Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[Mudda]

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.

The question is a yes or no question and it has a yes or no answer.

The question should be: why does your God make children with anencephalia?

 

[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.

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

The question is a yes or no question and it has a yes or no answer.

The question should be: why does your God make children with anencephalia?

The question is in your case why racistic Nazis are thoughtless, although they have from a biological point of view maybe indeed something like a brain in their head. Your antibelief in god and your will to "convince" everyone from your belief 'atheism' has absolutelly nothing to do with the theme here. You would anyway "abort" everyone with the genetical disposition "black skin" in the age of -9 month to +120 years, if policemen would not exist. Why made god you? One day I will know. But I fear it will be not your own happy end what will come in the end of your film about your own life.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Yes or no?

I like the way you load the question? Murder? Really? Anyway, I'm not familiar with the particulars of anencephalia so I can't honestly answer.

I feel that if a stroke victim shows no brain function, must be kept on a respirator to breath, and be fed via feeding tube, it is acceptable to take him off the respirator even if that results in his death. If that is akin to anencephalia you have an answer.

Speaking from personal experience, the removal of life support has little or nothing to do with the constitutional right that a patient has to their life.

The removal of life support is based on the prognosis of the patient, their legal directives (if any) and then to it is based on the level of extraordinary care that is needed to keep the patient alive.

The patient always has the same constitutional rights and even in the midst of a situation where they could be legally removed from life support, a person can be charged with MURDER for killing them unjustly.

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.

If life support is removed and the patient continues to live. . . LEGALLY they must be allowed to do so. . . So long as it only takes a reasonable amount of care to keep them alive.

So, the answer is YES. It is MURDER to kill a person in that condition in a way that hastens their death unjustly.

 

[there4eyeM]

Questions do have that dictatorial sense, seeming to oblige us to react in a certain way. If we are aware, we react if and how we like.

 

[Mudda]

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.

The question is a yes or no question and it has a yes or no answer.

The question should be: why does your God make children with anencephalia?

The question is in your case why racistic Nazis are thoughtless, although they have from a biological point of view maybe indeed something like a brain in their head. Your antibelief in god and your will to "convince" everyone from your belief 'atheism' has absolutelly nothing to do with the theme here. You would anyway "abort" everyone with the genetical disposition "black skin" in the age of -9 month - 120 years, if policemen would not exist. Why made god you? One day I will know.

You're more drunk than usual, And FYI, I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against the possibility of the existence of a god.

 

[Mudda]

The right to life does not come with a right to be kept alive by others on life support machines indefinitely.

So you're saying that there is no real constitutional protection to life. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[zaangalewa]

... You're more drunk than usual, And FYI, I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic,

Or you are a swallow of water flying in a curve. Who knows?

I see no proof either way for or against the possibility of the existence of a god.

If you don't know what you are speaking about - why do you try to do it? In general it seems to me Atheists, who don't know what Agnosticism is, seem to use the word "god" much more often than the beliefers in god.

 

[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.

 

[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".

 

[emilynghiem]

till it i
Till it is able to live outside the womb, it is not a person yet. If it is in her body, she has the right to decide what she wants.

An oyster is a life, but it is not a person that can live outside its shell.

If people are so obsessed with protecting life, become a vegan, but plants are life too.

Worry about the good bacteria in your gut. Stay out of the woman's womb or interfering in her right to choose.

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hmmmm interesting idea alang1216!
Now who would pay for the cost of preserving the fertilized eggs and/or implanting them in other wombs:
which partner in the pregnancy or both,
or prolife groups who don't want these eggs to be terminated.

Who is responsible for creating the costs associated? and who should pay for that?
If we got these people together in a room, do you think they would agree
to let such pregnancies keep happening and pay for the cost of resolving it this way?

Or would they agree, hey, why even start the pregnancies to begin with if it is that expensive?

Is that what we need alang1216:
A law that requires couples who don't want to carry their pregnancy to term to
agree to pay half the costs of storage and transplant.

Hmmmm that might be an interesting way to prohibit sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy.
Especially if the male partners are held to "pay this cost in full" in cases of coercion in rape, incest etc.

If men were affected equally as women, we might see more focus on
prevention, instead of not considering pregnancy when deciding to have sex.

Very good alang1216 I think the prolife groups could use this argument
to start holding men equally accountable, if not more in cases of onesided coercion by the male
in the decision to have sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy.

Interesting angle!

 

[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.

Hmmmm interesting idea alang1216!
Now who would pay for the cost of preserving the fertilized eggs and/or implanting them in other wombs:
which partner in the pregnancy or both,
or prolife groups who don't want these eggs to be terminated.

Who is responsible for creating the costs associated? and who should pay for that?
If we got these people together in a room, do you think they would agree
to let such pregnancies keep happening and pay for the cost of resolving it this way?

Or would they agree, hey, why even start the pregnancies to begin with if it is that expensive?

Is that what we need alang1216:
A law that requires couples who don't want to carry their pregnancy to term to
agree to pay half the costs of storage and transplant.

Hmmmm that might be an interesting way to prohibit sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy.
Especially if the male partners are held to "pay this cost in full" in cases of coercion in rape, incest etc.

If men were affected equally as women, we might see more focus on
prevention, instead of not considering pregnancy when deciding to have sex.

Very good alang1216 I think the prolife groups could use this argument
to start holding men equally accountable, if not more in cases of onesided coercion by the male
in the decision to have sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy.

