Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[aris2chat]

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.

Saudi man shot Jordanian doctor who helped his wife deliver a baby · 1d
After meeting in the hospital's garden in Riyadh, the man that a female doctor should have overseen the birth, the man reportedly pulled out a handgun and shot Dr al-Zabn. According to media reports, the Saudi man's wife gave birth to a …
Saudi man shoots doctor for delivering his wife's baby · 1d
Saudi ... shooting because he did not believe a man should have helped his wife give birth. Bassam Al Buraikan, spokesperson for the King Fahad Medical City hospital confirmed the incident to Gulf News and said that authorities were investigating it. The ...
Saudi Man Shoots Doctor For Assisting His Wife's Delivery · 1d
An unidentified Saudi man shot and wounded a ... attacker was reported to have carried out the shooting because he did not believe a man should have helped his wife give birth. The father went to meet the doctor on the pretext of thanking him …

 

[zaangalewa]

... 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.

A baby with Anenzepahlie is not able to survive because it has no brain. Normally it lives under normal conditions 2-4 days. Only in case of intensive-care medicine such children are able to live at all. I did not read the link now - if the link is open at all, what I don't t know in the moment. I hope absurde experiments were not the reason, why this babies lived so long.

Anencephalie has by the way nothing to do with genetics. It seems to be kind of accident - but no one seems to know how to find out how to avoid it. For sure it makes no sense to let anyone suffer in case of Anenzephalie.

 

[zaangalewa]

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?

No comment, Nazi

 

[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.

Saudi man shot Jordanian doctor who helped his wife deliver a baby · 1d
After meeting in the hospital's garden in Riyadh, the man that a female doctor should have overseen the birth, the man reportedly pulled out a handgun and shot Dr al-Zabn. According to media reports, the Saudi man's wife gave birth to a …
Saudi man shoots doctor for delivering his wife's baby · 1d
Saudi ... shooting because he did not believe a man should have helped his wife give birth. Bassam Al Buraikan, spokesperson for the King Fahad Medical City hospital confirmed the incident to Gulf News and said that authorities were investigating it. The ...
Saudi Man Shoots Doctor For Assisting His Wife's Delivery · 1d
An unidentified Saudi man shot and wounded a ... attacker was reported to have carried out the shooting because he did not believe a man should have helped his wife give birth. The father went to meet the doctor on the pretext of thanking him …

What's your problem?

 

[Mudda]

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?

No comment, Nazi

We'll gladly take that as a YES!

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

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.

But that's not reality because we are placental mammals.
I donT care about whtab the sharia says. Nor had ever any Christians any right to see a slave in the own spouse.

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

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

Can it be you never read anything what I said?

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?

No comment, Nazi

We'll gladly take that as a YES!

Your "we" is by the way the most interesting Antiperson I met here. Who are you? An Arab? I'm unfortunatelly not able to find out wether you are really a citizen of the USA or not. Why do you like to maximize the hate of Germans against the USA? What could be your motivation to do so?

 

[aris2chat]

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?

No comment, Nazi

We'll gladly take that as a YES!

Your "we" is by the way the most interesting Antiperson I met here. Who are you? An Arab? I'm unfortunatelly not able to find out wether you are really a citizen of the USA or not. Why do you like to maximize the hate of Germans against the USA? What could be your motivation to do so?

Shouldn't matter, people are what present themselves to be. Accept that and don't try to interfere in their person lives off line.

Stalking is against the law.

 

[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?

Why do women who want a child have miscarriages, still birth or other complications?

Things can go wrong from time to time on no special reasons. That's why everyone needs help. In case of abortion the most helpless group of human beings are the intentionally killed children. They lose everything.

It is not for you to know what happens between a woman and her doctor or see her medical records.

