in the streets with pitch forks and torches.

^ NOTE: "making sure the heart is not beating"
If someone is in a vegetative state, and cannot express their will because their brain is either dead or so reduced in function it can no longer support
any functions except the level of a baby in early stages in the womb,
it is still considered terminating life to stop their heart from beating.

The difference legally is that (1) the law already recognizes the comatose person as a person with equal will to live and rights,
but does not recognize the unborn individual in the womb who has not yet attained the status of a living person with human rights and ability to express their will;
and in abortion there is the added condition that (2) the body being
terminated is connected and carried by another living person whose choice over the other is recognized in the matter (such as if the comatose
person is a conjoined twin, and the other twin is recognized as having the choice of stopping the heart of the other twin to hasten death).

Functionally, if you have a grown person in the equivalent state of consciousness and brain function and control, or lack thereof,
as a baby in the womb, where their conditions are parallel,
then to "take actions to make their heart stop beating" is still the outside choice of other human beings to terminate life.

So question for you aris2chat what if we were looking at conjoined twins in a country that didn't recognize the human rights if
one of the twins is retarded or in another impaired state unable to communicate.
"LEGALLY" they just don't recognize that person's rights, the same way the US "LEGALLY" does not recognize
the rights of an unborn individual with no means of communicating their will and whose life depends on being carried by a person who can.

if "LEGALLY" it was recognized that the twin who is viable and able to communicate can
"choose to stop the heart and remove the conjoined twin so as not to burden the other twin"
wouldn't that still be an outside decision to kill that "person not legally recognized" by stopping their heart.

My point is just because it is legally recognized as a choice to stop the heart or terminate life at a certain given point, doesn't make it any less disturbing to people
who DO believe the other individual has the right to life regardless of their conditions (that aren't recognized legally by the laws in that country).

Embryo/fetus is not a person yet, that begins in the third trimester for legality like the killing of both mother and child in an accident, etc.
At that point, the baby might be able to survive at a preemie neonatal unit.

Every circumstance is different. All the hypothesize, what ifs, is not going to change the right for a women to control her body and decide if she wants an abort or carry the embryo to term.
If a legal guardian has been pointed for someone who is mentally ill or down syndrome. In those cases it usually ends with an abortion.

If no one forced a woman to get pregnant on her own free will: Why should force someone her child to have to be dead? On the other side: Why should we only kill her baby - why not the father of the baby too?

Dear zaangalewa
In addition to rape and incest, there are lots of other ways
that relationship abuse and relationship fraud can involve
COERCION and "breach of contract" that is against
someone's consent.

... Guess I got what you said.

I went through a relationship involving fraud and abuse, where
at first my partner promised me I could have and keep the baby,
but then reneged on me and threatened suicide.

I hate such "men".

Had I known at
that point it was his fault not mine, I would have let him do it. But
I was convinced it was "all my fault" and "all my responsibility"
to "fix the problem by aborting the baby."

This was COMPLETELY against my will, my beliefs, everything
I believe thought willed planned and consented to. It was only
that my boyfriend threatened to commit suicide that I thought
I had made the mistake and I was wrong about having the baby
and I needed to fix it by sacrificing what I was told was a mistake "on my part."

I know. Lots of people attribute themselve what others lay on their shoulders. The people who make them weak are often the same who "laugh" about their weakness. Terrible stories I heard in such contextes. But our real "weakness" is in such a case onyl: We need the society and acceptance of others. That's why to be free and others to let be free is very important. Real love is always only a choice in freedom for freedom.

Looking back, later I understood how Andrea Yates could have been coerced
into killing her kids thinking it was the right thing to do. It is so easy to
manipulate coerce bully and brainwash people emotionally into doing
things we would normally be against and never consent to.

Hmm.

Until it happened to me, I never would have believed that was possible!

Now I find it hard to judge people who believe things even that are
harmful because they really believe it is the right thing and better to
do than the alternatives.

To judge people is not the problem. It's god who knows what's really going on in everyone. The problem is to help the people who need help - and to fend the people who try to destroy others.

Coercion fraud and abuse are so prevalent, it is hard to distinguish.
Men complain about being abused and defrauded by women, too,
it goes both ways. They feel "led on" to believe they can have X Y Z
from a woman, such as sex without commitment or relationship, but
find out there are conditions/terms attached they don't agree to.

