Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[Faun]

The OP uses the same logic Isis uses to behead people. They believe they're right and all that matter is they believe it.

Does anyone have the right to kill in an act of self defense or in defense of another?

If your answer to that is yes. . . Then why would that not include a situation where someone is acting in defense of a prenatal child? I'm pretty sure (at least in some states) it's even justified to shoot someone who is trying to harm your livestock or property. . . So, why not a child in the womb?

Yes = if it's a felonious assault. Abortion is not a felony, so no, you don't have the right to kill someone to protect an unborn child from abortion.

Even then it should be put before a judge and jury to decide guilt. No justification for playing executioner.

It often is, depending on the circumstances. However, lethal self defense is permissible to prevent a felonious assault or at least a reasonable belief a felonious assault is about to occur. And even that varies from state to state.

Regardless, the point is moot since in no state is abortion a felony.

 

[Faun]

That feeling of reassurance you get when you occasionally take a peek at the posts of those you have on ignore and realize you did the right think in blocking them.

There's nothing dumber than registering to debate others on a forum such as this but then ignore people who post things you don't like to hear.

Even worse, it's beyond stupid since it places oneself in the unenviable position of not being able to defend their own positions when those they choose to ignore shoot them down.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear zaangalewa
I don't think you need to kill people to stop them from doing something risky or harmful.
The more educated people are on the pro's and con's, the more they support alternatives
and prevention instead of abortion.

What the prolife activists do now is promote better
awareness, better options, more support, and prevention through
counseling, education, etc.

Same with not having to kill people to stop them from harmful drugs.
Once people know better, they naturally refrain from and discourage unnecessary drug use.

An aborter steals an aborted human being more lifetime than a murderer steals the lifetime of a murdered person. How many billions of wasted years of lifetime will it need, until the human race accepts that life is the only way for living spiritual entities with a reasonable mind? When will we be able not to misuse might any longer?

Your god makes still births and aborted fetuses all the time. Get Him to stop first.

Why do people who invoke religion forget the plants that induce miscarriages or the bible's permitting the use of bitter water?

Other faiths permit abortions, including some christian denominations.

Nobody's business if a woman chooses to get an abortion, her medical records are private. She might as well be seeing a doctor for ovarian cysts, painful periods or just an annual pap smear.

WTF does religion have to do with whether or not a human being's life begins at conception or what their CONSTITUTIONAL rights as a human being are?

Why are you bringing religion into a discussion where it clearly doesn't need to be?

Because the legal definition of alive is when you are born. Only religious people and fruitcakes think that life begins before that.

Dear Mudda do you agree with applying this logic to transgender persons. That gender is defined by genes at birth. And anyone who believes gender is determined otherwise is delusional.

Are these two beliefs treated equally by law.
They are both faith based if you get away from proven science. Should govt. Reject both faith based arguments and go with birth as the scientific and legal standard

 

[aris2chat]

Does anyone have the right to kill in an act of self defense or in defense of another?

If your answer to that is yes. . . Then why would that not include a situation where someone is acting in defense of a prenatal child? I'm pretty sure (at least in some states) it's even justified to shoot someone who is trying to harm your livestock or property. . . So, why not a child in the womb?

So you'd kill the mother to save the unborn child? What a ******* GREAT IDEA!!!

It's a wonder that leftardz don't get embarrassed by their predictable over reactions and distortions.

Where did anyone say anything about killing the mother, moron?

Obviously killing the mother while she is in the middle of killing her prenatal child would do little if anything to save the child.

Logic is far from your strongest suit isn't it.

So you want to kill someone other than the person who having the abortion? Ya, that makes sense.

Just for shits and grins, why don't you quote a post where I ever said that I WANT to kill ANYONE.

You pondered since people have a right to kill to defend another, shouldn't that right be extended to defending an unborn child.

To any thinking person, you're asking if the answer to the former is yes, then so should the latter.

There are protections for a born child and even for fetus in the last trimester because it could be developed enough to live possibly outside the womb, but not in the first two trimesters.

The FDA just made the abortion pill easier to get - The Washington Post
Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis...pill/.../426407de-f...
The Washington Post
Mar 30, 2016 - It can now be administered 70 days into a pregnancy, increasing the opportunity for its use. ... The Food and Drug Administration first approved the abortion pill ... to be used up to 70 days into pregnancy — three weeks longer than the ... A day or two after taking that drug, the woman takes the second drug, ...

