Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 nazisWrong.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).
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.
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?
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 nazisWrong.
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.
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?
Do you think German Christians and Italian Christians blame themselves?
Of course not. Do you think Christian America blames themselves for slavery and murdering all those Native American Indians?
You don't see that even if Hitler were an atheist, he used Religion to put one over on you fools. He used Religion to manipulate and control you. That's what's wrong with religion.
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).
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.
Is any form of terrorism a moral right? Fuck no!
So abortion is not a moral right.
They don't like the secular laws we have in this country. Reminds me of islamIs any form of terrorism a moral right? Fuck no!
Pets that inherited a fortuneThat's impossible. Animals are not able to have any idea about the concept money. Money is not part of their reality, never will be.
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
The original claim was that the unborn fetus was objectively a human being. I pointed out that it is subjective and the fact that you can be charged with manslaughter of an unborn fetus in some states but not in others only shows how subjective it is.A very weak argument. Girls were tried and convicted of witchcraft in Massachusetts but that didn't make them witches.Man charged with manslaughter in Mountain Brook crash that killed unborn baby
A weak argument?
What the hell does witch's have anything to do with it unless you suggest they don't be charged with manslaughter....
.
Personally I think they should fry the guy and that is really the purpose of these laws.
One's understanding does not dictate reality. A fetus isn't just "subjectively" a human being. They are, in fact, a developing human being, just as a 3 month old infant is, just as an adolescent is, just as an adult is.
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.
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.
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?
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.Can a child born with anencephalia (born with no capacity for thought, feelings or awareness) be murdered?
Yes or no?
^ thatWrong.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).
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.
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
... Abortion came into being right after the first human got pregnant. Seriously. There have always been unwanted pregnancies and there have always been attempts to end those unwanted pregnancies. ...
till it i
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.
Everyone can make laws - but a community of people has normally enough power to force everyone to do what the laws say.
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).
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.
You could even go back and kill the ancestors, while being absurd about it.
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.
