Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[Mudda]

In my view to the world someone with 5 Kids should have seven votes. Your inability to have a feeling of responsibilty explains also a lot in context with the theme "abortion".

Another one of your delusions. Let alone that you can't count. Go to bed.

 

[Mudda]

A child has a legal guardian - but the legal guardian is not the owner of the money of the child. So indeed "cells" are able to be a heir.

Do you just make shit up as you go along?

I don't have any idea how someone like you is able to survive. Someone has only to take the opposit of this what you say and is automatically right. How can this be? Why are you always with everything what you say wrong?

What you said made no sense in the first place, so you must be talking about yourself.

My problem is that I'm convinced that you are a citizen of the USA. Otherwise I could find an explanation for your behavior.

I'm German.

 

[zaangalewa]

That's impossible. Animals are not able to have any idea about the concept money. Money is not part of their reality, never will be.

Pets that inherited a fortune

Clash of civilisation. That's not compatible with my own culture beause a pet is not able to know what a duty is. In Tokyo married a korean man his bolster. Legally. That's also not possible.

 

[zaangalewa]

A child has a legal guardian - but the legal guardian is not the owner of the money of the child. So indeed "cells" are able to be a heir.

Do you just make shit up as you go along?

I don't have any idea how someone like you is able to survive. Someone has only to take the opposit of this what you say and is automatically right. How can this be? Why are you always with everything what you say wrong?

What you said made no sense in the first place, so you must be talking about yourself.

My problem is that I'm convinced that you are a citizen of the USA. Otherwise I could find an explanation for your behavior.

I'm German.

Dir ham se wohl ins Hirn geschissen! Was soll der elende Scheiß, den Du hier treibst?

 

[Michelle420]

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

The only 'law' that truly counts is the law that is found everywhere, by itself, even under rocks and at the bottom of the sea. Man can make endless laws and never perfect mankind. One of the examples of the story of Christ is the Pharisees' failed efforts to legislate holiness and 'force' the coming of 'God's' kingdom. Judas may have been making a similar mistake in trying to manipulate Jesus into intervening to save himself (I'm using these examples in a metaphoric sense, so don't get me wrong here, anyone).
The really difficult thing for humans is that they are free to do absolutely anything, but lack the sense to reign over that liberty.

Dear there4eyeM
the difference between the two levels, the naturally self-existent laws that are universal for life and creation
vs.
man made laws.
Is that our man made laws are for applying agreed definitions to the already existing laws.
We did not invent these laws but are mapping them out so we can communicate.
The purpose of our written laws in math and science is to have a common language and prove that it works
to DESCRIBE the relations and principles/processes out there we didn't invent.

Similar with our religious and govt laws: we are attempting to write down the principles
we AGREE to follow so we can adhere to that and have a process to manage where there is a dispute or violation
that is against the rules we agreed to.

The concept of social contracts and consent of the governed is supposed to be what
our Constitution was based on. But the way the govt and politics are run now, it's as if
as long as someone can overrule, outnumber, outvote or outbully the other side, you get your way.

That isn't what all sides agreed to under the Constitution, so we have conflicts we don't agree how to resolve yet.
We are in the middle of applying the democratic grievance process "back to itself" to debug the bugs in the system.

Again we didn't invent the laws of democratic governance, we just wrote them down.
And currently we don't agree how to interpret and apply what we wrote.

 

[alang1216]

That's impossible. Animals are not able to have any idea about the concept money. Money is not part of their reality, never will be.

Pets that inherited a fortune

Clash of civilisation. That's not compatible with my own culture beause a pet is not able to know what a duty is. In Tokyo married a korean man his bolster. Legally. That's also not possible.

My dog is a lot more aware than a single cell.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

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.

It shows Christianity is almost as insane as islam. Christians have only recently become less violent in the last couple hundred years but slowly. But we see what religious people are capable of. You know they'd make perfect nazis

 

[Agit8r]

Is any form of terrorism a moral right? **** no!

 

[sealybobo]

Is any form of terrorism a moral right? **** no!

They don't like the secular laws we have in this country. Reminds me of islam

 

[zaangalewa]

That's impossible. Animals are not able to have any idea about the concept money. Money is not part of their reality, never will be.

Pets that inherited a fortune

Clash of civilisation. That's not compatible with my own culture beause a pet is not able to know what a duty is. In Tokyo married a korean man his bolster. Legally. That's also not possible.

My dog is a lot more aware than a single cell. ...

The system of justice in this world give human beings rights and duties with laws. So it's your right and duty to care for your dog. There's not any right or duty of your dog to care for you. A dog is not able to be a heir of a human being. A human being is only able to try to take care for the own dogs. If he gives his dog some dollars this helps a dog nothing at all. A dog is never able to do anything with money. You have to find a reliable person who takes care for your dog after your death.