Interesting angle!

Actually this was a thought experiment not a proposal. However if a pro-life group or society at large chooses to keep this fertilized egg alive they are welcome to shoulder the costs as far as I'm concerned.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hmmmm interesting idea alang1216!
Now who would pay for the cost of preserving the fertilized eggs and/or implanting them in other wombs:
which partner in the pregnancy or both,
or prolife groups who don't want these eggs to be terminated.

Who is responsible for creating the costs associated? and who should pay for that?
If we got these people together in a room, do you think they would agree
to let such pregnancies keep happening and pay for the cost of resolving it this way?

Or would they agree, hey, why even start the pregnancies to begin with if it is that expensive?

Is that what we need alang1216:
A law that requires couples who don't want to carry their pregnancy to term to
agree to pay half the costs of storage and transplant.

Hmmmm that might be an interesting way to prohibit sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy.
Especially if the male partners are held to "pay this cost in full" in cases of coercion in rape, incest etc.

If men were affected equally as women, we might see more focus on
prevention, instead of not considering pregnancy when deciding to have sex.

Very good alang1216 I think the prolife groups could use this argument
to start holding men equally accountable, if not more in cases of onesided coercion by the male
in the decision to have sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy.

Interesting angle!

Actually this was a thought experiment not a proposal. However if a pro-life group or society at large chooses to keep this fertilized egg alive they are welcome to shoulder the costs as far as I'm concerned.

Sure alang1216 we can start with that "thought" and see how soon
it evolves to an agreement that people in such cases are better off not having sex in the first place.
If we count the true cost to society, prevention costs less.
So certainly we should include these costs in the calculation; and since the technology and means
haven't been developed yet, that should be included in the costs!
If you are going to allow people to have sex and not be required to carry the pregnancy to term
naturally, then the prolife groups can insist that such means be set up.
So that would give motivation to either fund the development faster,
or find a way to prohibit sex by adding such a cost to it that both partners agree it isn't worth it.

I still think this concept has potential.
Even if it isn't financially or medically possible, it helps make the point.
Very cool, actually. I will share this with my prolife friends,
and see if it can be developed further to make the point.

 

[alang1216]

Sure alang1216 we can start with that "thought" and see how soon
it evolves to an agreement that people in such cases are better off not having sex in the first place.
If we count the true cost to society, prevention costs less.
So certainly we should include these costs in the calculation; and since the technology and means
haven't been developed yet, that should be included in the costs!
If you are going to allow people to have sex and not be required to carry the pregnancy to term
naturally, then the prolife groups can insist that such means be set up.
So that would give motivation to either fund the development faster,
or find a way to prohibit sex by adding such a cost to it that both partners agree it isn't worth it.

I still think this concept has potential.
Even if it isn't financially or medically possible, it helps make the point.
Very cool, actually. I will share this with my prolife friends,
and see if it can be developed further to make the point.

Knock yourself out but don't expect teens to balance having sex against money. I don't think their minds work that way and they don't usually have any money anyway.

As a taxpayer I would not want any of my tax money to be used. I would also object to putting these costs on the man or woman. But if pro-lifers are willing to put their money where their mouths are, great.

 

[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.

 

[aris2chat]

till it i
Till it is able to live outside the womb, it is not a person yet. If it is in her body, she has the right to decide what she wants.

An oyster is a life, but it is not a person that can live outside its shell.

If people are so obsessed with protecting life, become a vegan, but plants are life too.

Worry about the good bacteria in your gut. Stay out of the woman's womb or interfering in her right to choose.

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?

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

 

[aris2chat]

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

Yes or no?

I like the way you load the question? Murder? Really? Anyway, I'm not familiar with the particulars of anencephalia so I can't honestly answer.

I feel that if a stroke victim shows no brain function, must be kept on a respirator to breath, and be fed via feeding tube, it is acceptable to take him off the respirator even if that results in his death. If that is akin to anencephalia you have an answer.

Speaking from personal experience, the removal of life support has little or nothing to do with the constitutional right that a patient has to their life.

The removal of life support is based on the prognosis of the patient, their legal directives (if any) and then to it is based on the level of extraordinary care that is needed to keep the patient alive.

The patient always has the same constitutional rights and even in the midst of a situation where they could be legally removed from life support, a person can be charged with MURDER for killing them unjustly.

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.

If life support is removed and the patient continues to live. . . LEGALLY they must be allowed to do so. . . So long as it only takes a reasonable amount of care to keep them alive.

So, the answer is YES. It is MURDER to kill a person in that condition in a way that hastens their death unjustly.

Euthanasia is permitted in some states. All states allow advance directives as well as appointed healthcare proxies to determine what care the patient can have and what should be denied. We do get to choose our own exit with dignity.

Patients have the right to refuse any and all medical treatment if they are conscience and coherent and coherent. They can leave the hospital if they want. Patients can opt for hospice and get enough pain med so as not to suffer.

We should have control of our bodies.

If we wont to give a kidney, we have that right. If we refuse to give up a kidney for a loved one, that is also our right. If a woman wants to be a mother or at least carry a fetus to term, a woman has that right. If she does not want to be pregnant, that is her right.

You don't get to say what she can and cannot do with her body.

 

[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.

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 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.

No one should take the right over a woman's body away from her. She is not a slave. Even in islam a woman has the right to an abortion.

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

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

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.