I'm not an American. I'm not interested in the not existing secrets of others. I guess the NSA knows every reason why german women are aborting. The american politicians can publish this data, if they have a problem to publish the illegal data they have abhout the citizens of the USA. In general no one has to justify the own behavior in front of me or any believer in god - although I have to say very clear: the Oath of the Hippocrates is not allowing to do abortions or active euthanasia. If there are exceptions then doctors should have a very very clear indication why to kill a human being. Everyone is also responsible in the eyes of god. As far as I can see is the abortion rate in Germany much to high. A hundredthousand abortions every year are not explainable with the formula "things go wrong from time to time". I'm not surprised about, because of the side effects of the ideologies of the Nazis and Commies. Both idelogies saw in human beings only a useful or not useful part of their dead machines of thoughtless and senseless pseudoexistance.

None of your business. If she sees and herbalist, how do you know what she is buying? If she orders a kit by mail or buys one accross the counter at the corner CVS, it is none of your Business.
If she is pregnant and wants to drink or use drugs, not you place to tell her what to do with her body. She might get tattoos and piercings, she might go bungie jumping, not your business. She might go to the grocery store and buy foods that induce a miscarriag, none of your business.

Her moral and religious values might permit abortions, that is her right. You don't get to stuff your religion down everyone's throat, your religion is for you alone. If you don't believe in abortion, then you should not have one. You don't get to tell other they cannot have a legal procedure or buy legal medicine across the counter.

None of your business

I don't have any probem to live in a wild west world wide web, where everyone kills everyone on no reason to do so. Nevertheless I would shoot down in such a world everyone who tries to shoot down unarmed people - specially if he tries to shoot down innocent children. The answer I fear is not to have a right to do so - the answer I fear is to have the duty to do so. Do we have the duty to abort aborters?

 

[zaangalewa]

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

.

Did the nazis experiment on your brain?

No comment, Nazi

We'll gladly take that as a YES!

Your "we" is by the way the most interesting Antiperson I met here. Who are you? An Arab? I'm unfortunatelly not able to find out wether you are really a citizen of the USA or not. Why do you like to maximize the hate of Germans against the USA? What could be your motivation to do so?

Shouldn't matter, people are what present themselves to be. Accept that and don't try to interfere in their person lives off line.

Stalking is against the law.

Are you a citizen of the USA? If so then tell me please: Is he a citizen of the USA?

 

[aris2chat]

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?

Why do women who want a child have miscarriages, still birth or other complications?

Things can go wrong from time to time on no special reasons. That's why everyone needs help. In case of abortion the most helpless group of human beings are the intentionally killed children. They lose everything.

It is not for you to know what happens between a woman and her doctor or see her medical records.

I'm not an American. I'm not interested in the not existing secrets of others. I guess the NSA knows every reason why german women are aborting. The american politicians can publish this data, if they have a problem to publish the illegal data they have abhout the citizens of the USA. In general no one has to justify the own behavior in front of me or any believer in god - although I have to say very clear: the Oath of the Hippocrates is not allowing to do abortions or active euthanasia. If there are exceptions then doctors should have a very very clear indication why to kill a human being. Everyone is also responsible in the eyes of god. As far as I can see is the abortion rate in Germany much to high. A hundredthousand abortions every year are not explainable with the formula "things go wrong from time to time". I'm not surprised about, because of the side effects of the ideologies of the Nazis and Commies. Both idelogies saw in human beings only a useful or not useful part of their dead machines of thoughtless and senseless pseudoexistance.

None of your business. If she sees and herbalist, how do you know what she is buying? If she orders a kit by mail or buys one accross the counter at the corner CVS, it is none of your Business.
If she is pregnant and wants to drink or use drugs, not you place to tell her what to do with her body. She might get tattoos and piercings, she might go bungie jumping, not your business. She might go to the grocery store and buy foods that induce a miscarriag, none of your business.

Her moral and religious values might permit abortions, that is her right. You don't get to stuff your religion down everyone's throat, your religion is for you alone. If you don't believe in abortion, then you should not have one. You don't get to tell other they cannot have a legal procedure or buy legal medicine across the counter.

None of your business

I don't have any probem to live in a wild west world wide web, where everyone kills everyone on no reason to do so. Nevertheless I would shoot down in such a world everyone who tries to shoot down unarmed people - specially if he tries to shoot down innocent children. The answer I fear is not to have a right to do so - the answer I fear is to have the duty to do so. Do we have the duty to abort aborters?

