Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[IndependantAce]

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).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?"

No, of course not – the notion is moronic idiocy; it isn’t any kind of ‘right.’

 

[IndependantAce]

"Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?"

No, of course not – the notion is moronic idiocy; it isn’t any kind of ‘right.’

People have no right to use violence to defend innocent life?

 

[HUGGY]

You not only have the right to come to the defense of helpless babies AKA human lives. You have the DUTY to do whatever you can to save these lives. Preventing a murder in progress is heroic. God Speed!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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).

Wrong.

An embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby.’

Abortion is not ‘murder.’

This thread exhibits the reprehensible right’s propensity to lie, their desire to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law in violation of the Constitution, and their contempt for the rule of law.

 

[IndependantAce]

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).

Wrong.

An embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby.’

Abortion is not ‘murder.’

Proof?

This thread exhibits the reprehensible right’s propensity to lie, their desire to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law in violation of the Constitution

Slavery used to be allowed under the Constitution.

and their contempt for the rule of law.

King George III was a ruler as well.

 

[The Great Goose]

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).

Yes. The only thing preventing me is fear of the law.

 

[HUGGY]

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).

Wrong.

An embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby.’

Abortion is not ‘murder.’

This thread exhibits the reprehensible right’s propensity to lie, their desire to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law in violation of the Constitution, and their contempt for the rule of law.

Killing a baby that could survive is murder. That is pretty simple and clear. If the baby has mental cognition and can feel pain the baby is a human being.

 

[emilynghiem]

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).

No IndependantAce
1. Even a murderer is allowed DUE PROCESS of law under govt with that authority to issue the death penalty.
2. Christians and even Muslims are still bound by obedience to civil authority. If other religions claim otherwise, that's outside the "free exercise of religion" clause and other "rights of defense" that are STILL within the context of DUE PROCESS of laws where nobody can be deprived of life or liberty without undergoing public hearing/trial process with counsel. You can't take laws out of context and violate DUE PROCESS and EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws that apply to ALL people within state jurisdiction.
3. What someone CAN do is go on hunger strike and can sacrifice their OWN life to protest injustice.
That is within your right. But you cannot sacrifice the life of someone else without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
4. NOTE: what I think prolife people can argue is to SEPARATE funding and policies, even if this takes checking boxes on tax returns to redirect income taxes by party or program. I believe there are grounds for a Class Action lawsuit demanding separation due to conflicting beliefs:

since Democrats have shown willingness to pass laws sacrificing "freedom of choice" in order to establish the "right to health care" as a national law and mandate, then I think this is grounds to argue that the "right to life" have the same right to impose that belief at the expense of "free choice".

Otherwise it's discrimination by creed.

either make the ACA mandates VOLUNTARY and free choice to follow,
and/or allow right to life advocates to mandate the choice to fund prolife health care
programs. Either make both voluntary or both mandatory, but not requiring prochoice health care while banning prolife health care as an equal choice for tax exemptions.

The door has been opened to make a prolife argument since the "prochoice" Democrats just contradicted their own arguments by passing ACA mandates as required for all citizens.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Wow, breathtaking.Some people really are so far off the radar. Do they get monitored at all ?

 

[emilynghiem]

"Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?"

No, of course not – the notion is moronic idiocy; it isn’t any kind of ‘right.’

People have no right to use violence to defend innocent life?

Dear IndependantAce
C_Clayton_Jones is VERY literal.
To discuss things in the same context as CCJ, you would have to accept the
LEGAL definition that recognizes right to life as starting at live birth.

Now, if you want to argue for the right to life of unborn children,
or murder as hatred or anger in one's heart as the spirit or intent of murder,
those are SPIRITUAL arguments and are protected under
free exercise of religion and no discrimination by creed.

So you can argue that your religious beliefs would require you to
defend that life even before birth, and you could petition to the govt
not to force you in a contradictory position where you cannot exercise your religion equally.

That is a CIVIL or CONSTITUTIONAL argument, not a criminal one
because by the "letter of the law" (that CCJ tries to enforce) this is not a crime.
But govt making you violate your religious beliefs and creed
is a civil wrong or constitutional violation.