So called moralists don't have a say about over the counter or clinical abortions. It is privacy issue for a women to decide. Can't stop a women ordering online a home abortion kit.

Most women would rather spend between a couple of dollars to $50 to abort at home and only pay the $500+ for a clinic as a last resort.
Women can go to any grocery store or vegetable market and find what they need to induce a miscarriage.
Birth control is easy if you know what to do. Even 1 cent or less is enough to buy birth control, some items are even free.

Theoretically it would be nice to do away with most clinical abortion, but doctors nor sex education teach what women can do to prevent or terminate on their own. Most methods are all but forgotten. In the case of medical necessity, safe abortions should be available and hope the women can try again at a later time.

Choice is not about promoting abortions but education and safe options for the women to decide what is best for her and her situation.

I think all girls and young women should be educated and help with child birth, birth control and early abortions and child care well before their first period. If they understand perhaps they will be less inclined to accidents and pregnancies before they are physically, mentally or financially ready. Sex education in schools today is a joke and a waste of time and money. They don't really teach anything useful. Better boys and girls work on a farm and learn about animal husbandry or study botany or chemistry instead. I think children should volunteer a number of hours at a hospital or with special kids before they are allowed to graduate. I also think they should learn to file tax forms and read basic legal documents, JMHO.

 

[Mudda]

An aborter steals an aborted human being more lifetime than a murderer steals the lifetime of a murdered person. How many billions of wasted years of lifetime will it need, until the human race accepts that life is the only way for living spiritual entities with a reasonable mind? When will we be able not to misuse might any longer?

Your god makes still births and aborted fetuses all the time. Get Him to stop first.

Why do people who invoke religion forget the plants that induce miscarriages or the bible's permitting the use of bitter water?

Other faiths permit abortions, including some christian denominations.

Nobody's business if a woman chooses to get an abortion, her medical records are private. She might as well be seeing a doctor for ovarian cysts, painful periods or just an annual pap smear.

WTF does religion have to do with whether or not a human being's life begins at conception or what their CONSTITUTIONAL rights as a human being are?

Why are you bringing religion into a discussion where it clearly doesn't need to be?

Because the legal definition of alive is when you are born. Only religious people and fruitcakes think that life begins before that.

Dear Mudda do you agree with applying this logic to transgender persons. That gender is defined by genes at birth. And anyone who believes gender is determined otherwise is delusional.

Are these two beliefs treated equally by law.
They are both faith based if you get away from proven science. Should govt. Reject both faith based arguments and go with birth as the scientific and legal standard

Only religious people and fruitcakes care what transgender people do.

 

[aris2chat]

An aborter steals an aborted human being more lifetime than a murderer steals the lifetime of a murdered person. How many billions of wasted years of lifetime will it need, until the human race accepts that life is the only way for living spiritual entities with a reasonable mind? When will we be able not to misuse might any longer?

Your god makes still births and aborted fetuses all the time. Get Him to stop first.

Why do people who invoke religion forget the plants that induce miscarriages or the bible's permitting the use of bitter water?

Other faiths permit abortions, including some christian denominations.

Nobody's business if a woman chooses to get an abortion, her medical records are private. She might as well be seeing a doctor for ovarian cysts, painful periods or just an annual pap smear.

WTF does religion have to do with whether or not a human being's life begins at conception or what their CONSTITUTIONAL rights as a human being are?

Why are you bringing religion into a discussion where it clearly doesn't need to be?

Because the legal definition of alive is when you are born. Only religious people and fruitcakes think that life begins before that.

Dear Mudda do you agree with applying this logic to transgender persons. That gender is defined by genes at birth. And anyone who believes gender is determined otherwise is delusional.

Are these two beliefs treated equally by law.
They are both faith based if you get away from proven science. Should govt. Reject both faith based arguments and go with birth as the scientific and legal standard

XX, XY, even XYY is not the only determinations of sex or sexuality. Brain chemistry and early development in the womb are involved as well.
There have been a number of threads on gender and transgender already.

 

[emilynghiem]

So you'd kill the mother to save the unborn child? What a ******* GREAT IDEA!!!

It's a wonder that leftardz don't get embarrassed by their predictable over reactions and distortions.

Where did anyone say anything about killing the mother, moron?