Before an abortion is done in germany there is mandatory counseling. It is not a spur of the moment decision.

 

[zaangalewa]

^ 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?

Why do women who want a child have miscarriages, still birth or other complications?

Things can go wrong from time to time on no special reasons. That's why everyone needs help. In case of abortion the most helpless group of human beings are the intentionally killed children. They lose everything.

It is not for you to know what happens between a woman and her doctor or see her medical records.

I'm not an American. I'm not interested in the not existing secrets of others. I guess the NSA knows every reason why german women are aborting. The american politicians can publish this data, if they have a problem to publish the illegal data they have abhout the citizens of the USA. In general no one has to justify the own behavior in front of me or any believer in god - although I have to say very clear: the Oath of the Hippocrates is not allowing to do abortions or active euthanasia. If there are exceptions then doctors should have a very very clear indication why to kill a human being. Everyone is also responsible in the eyes of god. As far as I can see is the abortion rate in Germany much to high. A hundredthousand abortions every year are not explainable with the formula "things go wrong from time to time". I'm not surprised about, because of the side effects of the ideologies of the Nazis and Commies. Both idelogies saw in human beings only a useful or not useful part of their dead machines of thoughtless and senseless pseudoexistance.

None of your business. If she sees and herbalist, how do you know what she is buying? If she orders a kit by mail or buys one accross the counter at the corner CVS, it is none of your Business.
If she is pregnant and wants to drink or use drugs, not you place to tell her what to do with her body. She might get tattoos and piercings, she might go bungie jumping, not your business. She might go to the grocery store and buy foods that induce a miscarriag, none of your business.

Her moral and religious values might permit abortions, that is her right. You don't get to stuff your religion down everyone's throat, your religion is for you alone. If you don't believe in abortion, then you should not have one. You don't get to tell other they cannot have a legal procedure or buy legal medicine across the counter.

None of your business

I don't have any probem to live in a wild west world wide web, where everyone kills everyone on no reason to do so. Nevertheless I would shoot down in such a world everyone who tries to shoot down unarmed people - specially if he tries to shoot down innocent children. The answer I fear is not to have a right to do so - the answer I fear is to have the duty to do so. Do we have the duty to abort aborters?

Before an abortion is done in germany there is mandatory counseling. It is not a spur of the moment decision.

Abortion is forbidden in Germany. If I see it in the right way then to allow abortions would kill our complete system of justice including the Grundgesetz - our constitution. So we made some exceptions. We are great in making exceptions. The deeper reasons behind this exceptions is it to keep the number of all possibe abortions in a balance so we could be able to reach a minimum of the total numbers of abortions. We say: It's forbidden to do an abortion, but we don't punish someone if he aborts and fullfills some conditions. One of this conditions is a "Beratungsgespräch", a consultation. The sense of this is it to help the mother to find the best of all possible solutions for her problems and to avoid spontaneous actions. That's why we have less abortions than the USA. I heard it's only about 1/3 as high as in the USA per 100000 inhabitants. But even this is much to high. The very big problem in this context are the organsiations who are doing this consultations. One of the problems are for example organisations like "pro familia", which is one of the greatest organisation. "Pro familia" is against traditional families and for abortions. On the other side forbids the catholic church for example to do such consultations ... better to say: the catholic church allows not to give someone afterwards a paper where's written on, that she made such a consultation. The most Catholics in the world don't understand our system here and they see in such a writing a death sentence.

Whatever and however our system is - the numbers of abortions are much to high. It's impossible that all this abortions have a real serios background. More and more people seem to think abortion is only a kind of late contraception. If so then I have to say: "Abortion is the way to kill human beings just for sex".

So what do you think is the best way to minimize the number of abortions? And could it help to kill some doctors, who are doing abortions to reach a less number of abortions worldwide?

JibJab.com - Can-Can

 

[Mudda]

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?

No comment, Nazi

We'll gladly take that as a YES!

Your "we" is by the way the most interesting Antiperson I met here. Who are you? An Arab? I'm unfortunatelly not able to find out wether you are really a citizen of the USA or not. Why do you like to maximize the hate of Germans against the USA? What could be your motivation to do so?