Now if you want to say a whole PARTY of people is doing this, is "conspiring
to violate your equal civil rights" YES you can hold the Democrats responsible
for organizing votes and lobbying to pass laws that discriminate against you by belief.
If you can win this argument that it's a collective group
CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS -- that is a FELONY, so that is under criminal law.

If you want to argue for this, I fully support you as a prochoice Democrat
who finds this political bullying by collectively outnumbering the opposition
IS a form of ABUSE and "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" (where
govt is abused and no longer represents public interests and beliefs EQUALLY)

I would join you in a lawsuit if you are serious about this. Let me know.

 

[Mudda]

You not only have the right to come to the defense of helpless babies AKA human lives. You have the DUTY to do whatever you can to save these lives. Preventing a murder in progress is heroic. God Speed!

Then you must want god dead because babies are stillborn, or otherwise die naturally before live birth all the time without any human involvement. And what about deformed live babies? Shouldn't god be punished for making those?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

"Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?"

No, of course not – the notion is moronic idiocy; it isn’t any kind of ‘right.’

People have no right to use violence to defend innocent life?

you are an asshole
Like warrior for babies LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Wow, breathtaking.Some people really are so far off the radar. Do they get monitored at all ?

the Right to assassinate people using their Constitutional Rights...doing nothing illegal...Oh and the Kicker is "they are the Culture of Life" ...way too wing nut

 

[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).

Better question: "Is killing a right of doctors?" My answer: "Not at all!" A doctor is not a hangman but a healer. And it's also not a human right to give executioners the order to kill innocent human beings.

 

[Mudda]

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).

Better question: "Is killing a right of doctors?" My answer: "Not at all!" A doctor is not a hangman but a healer. And it's also not a human right to give executioners the order to kill innocent human beings.

Doctors hasten death all the time with drugs. **** man, are you really that ignorant?

 

[chikenwing]

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).

No in any way!

 

[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).

Better question: "Is killing a right of doctors?" My answer: "Not at all!" A doctor is not a hangman but a healer. And it's also not a human right to give executioners the order to kill innocent human beings.

Doctors hasten death all the time with drugs. **** man, are you really that ignorant?

I don't accept your racistic Nazi-style and specially I don't discuss with "****"-words about abortion. This interaction of a woman and a man to create a baby is the most beautiful god given action human beings are able to do. And a doctor, a healer, never should kill anyone because in this case no one is able to trust in doctors any longer.

 

[Mudda]

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).

Better question: "Is killing a right of doctors?" My answer: "Not at all!" A doctor is not a hangman but a healer. And it's also not a human right to give executioners the order to kill innocent human beings.

Doctors hasten death all the time with drugs. **** man, are you really that ignorant?

I don't accept your racistic Nazi-style and specially I don't discuss with "****"-words about abortion. This interaction of a woman and a man to create a baby is the most beautiful god given action human beings are able to do. And a doctor, a healer, never should kill anyone because in this case no one is able to trust in doctors any longer.

You can deny for frivolous reasons that doctors don't kill people on purpose all you want, but your ignorance doesn't make it so.

 

[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).

Better question: "Is killing a right of doctors?" My answer: "Not at all!" A doctor is not a hangman but a healer. And it's also not a human right to give executioners the order to kill innocent human beings.

Doctors hasten death all the time with drugs. **** man, are you really that ignorant?

I don't accept your racistic Nazi-style and specially I don't discuss with "****"-words about abortion. This interaction of a woman and a man to create a baby is the most beautiful god given action human beings are able to do. And a doctor, a healer, never should kill anyone because in this case no one is able to trust in doctors any longer.

You can deny for frivolous reasons that doctors don't kill people on purpose all you want, but your ignorance doesn't make it so.

Abortion (on other reasons than selfdefense) is not only not compatible with Buddhism (=a not theistic religion) and the christian religion - it's also not compatible with the human rights and the oath of Hippocrates. Tell me with what kind of ethos abortion is compatible and I'm sure I will be able to show to you your fallacy in this case, if you don't like to give any form of ideology a higher priority in your thoughts than truth itselve. Abortion is just simple the will to give up any longer to try to make the world to a better place. A "better place" is always full of life. An empty house and a dead garden is worth nothing.