Obviously killing the mother while she is in the middle of killing her prenatal child would do little if anything to save the child.

Logic is far from your strongest suit isn't it.

So you want to kill someone other than the person who having the abortion? Ya, that makes sense.

Just for shits and grins, why don't you quote a post where I ever said that I WANT to kill ANYONE.

You pondered since people have a right to kill to defend another, shouldn't that right be extended to defending an unborn child.

To any thinking person, you're asking if the answer to the former is yes, then so should the latter.

There are protections for a born child and even for fetus in the last trimester because it could be developed enough to live possibly outside the womb, but not in the first two trimesters.

The FDA just made the abortion pill easier to get - The Washington Post
Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis...pill/.../426407de-f...
The Washington Post
Mar 30, 2016 - It can now be administered 70 days into a pregnancy, increasing the opportunity for its use. ... The Food and Drug Administration first approved the abortion pill ... to be used up to 70 days into pregnancy — three weeks longer than the ... A day or two after taking that drug, the woman takes the second drug, ...

So called moralists don't have a say about over the counter or clinical abortions. It is privacy issue for a women to decide. Can't stop a women ordering online a home abortion kit.

Most women would rather spend between a couple of dollars to $50 to abort at home and only pay the $500+ for a clinic as a last resort.
Women can go to any grocery store or vegetable market and find what they need to induce a miscarriage.
Birth control is easy if you know what to do. Even 1 cent or less is enough to buy birth control, some items are even free.

Theoretically it would be nice to do away with most clinical abortion, but doctors nor sex education teach what women can do to prevent or terminate on their own. Most methods are all but forgotten. In the case of medical necessity, safe abortions should be available and hope the women can try again at a later time.

Choice is not about promoting abortions but education and safe options for the women to decide what is best for her and her situation.

I think all girls and young women should be educated and help with child birth, birth control and early abortions and child care well before their first period. If they understand perhaps they will be less inclined to accidents and pregnancies before they are physically, mentally or financially ready. Sex education in schools today is a joke and a waste of time and money. They don't really teach anything useful. Better boys and girls work on a farm and learn about animal husbandry or study botany or chemistry instead. I think children should volunteer a number of hours at a hospital or with special kids before they are allowed to graduate. I also think they should learn to file tax forms and read basic legal documents, JMHO.

Dear aris2chat This approach STILL targets and puts MORE legal responsibility on the women
than on the men.

Show me a version of this approach that holds MEN equally responsible for the decision to have sex.

Don't you think that is only fair?
Especially because in cases of coercion, rape/incest, or other abuses often the MEN are MORE responsible for pressure to have sex than the women being victimized.

So where is the legal motivation to hold MEN responsible for their side of the equation and prevention?

 

[aris2chat]

It's a wonder that leftardz don't get embarrassed by their predictable over reactions and distortions.

Where did anyone say anything about killing the mother, moron?

Obviously killing the mother while she is in the middle of killing her prenatal child would do little if anything to save the child.

Logic is far from your strongest suit isn't it.

So you want to kill someone other than the person who having the abortion? Ya, that makes sense.

Just for shits and grins, why don't you quote a post where I ever said that I WANT to kill ANYONE.

You pondered since people have a right to kill to defend another, shouldn't that right be extended to defending an unborn child.

To any thinking person, you're asking if the answer to the former is yes, then so should the latter.

There are protections for a born child and even for fetus in the last trimester because it could be developed enough to live possibly outside the womb, but not in the first two trimesters.

The FDA just made the abortion pill easier to get - The Washington Post
Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis...pill/.../426407de-f...
The Washington Post
Mar 30, 2016 - It can now be administered 70 days into a pregnancy, increasing the opportunity for its use. ... The Food and Drug Administration first approved the abortion pill ... to be used up to 70 days into pregnancy — three weeks longer than the ... A day or two after taking that drug, the woman takes the second drug, ...

So called moralists don't have a say about over the counter or clinical abortions. It is privacy issue for a women to decide. Can't stop a women ordering online a home abortion kit.

Most women would rather spend between a couple of dollars to $50 to abort at home and only pay the $500+ for a clinic as a last resort.
Women can go to any grocery store or vegetable market and find what they need to induce a miscarriage.
Birth control is easy if you know what to do. Even 1 cent or less is enough to buy birth control, some items are even free.