89% of Germans wish that hitter had finished of all the Jews. I'm sure you are one of them.

 

[jillian]

A doctor is performing a late term abortion and killing a baby which is an objectively human life, then would an individual have a moral right to kill them in defense of human life? (Just as some may argue that abolitionists had a right to kill slave owners in defense of the lives of slaves?)

(The state is of course a social construct and has no inherent rights but what the people give it, so while it might be illegal to kill an abortion doctor, if it's done in defense of an innocent life, I don't see why someone wouldn't have a right to do it).

abortion doctors do not kill "babies"...throcratic male control freaks like saying that.

it is a legal and constitutionally protected procedure.

no. you have no right to kill a doctor moral or otherwise for performing that lawful procedure. terrorism is never justified.

but thanks for reinforcing the fact that christo-terrorists are a great danger in this country that the right like to close their eyes to.

but thanks for the whole "small gubmint" thing...unless of course it is gubmint telling women what to do.

loon.

 

[Mudda]

Did the nazis experiment on your brain?

No comment, Nazi

We'll gladly take that as a YES!

Your "we" is by the way the most interesting Antiperson I met here. Who are you? An Arab? I'm unfortunatelly not able to find out wether you are really a citizen of the USA or not. Why do you like to maximize the hate of Germans against the USA? What could be your motivation to do so?

Shouldn't matter, people are what present themselves to be. Accept that and don't try to interfere in their person lives off line.

Stalking is against the law.

Are you a citizen of the USA? If so then tell me please: Is he a citizen of the USA?

^ 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?

Why do women who want a child have miscarriages, still birth or other complications?

Things can go wrong from time to time on no special reasons. That's why everyone needs help. In case of abortion the most helpless group of human beings are the intentionally killed children. They lose everything.

It is not for you to know what happens between a woman and her doctor or see her medical records.

I'm not an American. I'm not interested in the not existing secrets of others. I guess the NSA knows every reason why german women are aborting. The american politicians can publish this data, if they have a problem to publish the illegal data they have abhout the citizens of the USA. In general no one has to justify the own behavior in front of me or any believer in god - although I have to say very clear: the Oath of the Hippocrates is not allowing to do abortions or active euthanasia. If there are exceptions then doctors should have a very very clear indication why to kill a human being. Everyone is also responsible in the eyes of god. As far as I can see is the abortion rate in Germany much to high. A hundredthousand abortions every year are not explainable with the formula "things go wrong from time to time". I'm not surprised about, because of the side effects of the ideologies of the Nazis and Commies. Both idelogies saw in human beings only a useful or not useful part of their dead machines of thoughtless and senseless pseudoexistance.

None of your business. If she sees and herbalist, how do you know what she is buying? If she orders a kit by mail or buys one accross the counter at the corner CVS, it is none of your Business.
If she is pregnant and wants to drink or use drugs, not you place to tell her what to do with her body. She might get tattoos and piercings, she might go bungie jumping, not your business. She might go to the grocery store and buy foods that induce a miscarriag, none of your business.

Her moral and religious values might permit abortions, that is her right. You don't get to stuff your religion down everyone's throat, your religion is for you alone. If you don't believe in abortion, then you should not have one. You don't get to tell other they cannot have a legal procedure or buy legal medicine across the counter.

None of your business

I don't have any probem to live in a wild west world wide web, where everyone kills everyone on no reason to do so. Nevertheless I would shoot down in such a world everyone who tries to shoot down unarmed people - specially if he tries to shoot down innocent children. The answer I fear is not to have a right to do so - the answer I fear is to have the duty to do so. Do we have the duty to abort aborters?

Before an abortion is done in germany there is mandatory counseling. It is not a spur of the moment decision.

Is it true that in Germany, they dispose of the aborted fetus in an oven from WWII?

 

[zaangalewa]

Mudda

In Germany stalking, mobbing and defaming are crimes which are not covered from the right of free opinion - specially if this crimes happen on racistic reasons: You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis because they were Jews. So what to do with you?