What I said was very clear: We give even a single cell the right and duty to become for example the ruler of an industrial empire. The same time we say a cell is not a human being. That's without logic. Let me say: If we make cruel irreal laws without any logic and humanity - abortion - then our social worlds become cruel irreal places without any logic. We can give such situations lots of nice names - but if we have a problem and we find out the problem lives and is able to be killed then we found for sure not the real problem and we are far away from reasonability and humanity in a world withut heart and spirituality and full of cheap empty phrases. Some times I fear only mother Mary herselve is able to understand all this problems any longer. We saw her often full of tears in the history of mankind.

 

[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).

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.

It shows Christianity is almost as insane as islam. Christians have only recently become less violent in the last couple hundred years but slowly. But we see what religious people are capable of. You know they'd make perfect nazis

I don't know how often I showed to you facts, which make it impossible to have such an opinion. Nevertheless you are not able to think your antichristian ideology is wrong, which chaines your own spirit in the dark prisons of your own soul. I give you only one fact again. That's enough. Leading Nazis and the members of the SS (the executioners of the shoa) married not in a church. Nearly never. The some very few exceptions are only confirming this rule. So how do you explain this atypical "christian" behavior, if your theory would be a theory and not only an agressive ideology as the ideology of the Nazis was an agressive ideology?

The Nazis had by the way a biological - a pseudoscientific - form of ideology. They were [pseudo-]darwinists. They were for example against the abortion of "Aryans" (=an empty phrase) and for the abortion of all others.

By the way: What do you think happens in a church service? What do you think means "Te deum laudatum"?

 

[zaangalewa]

Is any form of terrorism a moral right? **** no!

So abortion is not a moral right.

 

[emilynghiem]

till it i

So Georg Elser had no right to try to murder Adolf Hitler, because it was not legal to do so? And if I think about Erdogan - Erdogan is transforming in the moment the democracy in Turkey into a dictatorship. When will anyone have the right to kill him? Before Erdogan kills him in a "war on terrorism" or after Erdogan (="the turkish state") killed him? Whatelse to do with such a beginning self-fullfilling murderacy? ... Hmmm ...

Sure has everyone the right to defend with weapons (=the possibility to kill) the life of his own people or the life of the people he loves. So why not to kill someone who kills babies? If the babies would be 6 month old, then everyone would agree to do so. But if a child is minus 6 month old, then nearly no one agrees to do so. Why? 1 year difference is not a lot.

What are 'rights'?

I'm oriented in values and not in laws. I never had big problems with laws. Abortion is a frustrating exception in this context, because I don't like to minimize the freedom of people, but on the other side everyeon has the right to live. I would say rights have first of all the sense to protect weaker human beings against stronger human beings. Real rights are the servants of real justice and we are not able to live without justice. I guess most people on our planet don't like to be aborted and most people don't have problem with abortion too.

It is almost impossible to prevent you from anonymously killing someone if you are determined to do so, therefore, you have the 'right'. Society has the 'right' to make laws

Everyone can make laws - but a community of people has normally enough power to force everyone to do what the laws say.

punishing such action, so you must be prepared for the consequences. Do you have the courage of your convictions? That is the question. People who feel this is murder must act. If they do not act, they do not regard it as murder. As we see virtually no one acting this way, we assume that even expressed opponants of abortion accept it as being the decision of a woman to control her life, just as any human does.

I guess in most cases parents and partners are responsible for abortions and not the women themselve. And men seems also to take control about women. A woman alone is not able to educate a baby without help. A proverb is: "For to educate a child it needs a whole village". If a woman is alone and lost what do you call "free decision" in such a case? And lots of women are also a little psychotic during pregnancy. Difficult to say what free will is. But if: Why not to punish every woman with 9 month gestation, who had on their own free will sex with a man and got pregnant? Is it better to traumatize women by killing their babies in them and/or tear them alive out of their body?

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).

 

[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).

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.

It shows Christianity is almost as insane as islam. Christians have only recently become less violent in the last couple hundred years but slowly. But we see what religious people are capable of. You know they'd make perfect nazis

Dear sealybobo What are you referring to when you use the term "Christianity"
Can we distinguish terms here, or this is like mixing Muslim faith with Jihadist terrorism and saying it's all the same under Islam.
No it's not.

Christianity means charity, and yes there is FALSE charity done for personal benefit reward and show.
But the TRUE meaning is TRUE charity, especially offering forgiveness to those who do not deserve it as an act of grace.