Theoretically it would be nice to do away with most clinical abortion, but doctors nor sex education teach what women can do to prevent or terminate on their own. Most methods are all but forgotten. In the case of medical necessity, safe abortions should be available and hope the women can try again at a later time.

Choice is not about promoting abortions but education and safe options for the women to decide what is best for her and her situation.

I think all girls and young women should be educated and help with child birth, birth control and early abortions and child care well before their first period. If they understand perhaps they will be less inclined to accidents and pregnancies before they are physically, mentally or financially ready. Sex education in schools today is a joke and a waste of time and money. They don't really teach anything useful. Better boys and girls work on a farm and learn about animal husbandry or study botany or chemistry instead. I think children should volunteer a number of hours at a hospital or with special kids before they are allowed to graduate. I also think they should learn to file tax forms and read basic legal documents, JMHO.

Dear aris2chat This approach STILL targets and puts MORE legal responsibility on the women
than on the men.

Show me a version of this approach that holds MEN equally responsible for the decision to have sex.

Don't you think that is only fair?
Especially because in cases of coercion, rape/incest, or other abuses often the MEN are MORE responsible for pressure to have sex than the women being victimized.

So where is the legal motivation to hold MEN responsible for their side of the equation and prevention?

I think the male pill should be standard since it is more effective and safer than the female pill or birth control. I'm not apposed to using nutcrackers on men that are sexual abusers, but I've also seen too many women and girls killed, raped and mutilated by men, so I'm rather bias on that point.

 

[zaangalewa]

Unicorns are not real, they are things of fairy tales and myth

Not really.

More lies like North Korea's King Dongmyeong's unicorn? Unicorns did not exist, not in Lascaux or Pyongyang.
Seek medical help for your delusion

... Hmm ... God knows everything and some people know everything better: My doctor loves unicorns.

Here is a picture from this mediator of transcendence:

 

[zaangalewa]

and infection, cancer or parasite are also alive, but that does not mean a person should be forced to keep them.
It is the woman's womb and it is up to her if she is ready and willing to carry the embryo to term. It is her life, she is the living breathing human in the room making decisions.

Do you speak with me? ... I never would call abortions doctors "infections", "cancer" or "parasites". They are human beings - and no one has any right to kill human beings. The problem is the the duty to help People, who are to weak to be able to defend themselve. The human beings who will be aborted don't have any chance against their abortion excutioners.

They are a growth of cells.

We are multicellular organisms. That's not astonishing for me. We call this multicellular organisation "body". A body starts to grow with a first cell which contains the biological information about 50% of the body of the father and about 50% of the body of the mother.

They are not breathing

Breathing? Sure exists an aerobic metabolism of the growing human being during gestation. How to build up a body without oxygen?

thinking independent beings, they are feeding off the nutrients of the woman. If a man presented with the same symptoms as a pregnant woman the doctors would seek to remove the cause.

If a man would be able to get pregnant then he would be a woman.

You want to force a woman to keep it for nine months,

I said very clear what I think in this conetxt. Let me repeat in a very very short way: Sex produces not absortions. Sex produces babies. If a man and a woman havw sex with each oterh then they know the risk. Both made a contract with mother nature to protect their baby. If they don't like to fullfill this contract then I don't see why anyone in the world could have the duty to kill their baby. The only exception why to kill a human being is [extended] selfdefense.

and then possibly raise it for the next twenty.

Lots of people like to adopt babies.

Maybe the woman has her won hopes and dreams for her life that don't include at that time being a mother or responsible for another life.

If her dreams and hopes have nothing to do with motherhood, then I don't understand why she is pregnant.

Maybe she would rather be a lawyer than a waitress or a political leader than a house wife. She might be a scientist or some dangerous career that would be inhibited by a pregnancy.

Our german minister of defense Ursula von der Leyen has for example 9 children. Our chancellor Angela Merkel has no children. Both is completly okay. What has this to do with abortion? Do you really think someone who will become a scientist and decides not to have a baby on whatever reason is not able not to become pregnant?

She might be responsible for hundreds of lives and not have time to carry, give birth and raise an infant at the time.
It is her life and she might not want to put it on hold for a year or more.

I remember in the moment a car driver who nearly killed me because of his impatience. Thanks god and my guardian angel nothing what was evil had happened. Later I calculated he was ready to kill a human being only because of about 4 seconds of his lifetime. We call such people normally "psychopaths" or "sociopaths". Nine month is also not a long time. This justifies not the death of a human being.