 

[zaangalewa]

A doctor is performing a late term abortion and killing a baby which is an objectively human life, then would an individual have a moral right to kill them in defense of human life? (Just as some may argue that abolitionists had a right to kill slave owners in defense of the lives of slaves?)

(The state is of course a social construct and has no inherent rights but what the people give it, so while it might be illegal to kill an abortion doctor, if it's done in defense of an innocent life, I don't see why someone wouldn't have a right to do it).

abortion doctors do not kill "babies"...throcratic male control freaks like saying that.

it is a legal and constitutionally protected procedure.

no. you have no right to kill a doctor moral or otherwise for performing that lawful procedure. terrorism is never justified.

but thanks for reinforcing the fact that christo-terrorists are a great danger in this country that the right like to close their eyes to.

but thanks for the whole "small gubmint" thing...unless of course it is gubmint telling women what to do.

loon.

Explain me please why abortion executioners are not killing human beings. Why do you think this?

 

[Mudda]

Mudda

In Germany stalking, mobbing and defaming are crimes which are not covered from the right of free opinion - specially if this crimes happen on racistic reasons: You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis because they were Jews. So what to do with you?

You have any proof that anyone in your family was murdered by the nazis? Because anyone can claim anything on the Internet.
Otherwise, quit whining, you loser.

 

[zaangalewa]

Mudda

In Germany stalking, mobbing and defaming are crimes which are not covered from the right of free opinion - specially if this crimes happen on racistic reasons: You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis because they were Jews. So what to do with you?

You have any proof that anyone in your family was murdered by the nazis? Because anyone can claim anything on the Internet.
Otherwise, quit whining, you loser.

Your problem seems to be that god is patient with you. But you took the sword of hate and this sword will kill you. In worst case the question is maybe only how many people have to suffer or to die before you kill yourselve. Could be interesting to know, wether your psychological structure is similiar to the psychological structure of Anders Behring Breivick. Could anyone of the secret services of the world who controls this commmunication here test this hypothese? Thanks. No one makes such stupid comments like you are doing. No one. You are sick. Try to become sane.

 

[Mudda]

Mudda

In Germany stalking, mobbing and defaming are crimes which are not covered from the right of free opinion - specially if this crimes happen on racistic reasons: You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis because they were Jews. So what to do with you?

You have any proof that anyone in your family was murdered by the nazis? Because anyone can claim anything on the Internet.
Otherwise, quit whining, you loser.

Your problem seems to be that god is patient with you. But you took the sword of hate and this sword will kill you. In worst case the question is maybe only how many people have to suffer or to die before you kill yourselve. Could be interesting to know, wether your psychological structure is similiar to the psychological structure of Anders Behring Breivick. Could anyone of the secret services of the world who controls this commmunication here test this hypothese? Thanks. No one makes such stupid comments like you are doing. No one. You are sick. Try to become sane.

You try to be not so full of shit, ok?

 

[jillian]

A doctor is performing a late term abortion and killing a baby which is an objectively human life, then would an individual have a moral right to kill them in defense of human life? (Just as some may argue that abolitionists had a right to kill slave owners in defense of the lives of slaves?)

(The state is of course a social construct and has no inherent rights but what the people give it, so while it might be illegal to kill an abortion doctor, if it's done in defense of an innocent life, I don't see why someone wouldn't have a right to do it).

abortion doctors do not kill "babies"...throcratic male control freaks like saying that.

it is a legal and constitutionally protected procedure.

no. you have no right to kill a doctor moral or otherwise for performing that lawful procedure. terrorism is never justified.

but thanks for reinforcing the fact that christo-terrorists are a great danger in this country that the right like to close their eyes to.

but thanks for the whole "small gubmint" thing...unless of course it is gubmint telling women what to do.

loon.

Explain me please why abortion executioners are not killing human beings. Why do you think this?

I'm sorry I don't try to change the minds of insane theocrats who think it's ok to kill doctors for performing a lawful and constitutionally protected procedure. If you condone murdering actual existing life to protect potential life the. You are disgusting and should check your pretend morality.