Because the abuse happens both ways, that's why I suggest the
complaints and counseling for abuse NOT require "blaming one
side and proving their fault" as in civil and criminal law.

I remember in this context - by the way: I'm a German - a judge, who forced a woman to have to meet the father of her baby, because of the new "tolerant" laws we have today, where men and women should have the same rights to educate their children. The judge believed not what she said about this agressive asshole. So she had to go, if she did not like to lose her child. Her best friend accompanied her. The "man" hurted the girlfriend with shots and murdered the mother in front of the eyes of her and his own child.

I would recommend "health and safety" codes people can opt into
voluntarily (similar to consent forms that private colleges can require
of members to sign before engaging in sexual relations
if they are going to enroll there as part of the school policy) that just
treat the abuse as a problem that both partners are required/have
agreed in advance they would seek counseling for TOGETHER as
a JOINT issue, if a complaint
of abuse is reported by either partner or a child of the relationship.

I guess I lost the line between abuse and abortion ... hmm ... Ah yeah ... guess I got it back. You described that there are much more forms of abuse than only rape what could justify an abortion. First: If a woman was raped and becomes pregnant then nevertheless her baby has 50% of her gene code. Most people in our world are thinking if a women was raped then she has automatically to do an abortion. But that's wrong. There is no automatism. How could the second trauma "to lose the own baby" help against the first trauma?

And in case of the very complex psychology of human beings and the lots of ways how human beings in their relations are hurting each other with psychological wounds may help a psychotherapy.

 

[alang1216]

The right to life does not come with a right to be kept alive by others on life support machines indefinitely. But, that can not be taken to mean their deaths can be hastened by those who want to see them pass on.

So if a fertilized egg is removed intact from the mother her responsibility to it is done since it can be implanted in another womb or left to die in a test tube. Works for me.

You have a serious reading & comprehension problem. Don't you.

I guess so. Please explain the difference between taking a vegetative stoke victim off a feeding tube is any different from not feeding a fertilized egg?

Let's see. . .

Do you mean other than the fact that a vegetative stroke victim who has NO prognosis for a normal life continuance at all is only being kept alive artificially while the fertilized egg typically has a much better prognosis and a NON artificial life support system?

Do you really think a doctor (any doctor) would remove life support from a stroke victim that has anywhere close to the same prognosis for further life, growth and development that a child even in the zygote stage of their life has?

or what?

The key word here is prognosis. Objectively the vegetative stroke victim is little different than the zygote except for what the zygote MIGHT BECOME IN THE FUTURE. I would not give something legal rights based on what it might become, only what it is.
Who knows what medical advances may happen IN THE FUTURE so would you demand all vegetative stroke victim be kept alive because their condition MIGHT be improved?

 

[Mudda]

I think killing people who want to kill abortion doctors is a moral right.

 

[zaangalewa]

The right to life does not come with a right to be kept alive by others on life support machines indefinitely. But, that can not be taken to mean their deaths can be hastened by those who want to see them pass on.

So if a fertilized egg is removed intact from the mother her responsibility to it is done since it can be implanted in another womb or left to die in a test tube. Works for me.

By doing sex a man and woman agreed with mother nature to get a baby. So both made a contract with their child, which you call "the fertilized egg". Their child has a right to live. And it has a right to get a better name: "Leonard" for example or "Suzanne".

It is natural healthy pleasure and unless agreed to before should in no way be "expected" to result in a child.

By your logic, a woman that can't have children

I said nothing here about a woman who can't get pregnant. And by the way. I'm a Christian. Christians believe in wonders too.

has no business engaging in sex. Sorry but you are just wrong.

Men throughout history has engaged in sex without consequence. Women should have the right to decide if and when she wants to have children, not be forced on her due to an accident. Birth control can fail. Maybe men should be prohibited from sex or be forced to take a male pill.

It seems to me you have a problem as well with the idea "man" and with the reality "men". It's very difficult for me to say what men (and women) throughout all hsitroy should had done or not. I know what I should do or not do - hopefully in the moment when I have to make a decision too. Otherwise god will hopefully give me the right inspiration.

No one should take the right over a woman's body away from her.

But that's not reality because we are placental mammals.

She is not a slave. Even in islam a woman has the right to an abortion.

I don't care about what the sharia says. And never ever had any Christian any right to see a slave of the own person in the own spouse.

It is her body, not yours. You get no say

No idea why you say so. I'm married. My wife has a body. I have a body. We are communicating with each other in many ways.