That should be her decision, not something she if forced to do because of someone elses view of morality. She is not a slave.

If men want to over populate the world, let them carry the fetus and give birth. Maybe men should be more like Darwin frog and let women have their freedom.

As many times as men have sex, let them be responsible for all the lives they potentially produce. They wouldn't be able to feed themselves let alone their children. Inject men with a male birth control so they can't produce children till they are ready to have the implant removed. Castrate half the men out there.

Abortions are legal in India, russia, canada, australia, china, italy, france, spain, the US, most of africa. Why should you be the dictator of morality or determine what is right for women? Not your business to know or decide what a woman should do with her body or what happens in a doctor's office. Not for you to decide what tea she drinks or pills she takes. Not for you to decide what is medical, mental or physical, necessity for the woman.

Worry about the million of children out there than need homes and loving parents instead of forcing more children into the world. Worry about feeding the global population first. Worry about producing enough job and safe housing and proper schooling for everyone. Worry about world peace, that children born will have a tomorrow and not be so much fodder of war and abuse.

Even Bill Gates can't feed and care for all the children of the world, but you want to force women to keep an unwanted fetus?

Your morality stinks.

I read the last lines very fast. Your arguments here are very strange. Makes for me not a big sense to say anything to this points. Your opinion in this question seems to be more a kind of [anti]religious faith for you than it is an opinion any longer.

PS: What says your own mother to your ideas about abortion? Would you live - or would you not live - if you would had made her decisions?

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

And it's none of your ******* business what a woman chooses to do with her body.

If a woman with her child takes a canister of kerosine and a lighter and starts to take a bath in the kerosine - then you never in your life saw such an ice cold flash runner like me - in one hand the lady, in the other hand the lighter and in the third hand the baby ... hopefully! Except maybe she's an US-American. Then I will call you to discuss with her about her wonderful body. I will see wether it helps her really to do so.

Why don't you just say that you want to put them in a big oven? Too much of a ***** to say so?

No comment, Nazi.

At least you don't deny that you want to put them in a big oven.

No comment, Nazi.

 

[aris2chat]

Unicorns are not real, they are things of fairy tales and myth

Not really.

More lies like North Korea's King Dongmyeong's unicorn? Unicorns did not exist, not in Lascaux or Pyongyang.
Seek medical help for your delusion

... Hmm ... God knows everything and some people know everything better: My doctor loves unicorns.

Here is a picture from this mediator of transcendence:

Wisconsin born 1994
Texas killed 2012
Connecticut born 2012

Buffalo nor a myth
Siberian unicorn was a rhinoceros that went extinct 30,000 yr ago
Narwal is a whale
A deer in Italy was found with a genetic deformity with on horn

A unicorn however is the stuff of fables

 

[Mudda]

And it's none of your ******* business what a woman chooses to do with her body.

If a woman with her child takes a canister of kerosine and a lighter and starts to take a bath in the kerosine - then you never in your life saw such an ice cold flash runner like me - in one hand the lady, in the other hand the lighter and in the third hand the baby ... hopefully! Except maybe she's an US-American. Then I will call you to discuss with her about her wonderful body. I will see wether it helps her really to do so.

Why don't you just say that you want to put them in a big oven? Too much of a ***** to say so?

No comment, Nazi.

At least you don't deny that you want to put them in a big oven.

No comment, Nazi.

Good, I win.

 

[zaangalewa]

The OP uses the same logic Isis uses to behead people. They believe they're right and all that matter is they believe it.

Does anyone have the right to kill in an act of self defense or in defense of another?

If your answer to that is yes. . . Then why would that not include a situation where someone is acting in defense of a prenatal child? I'm pretty sure (at least in some states) it's even justified to shoot someone who is trying to harm your livestock or property. . . So, why not a child in the womb?

Yes = if it's a felonious assault. Abortion is not a felony, so no, you don't have the right to kill someone to protect an unborn child from abortion.