Some of the most common ways Christianity is abused
(1) confusing forgiveness with condoning and enabling injustice to continue.
True forgiveness compels correction, not enabling which is out of fear of confronting the problem and not real forgiveness
that embraces and opens the door to resolve the root cause of the problem.
(2) taking laws out of context and judging others in ways that contradict the meaning and message in Christianity
(3) mixing beliefs about Christianity (or other religion/beliefs) with secular authority that is supposed to remain neutral and all inclusive to defend all rights and not
abuse authority to impose one set of beliefs at the expense of any other group or individual

If you are talking about any of THOSE types of abuses,
YES those are wrong, whether it's Christians, Muslims, Liberals, Constitutionalists or anyone doing that,
it is NOT unique to Christianity, and is NOT the fault of Christianity but of the person/groups guilty of RELIGIOUS ABUSE.

More people do more good practicing Christianity or Charity without abusing religious authority.
All groups I've seen, especially corporations and govt, have been caught abusing "collective authority"
Not just Christianity, Islam or other religions that get the most publicity.

it's a flaw of human nature that when we get into groups, the mob mentality or pecking order politics
can kick in, and leads to one dominant group BULLYING the runts or lesser groups into submission.

I think the Christians and rightwing get jumped on the most for this because they have and claim
greater responsibility for correcting it. if Jesus means Justice for all, whoever claims to invoke
that authority has got more work to do to establish justice by law than those who don't claim such authority or know how to invoke or apply it.

C_Clayton_Jones
your insistence that abortion is not murder, and not recognizing the beliefs of others that it is,
reminds me of the people who don't recognize beliefs that are foreign to them either,
such as how can transgender people really be born that way, that can't be real for them, and has to be mental illness.

Just because we don't believe or agree with someone's beliefs,
doesn't give us the right to abuse govt to censor those beliefs and force people
to either change, comply or be penalized for not complying due to their beliefs.

Why can't we find a way to accommodate beliefs equally WITHOUT imposing or denying/depriving one side or the other?
Why this need to censor to the point of insulting and excluding people just because we disagree with their beliefs.
How is that bullying even necessary, especially when we don't agree with being bullied when it's our beliefs being denied.

Why can't we write better laws that allow all sides to have and defend their own
beliefs and not be forced to fund or support private beliefs of others that conflict or violate our own?
Shouldn't that be the standard of law in order to have equal justice and equal protections from discrimination by creed?

 

[emilynghiem]

Is any form of terrorism a moral right? **** no!

So abortion is not a moral right.

But people do have a right not to be under laws
that disproportionately affect and penalize "women more than men" for abortion,
especially if the decision to have sex and get pregnant is either
equal responsibility of both partners, or can often be more the man's responsibility
in cases of rape, incest, abuse or other coercion by the male (which is more common
statistically than females forcing this on males).

Part of the reason we have never resolved the conflicts over abortion laws
is no one has addressed how to fix the issues of "substantive due process"
affecting women more than men.

After much discussion and debate, I'm wondering what would happen if the
public could agree that any coercion or manipulation in relations could
be considered "relationship abuse" (and any breach in terms of agreements could
be considered "relationship fraud") where either partner could complain of
"relationship abuse or fraud" in the case of unwanted sex, unwanted
pregnancy, unwanted children, or unwanted abortion, and both partners could be
recognized equally as responsible for going through counseling to address complaints of abuse until these are resolved.

Would that approach make it equal, and make it clear this needs to be addressed in private.
The level it would take at the point where both partners are equally responsible
is BEFORE sex or pregnancy occurs; so that is a private matter and not the job of govt to dictate or regulate.

But what if sex that leads to abortion could be considered ABUSE or a statutory degree of rape
if the woman is coerced by the man. Would that help address the problems over penalizing just the women for abortion?

 

[zaangalewa]

Is any form of terrorism a moral right? **** no!

So abortion is not a moral right.

But people do have a right not to be under laws

No.

that disproportionately affect and penalize "women more than men" for abortion,
especially if the decision to have sex and get pregnant is either
equal responsibility of both partners, or can often be more the man's responsibility
in cases of rape, incest, abuse or other coercion by the male (which is more common
statistically than females forcing this on males).

Men have often a wrotten perverted form of an extremly agressive and senseless sexuality. That's a main reason why we made rules. But in general: Love is a creating power - not a destructive power.

Part of the reason we have never resolved the conflicts over abortion laws
is no one has addressed how to fix the issues of "substantive due process"
affecting women more than men.

After much discussion and debate, I'm wondering what would happen if the
public could agree that any coercion or manipulation in relations could
be considered "relationship abuse" (and any breach in terms of agreements could
be considered "relationship fraud") where either partner could complain of
"relationship abuse or fraud" in the case of unwanted sex, unwanted
pregnancy, unwanted children, or unwanted abortion, and both partners could be
recognized equally as responsible for going through counseling to address complaints of abuse until these are resolved.