If she goes to another state or country for an abortion the result is the same.

I'm not an American. I'm a German.

Just because it is out of sight, does not mean it has not happened. You expect to ban her from returning or throw her in jail for a legal procedure. Not even your right to know that she was pregnant or what happened to her.

Can it be you never read anything what I said?

Should you publish everything from a tooth filling to a vasectomy or cancer surgery in the paper so everyone knows your health records?
They are private for a reason.

You don't get a say if a woman decides she is not ready to be a mother yet.

What you say here has absolutelly nothing to do with anything what I ever said here.

 

[Mudda]

The right to life does not come with a right to be kept alive by others on life support machines indefinitely. But, that can not be taken to mean their deaths can be hastened by those who want to see them pass on.

So if a fertilized egg is removed intact from the mother her responsibility to it is done since it can be implanted in another womb or left to die in a test tube. Works for me.

By doing sex a man and woman agreed with mother nature to get a baby. So both made a contract with their child, which you call "the fertilized egg". Their child has a right to live. And it has a right to get a better name: "Leonard" for example or "Suzanne".

It is natural healthy pleasure and unless agreed to before should in no way be "expected" to result in a child.

By your logic, a woman that can't have children

I said nothing here about a woman who can't getb pregnant. And by the way. I'm a Christian. Christians believe in wonders too.

has no business engaging in sex. Sorry but you are just wrong.

Men throughout history has engaged in sex without consequence. Women should have the right to decide if and when she wants to have children, not be forced on her due to an accident. Birth control can fail. Maybe men should be prohibited from sex or be forced to take a male pill.

It seemes to me you have a problem as well with the idea "man" as well with the reality "men". It's very difficult fro me to sa ywhen men (and women) throughout all hsitroy should had done or not. I know what I should do or not do - hopefully.

No one should take the right over a woman's body away from her.

But that's not reality because we are placental mammals.

She is not a slave. Even in islam a woman has the right to an abortion.

I donT care about whtab the sharia says. Nor had ever any Christians any right to see a slave in the own spouse.

It is her body, not yours. You get no say

No idea why you say so. I'm married. My wife has a body. I have a body.

If she goes to another state or country for an abortion the result is the same.

I'm not an Americasn,. I'm a German.

Just because it is out of sight, does not mean it has not happened. You expect to ban her from returning or throw her in jail for a legal procedure. Not even your right to know that she was pregnant or what happened to her.

Can it be you never read anything what I said?

Should you publish everything from a tooth filling to a vasectomy or cancer surgery in the paper so everyone knows your health records?
They are private for a reason.

You don't get a say if a woman decides she is not ready to be a mother yet.

What you say here has absolutelly nothing to do with anything what I ever said.

zaan, you should have been aborted. Why weren't you?

 

[zaangalewa]

What's the difference between this and murdering a doctor who does abortions?

Saudi father shoots doctor shortly after he delivered his wife's baby because he didn't want a man to see his spouse naked

• Saudi police have arrested a man after he shot a male doctor
• The man tricked doctor into meeting him before opening fire with a gun
• The suspect was angry that the hospital had allowed a male doctor to treat his wife during childbirth

Read more: Saudi father shoots doctor shortly after he delivered his wife's baby
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This man killed someone because of his own narzism. The difference is: If someone shoots down someone, who will kill other human beings, then this is an extended act of self defense: This person would try to save the life of others - in this case of still unborn human beings who have absolutelly no chance to defend themselve.

If the baby had been lost in childbirth, should the father then be allowed to kill the doctor?
A baby in the last trimester is viable, and embryo without the woman's womb is not. Even muslims permit abortion, as do many christians. Some try to think their religious morality is above everyone.
Murder of a living human is wrong, but there are levels and circumstances. That is why we have courts and judges.

If the man did not want a doctor delivering a baby, with surgical gloves, he should have arranged for a home birth with a midwife. If there is such a thing a blind OB/GYN. the man might have sought him out.

Thank you for bringing my child into the world, bam your dead.... and the father might well get off or have a short sentence.

Bomb down Saudi Arabia. Problem solved. ... Damn ... Stop! Don't do it! This has nothing to do with justice, because not everyone in Saudi Arabia is a male criminal asshole, who murdered a doctor, because he saw his wife naked - if in this story should exist any truth at all.