I would be happy if you would be right - but unfortunatelly you are wrong. Human laws are not natural laws and a system of laws is not automaticallly justice. A human being has only a limited lifetime. So to murder someone who is old destroys less lifetime than the abortion of a human being destroys lifetime! That's why we become much more angry, if someone kills little children. The death of little children is for our emotions the same as to kill the future of the world. In case of unborn babies we need our intelligence, our intellect, to clear our thoughts and emotions to find out that this is not a difference. No one here and anywhere else in the world was ever able to say plausibly when a human being starts really to exist. The answer is easy: A human being never starts to begin - a human being always is. So in the moment someone is able to find something what he is able to abort he always kills a human being = steals the lifetime of this human being in our world here. So indeed someone has the moral right - maybe even the duty - to save such an innocent and helpless human being from death and destruction.

Share the gospel, and if necessary, use words to do so.
Saint Francis

 

[zaangalewa]

If a woman with her child takes a canister of kerosine and a lighter and starts to take a bath in the kerosine - then you never in your life saw such an ice cold flash runner like me - in one hand the lady, in the other hand the lighter and in the third hand the baby ... hopefully! Except maybe she's an US-American. Then I will call you to discuss with her about her wonderful body. I will see wether it helps her really to do so.

Why don't you just say that you want to put them in a big oven? Too much of a ***** to say so?

No comment, Nazi.

At least you don't deny that you want to put them in a big oven.

No comment, Nazi.

Good, I win.

If you will win then you will forever live in your own hell, Nazi.

 

[aris2chat]

and infection, cancer or parasite are also alive, but that does not mean a person should be forced to keep them.
It is the woman's womb and it is up to her if she is ready and willing to carry the embryo to term. It is her life, she is the living breathing human in the room making decisions.

Do you speak with me? ... I never would call abortions doctors "infections", "cancer" or "parasites". They are human beings - and no one has any right to kill human beings. The problem is the the duty to help People, who are to weak to be able to defend themselve. The human beings who will be aborted don't have any chance against their abortion excutioners.

They are a growth of cells.

We are multicellular organisms. That's not astonishing for me. We call this multicellular organisation "body". A body starts to grow with a first cell which contains the biological information about 50% of the body of the father and about 50% of the body of the mother.

They are not breathing

Breathing? Sure exists an aerobic metabolism of the growing human being during gestation. How to build up a body without oxygen?

thinking independent beings, they are feeding off the nutrients of the woman. If a man presented with the same symptoms as a pregnant woman the doctors would seek to remove the cause.

If a man would be able to get pregnant then he would be a woman.

You want to force a woman to keep it for nine months,

I said very clear what I think in this conetxt. Let me repeat in a very very short way: Sex produces not absortions. Sex produces babies. If a man and a woman havw sex with each oterh then they know the risk. Both made a contract with mother nature to protect their baby. If they don't like to fullfill this contract then I don't see why anyone in the world could have the duty to kill their baby. The only exception why to kill a human being is [extended] selfdefense.

and then possibly raise it for the next twenty.

Lots of people like to adopt babies.

Maybe the woman has her won hopes and dreams for her life that don't include at that time being a mother or responsible for another life.

If her dreams and hopes have nothing to do with motherhood, then I don't understand why she is pregnant.

Maybe she would rather be a lawyer than a waitress or a political leader than a house wife. She might be a scientist or some dangerous career that would be inhibited by a pregnancy.

Our german minister of defense Ursula von der Leyen has for example 9 children. Our chancellor Angela Merkel has no children. Both is completly okay. What has this to do with abortion? Do you really think someone who will become a scientist and decides not to have a baby on whatever reason is not able not to become pregnant?

She might be responsible for hundreds of lives and not have time to carry, give birth and raise an infant at the time.
It is her life and she might not want to put it on hold for a year or more.

I remember in the moment a car driver who nearly killed me because of his impatience. Thanks god and my guardian angel nothing what was evil had happened. Later I calculated he was ready to kill a human being only because of about 4 seconds of his lifetime. We call such people normally "psychopaths" or "sociopaths". Nine month is also not a long time. This justifies not the death of a human being.

That should be her decision, not something she if forced to do because of someone elses view of morality. She is not a slave.

If men want to over populate the world, let them carry the fetus and give birth. Maybe men should be more like Darwin frog and let women have their freedom.

As many times as men have sex, let them be responsible for all the lives they potentially produce. They wouldn't be able to feed themselves let alone their children. Inject men with a male birth control so they can't produce children till they are ready to have the implant removed. Castrate half the men out there.