We make reversible mistakes and irreversible mistakes. I was fortunatelly always in my life in the situation to find the best possible solutions together with my female partners - even if I myselve was not the best of all possible solutions. The only exception, who ignored my advice whomelse she could marry, was the woman I'm married with. Although she had a better chance she thought it's better to marry me. Meanwhile I'm convinced she was maybe not totally wrong to do so. And I don't remember anything - except a problem with alcohol - what was "unwanted" in my life - although lots of things were surprising me. ... Hmmm ... Whatever. A gestation is 9 month. Even if everything went wrong and a desaster happened: 9 month is not a long time. I don't see any reason why anyone should kill any innocent human being in this very short period of life. Exceptions may confirm this rule. I'm not an enemy of every abortion in every single case. The individual reasons are very important. But hundredthousands and milliions of abortions every year are a problem in the size of an automatized industrial killing of human beings. And the only other form of an industrial killing of human beings I know is the shoa, the holocaust.

Would that approach make it equal, and make it clear this needs to be addressed in private.
The level it would take at the point where both partners are equally responsible
is BEFORE sex or pregnancy occurs; so that is a private matter and not the job of govt to dictate or regulate.

But what if sex that leads to abortion could be considered ABUSE or a statutory degree of rape
if the woman is coerced by the man. Would that help address the problems over penalizing just the women for abortion?

"Equal" became a misused word meanwhile. I often said to my wife: "The people in the fifth century, who produced the lex baiovariorum would today say: 'It's okay to build five toilets for women if we build one toilet for men - this produces equality'". A short time ago I read a university somewhere in Germany closed toilets for women, because female and male students are equal, so they have to have the same number of toilets. "Academics today!", I thought, "what a luck to be able to drive with my Mercedes of thoughts in the Middle Ages as well as in the Modern times. Thanks god to be able to believe in god - otherwise this world would drive me crazy."

Aho ... sorry ... what did I like to say? Ah yea: "sex". Hmmm ... Sex leads not to abortions, sex leads to babies. A wrong understanding what sex is, a wrong moral, a lack of love, a misuse of knowledge in medicine and a wrong - ¿how to say this? - a wrong sphere of live, a wrong slaveholder mentality - lead to abortions. If we had really a progress in our societies then we would respect all and every kind of life in a much better way than we are doing today. Instead we do not even respect ourselves - our own lifes.

 

[IndependantAce]

Interestingly medical abortion first came to popularity in the West due to writings by convicted rapist and sex criminal the Marquis de Sade, who the term "sadism" comes from.

I think this shows just how much progressivism is at its roots a philosophy inspired the devil, with abortion being the "blood sacrifice" offered up to appease Satan.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

It shows Christianity is almost as insane as islam. Christians have only recently become less violent in the last couple hundred years but slowly. But we see what religious people are capable of. You know they'd make perfect nazis

I don't know how often I showed to you facts, which make it impossible to have such an opinion. Nevertheless you are not able to think your antichristian ideology is wrong, which chaines your own spirit in the dark prisons of your own soul. I give you only one fact again. That's enough. Leading Nazis and the members of the SS (the executioners of the shoa) married not in a church. Nearly never. The some very few exceptions are only confirming this rule. So how do you explain this atypical "christian" behavior, if your theory would be a theory and not only an agressive ideology as the ideology of the Nazis was an agressive ideology?

The Nazis had by the way a biological - a pseudoscientific - form of ideology. They were [pseudo-]darwinists. They were for example against the abortion of "Aryans" (=an empty phrase) and for the abortion of all others.

By the way: What do you think happens in a church service? What do you think means "Te deum laudatum"?

You're talking about the nazi leadership I'm talking about the Christian/nazi sheep citizens who were Catholic.

 

[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).

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.

It shows Christianity is almost as insane as islam. Christians have only recently become less violent in the last couple hundred years but slowly. But we see what religious people are capable of. You know they'd make perfect nazis

I don't know how often I showed to you facts, which make it impossible to have such an opinion. Nevertheless you are not able to think your antichristian ideology is wrong, which chaines your own spirit in the dark prisons of your own soul. I give you only one fact again. That's enough. Leading Nazis and the members of the SS (the executioners of the shoa) married not in a church. Nearly never. The some very few exceptions are only confirming this rule. So how do you explain this atypical "christian" behavior, if your theory would be a theory and not only an agressive ideology as the ideology of the Nazis was an agressive ideology?

The Nazis had by the way a biological - a pseudoscientific - form of ideology. They were [pseudo-]darwinists. They were for example against the abortion of "Aryans" (=an empty phrase) and for the abortion of all others.

By the way: What do you think happens in a church service? What do you think means "Te deum laudatum"?

You're talking about the nazi leadership I'm talking about the Christian/nazi sheep citizens who were Catholic.

I am a German. I am a Catholic. The Nazis murdered lots of peope of the jewish part of my families. How do you explain my existance and my opinion?