 

[zaangalewa]

The right to life does not come with a right to be kept alive by others on life support machines indefinitely. But, that can not be taken to mean their deaths can be hastened by those who want to see them pass on.

So if a fertilized egg is removed intact from the mother her responsibility to it is done since it can be implanted in another womb or left to die in a test tube. Works for me.

By doing sex a man and woman agreed with mother nature to get a baby. So both made a contract with their child, which you call "the fertilized egg". Their child has a right to live. And it has a right to get a better name: "Leonard" for example or "Suzanne".

It is natural healthy pleasure and unless agreed to before should in no way be "expected" to result in a child.

By your logic, a woman that can't have children

I said nothing here about a woman who can't getb pregnant. And by the way. I'm a Christian. Christians believe in wonders too.

has no business engaging in sex. Sorry but you are just wrong.

Men throughout history has engaged in sex without consequence. Women should have the right to decide if and when she wants to have children, not be forced on her due to an accident. Birth control can fail. Maybe men should be prohibited from sex or be forced to take a male pill.

It seemes to me you have a problem as well with the idea "man" as well with the reality "men". It's very difficult fro me to sa ywhen men (and women) throughout all hsitroy should had done or not. I know what I should do or not do - hopefully.

No one should take the right over a woman's body away from her.

But that's not reality because we are placental mammals.

She is not a slave. Even in islam a woman has the right to an abortion.

I donT care about whtab the sharia says. Nor had ever any Christians any right to see a slave in the own spouse.

It is her body, not yours. You get no say

No idea why you say so. I'm married. My wife has a body. I have a body.

If she goes to another state or country for an abortion the result is the same.

I'm not an Americasn,. I'm a German.

Just because it is out of sight, does not mean it has not happened. You expect to ban her from returning or throw her in jail for a legal procedure. Not even your right to know that she was pregnant or what happened to her.

Can it be you never read anything what I said?

Should you publish everything from a tooth filling to a vasectomy or cancer surgery in the paper so everyone knows your health records?
They are private for a reason.

You don't get a say if a woman decides she is not ready to be a mother yet.

What you say here has absolutelly nothing to do with anything what I ever said.

zaan, you should have been aborted. Why weren't you?

No comment, Nazi. Let it be to speak with me any longer.

.

 

[Mudda]

So if a fertilized egg is removed intact from the mother her responsibility to it is done since it can be implanted in another womb or left to die in a test tube. Works for me.

By doing sex a man and woman agreed with mother nature to get a baby. So both made a contract with their child, which you call "the fertilized egg". Their child has a right to live. And it has a right to get a better name: "Leonard" for example or "Suzanne".

It is natural healthy pleasure and unless agreed to before should in no way be "expected" to result in a child.

By your logic, a woman that can't have children

I said nothing here about a woman who can't getb pregnant. And by the way. I'm a Christian. Christians believe in wonders too.

has no business engaging in sex. Sorry but you are just wrong.

Men throughout history has engaged in sex without consequence. Women should have the right to decide if and when she wants to have children, not be forced on her due to an accident. Birth control can fail. Maybe men should be prohibited from sex or be forced to take a male pill.

It seemes to me you have a problem as well with the idea "man" as well with the reality "men". It's very difficult fro me to sa ywhen men (and women) throughout all hsitroy should had done or not. I know what I should do or not do - hopefully.

No one should take the right over a woman's body away from her.

But that's not reality because we are placental mammals.

She is not a slave. Even in islam a woman has the right to an abortion.

I donT care about whtab the sharia says. Nor had ever any Christians any right to see a slave in the own spouse.

It is her body, not yours. You get no say

No idea why you say so. I'm married. My wife has a body. I have a body.

If she goes to another state or country for an abortion the result is the same.

I'm not an Americasn,. I'm a German.

Just because it is out of sight, does not mean it has not happened. You expect to ban her from returning or throw her in jail for a legal procedure. Not even your right to know that she was pregnant or what happened to her.

Can it be you never read anything what I said?

Should you publish everything from a tooth filling to a vasectomy or cancer surgery in the paper so everyone knows your health records?
They are private for a reason.

You don't get a say if a woman decides she is not ready to be a mother yet.

What you say here has absolutelly nothing to do with anything what I ever said.

zaan, you should have been aborted. Why weren't you?

No comment, Nazi. Let it be to speak with me any longer.

.

Did the nazis experiment on your brain?