Abortions are legal in India, russia, canada, australia, china, italy, france, spain, the US, most of africa. Why should you be the dictator of morality or determine what is right for women? Not your business to know or decide what a woman should do with her body or what happens in a doctor's office. Not for you to decide what tea she drinks or pills she takes. Not for you to decide what is medical, mental or physical, necessity for the woman.

Worry about the million of children out there than need homes and loving parents instead of forcing more children into the world. Worry about feeding the global population first. Worry about producing enough job and safe housing and proper schooling for everyone. Worry about world peace, that children born will have a tomorrow and not be so much fodder of war and abuse.

Even Bill Gates can't feed and care for all the children of the world, but you want to force women to keep an unwanted fetus?

Your morality stinks.

I read the last lines very fast. Your arguments here are very strange. Makes for me not a big sense to say anything to this points. Your opinion in this question seems to be more a kind of [anti]religious faith for you than it is an opinion any longer.

PS: What says your own mother to your ideas about abortion? Would you live - or would you not live - if you would had made her decisions?

Legally, men have given birth. In the next couple of years a man will be able to get a uterus transplant making it possible for him to give birth.

Merkel has two step children.

If my parents had been in a different country and my mother had the option and realized soon enough she would have aborted both my brother and I. I have three children she has only seen a couple of times and two grandchildren she has never seen. Does not even want to hear about them. She does not like children.

Some women are not the mother kind. I'm sure at sometime it might have bothered me a bit, but that is just the way she was.

No certainty we would come to term till we are born and we could die tomorrow. Anything can happen. Life is chance.

If I had not been born, it's not like I would know or care about it. The world would not have stopped. History would have change a bit but the sun would rise and set either way.
.

 

[Mudda]

Why don't you just say that you want to put them in a big oven? Too much of a ***** to say so?

No comment, Nazi.

At least you don't deny that you want to put them in a big oven.

No comment, Nazi.

Good, I win.

If you will win then you will forever live in your own hell, Nazi.

I bet when you get to hell you're going to sit right next to Adolf.

 

[Faun]

The OP uses the same logic Isis uses to behead people. They believe they're right and all that matter is they believe it.

Does anyone have the right to kill in an act of self defense or in defense of another?

If your answer to that is yes. . . Then why would that not include a situation where someone is acting in defense of a prenatal child? I'm pretty sure (at least in some states) it's even justified to shoot someone who is trying to harm your livestock or property. . . So, why not a child in the womb?

Yes = if it's a felonious assault. Abortion is not a felony, so no, you don't have the right to kill someone to protect an unborn child from abortion.

I would be happy if you would be right - but unfortunatelly you are wrong. Human laws are not natural laws and a system of laws is not automaticallly justice. A human being has only a limited lifetime. So to murder someone who is old destroys less lifetime than the abortion of a human being destroys lifetime! That's why we become much more angry, if someone kills little children. The death of little children is for our emotions the same as to kill the future of the world. In case of unborn babies we need our intelligence, our intellect, to clear our thoughts and emotions to find out that this is not a difference. No one here and anywhere else in the world was ever able to say plausibly when a human being starts really to exist. The answer is easy: A human being never starts to begin - a human being always is. So in the moment someone is able to find something what he is able to abort he always kills a human being = steals the lifetime of this human being in our world here. So indeed someone has the moral right - maybe even the duty - to save such an innocent and helpless human being from death and destruction.

Share the gospel, and if necessary, use words to do so.
Saint Francis

We are a nation of written laws, not natural laws, crafted by Americans.

What a weak answer you gave. I'd be embarrassed to post something like that.

 

[zaangalewa]

No comment, Nazi.

At least you don't deny that you want to put them in a big oven.

No comment, Nazi.

Good, I win.

If you will win then you will forever live in your own hell, Nazi.

I bet when you get to hell you're going to sit right next to Adolf.

Could be more worse. I could have to sit beside you and to study empty phraseology and standardaradarized jiijojisms and the coffee machine is defect, Nazi.

 

[Mudda]

At least you don't deny that you want to put them in a big oven.

No comment, Nazi.

Good, I win.

If you will win then you will forever live in your own hell, Nazi.

I bet when you get to hell you're going to sit right next to Adolf.

Could be more worse. I could have to sit beside you and to study empty phraseology and standardaradarized jiijojisms and the coffee machine is defect, Nazi.

You should sit next to an English teacher, that made no sense.