Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[aris2chat]

So if a fertilized egg is removed intact from the mother her responsibility to it is done since it can be implanted in another womb or left to die in a test tube. Works for me.

You have a serious reading & comprehension problem. Don't you.

I guess so. Please explain the difference between taking a vegetative stoke victim off a feeding tube is any different from not feeding a fertilized egg?

Let's see. . .

Do you mean other than the fact that a vegetative stroke victim who has NO prognosis for a normal life continuance at all is only being kept alive artificially while the fertilized egg typically has a much better prognosis and a NON artificial life support system?

Do you really think a doctor (any doctor) would remove life support from a stroke victim that has anywhere close to the same prognosis for further life, growth and development that a child even in the zygote stage of their life has?

or what?

Modern medical care give the embryo a better chance, but the woman's body treats it like an invasion. Miscarriages in the first trimester are common.

Unplugging someone at the end of life or unplugging en embryo from the umbilical connection to the women is a legal right. In some case there is even medical assisted suicide that is legal. Five state even allow euthanasia.

If someone wants to get pregnant or even raise a child with that person's DNA. Why should women who are not ready to raise a child be forced to keep it? When food is scares or there is some danger, some animals can actually put their pregnancy on hold till a better year. Women can put their eggs in storage to be used at a later time. Why is it necessary for a woman be required to carry her pregnancy to term? There are a few million children that need homes, adopt all of them by loving people before the need for more unwanted chidren. 30% of children have only one parent.

Consider the conditions and the ability of the women to care for a child and what type of life it will have. In times of war, natural disaster or catastrophic injury or illness either of the woman or someone she cares for. A child at that time endangers the woman, the person she cares for the child itself.

What ever the reason, it is the woman that needs to decide and her medical records are not open to your examination or judgement.

Some people by culture or religion have no opinion about abortion. Your morality should not trump theirs or you making you beliefs above someone elses. Your religion or morals are yours alone. You should not proselytize or force you ideas on others.

You don't get to decide if a person wants to end their life with dignity or if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy.

you only get to decide for your own body or if someone give you legal proxy to make decisions for them if they are unable to

Most responsible pet owners get their pet spayed or neutered. Why should people not decide if and when they are ready for become parent.

With the spread of STDs, all men should wear condoms, not leave birth control up to the women. Girls and young women should learn how to use nature to birth control, abortions and prenatal. They should be taught some moves to protect themselves as well.

Sex is health for body and mind. Just because you have your view based on your religion does not mean other share you ides or moral opinions.

You object to abortion, don't get one. Don't tell others what to do.

Chuz Life does not care about babies. He only cares about the fetus. He once told me that it's simply not his problem because there are (cough, cough) laws to protect the children. He's just fine with children going through up to 42 foster homes, with mental problems, who will never have a chance at a normal life, as long as he can save the fetus. He has no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will, even if she ends up physically abusing or killing the child because he only thinks about the fetus.

Fetus cannot lie if the mother dies. It is not a living being till it can live on it's own.

Why should a female have to put her life on hold because a pregnancy? It should be her right to choose if and when to become a mother, to be ready to raise and love a child, otherwise it is just a carcass that is a burden on society. No child that is not loved can truly thrive. Even if a child is wanted during pregnancy, a woman can reject it at birth. Mother hormones just are not there and she can be repulsed by the infant. Some women just are not meant to be a mother.
A child should be brought into the world with love, not because a woman is forced to carry and give birth. She is not a brood mare or slave.
A child can be a wonderful thing, but a mother that rejects her child can result in tragic results.
Better to have fewer children that will be cherished than children that are not wanted. There are enough millions of children in the world that need love. We don't need to produce more children fighters, drug addicts and criminals. We can't produce enough food or jobs as it is.
We don't need human factories, we need care and devotion to raise the best children to carry us into the next several generation. Now we have too many that can't make change, sign their name, speak in public or write a proper letter.

It is not more children we need but better raised and educated children that can compete in the world. Quality of exceptional children not quantity. We don't live in the time of the black death where 50% of the population died off.

 

[aris2chat]

punish the men who were too lazy or stupid to use a condom. Why burden the woman with a child she is not ready for?

 

[aris2chat]

You have a serious reading & comprehension problem. Don't you.

I guess so. Please explain the difference between taking a vegetative stoke victim off a feeding tube is any different from not feeding a fertilized egg?

Let's see. . .

Do you mean other than the fact that a vegetative stroke victim who has NO prognosis for a normal life continuance at all is only being kept alive artificially while the fertilized egg typically has a much better prognosis and a NON artificial life support system?

Do you really think a doctor (any doctor) would remove life support from a stroke victim that has anywhere close to the same prognosis for further life, growth and development that a child even in the zygote stage of their life has?

or what?

Modern medical care give the embryo a better chance, but the woman's body treats it like an invasion. Miscarriages in the first trimester are common.

Unplugging someone at the end of life or unplugging en embryo from the umbilical connection to the women is a legal right. In some case there is even medical assisted suicide that is legal. Five state even allow euthanasia.

If someone wants to get pregnant or even raise a child with that person's DNA. Why should women who are not ready to raise a child be forced to keep it? When food is scares or there is some danger, some animals can actually put their pregnancy on hold till a better year. Women can put their eggs in storage to be used at a later time. Why is it necessary for a woman be required to carry her pregnancy to term? There are a few million children that need homes, adopt all of them by loving people before the need for more unwanted chidren. 30% of children have only one parent.

Consider the conditions and the ability of the women to care for a child and what type of life it will have. In times of war, natural disaster or catastrophic injury or illness either of the woman or someone she cares for. A child at that time endangers the woman, the person she cares for the child itself.

What ever the reason, it is the woman that needs to decide and her medical records are not open to your examination or judgement.

Some people by culture or religion have no opinion about abortion. Your morality should not trump theirs or you making you beliefs above someone elses. Your religion or morals are yours alone. You should not proselytize or force you ideas on others.

You don't get to decide if a person wants to end their life with dignity or if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy.

you only get to decide for your own body or if someone give you legal proxy to make decisions for them if they are unable to

Most responsible pet owners get their pet spayed or neutered. Why should people not decide if and when they are ready for become parent.

With the spread of STDs, all men should wear condoms, not leave birth control up to the women. Girls and young women should learn how to use nature to birth control, abortions and prenatal. They should be taught some moves to protect themselves as well.

Sex is health for body and mind. Just because you have your view based on your religion does not mean other share you ides or moral opinions.

You object to abortion, don't get one. Don't tell others what to do.

Chuz Life does not care about babies. He only cares about the fetus. He once told me that it's simply not his problem because there are (cough, cough) laws to protect the children. He's just fine with children going through up to 42 foster homes, with mental problems, who will never have a chance at a normal life, as long as he can save the fetus.

All of which are better than being murdered; sadly progressives take it upon themselves to decide what a "normal life is" and justify genocide.

He has no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will, even if she ends up physically abusing or killing the child because he only thinks about the fetus.

That's the mother's problem, not the child's, the child shouldn't suffer for the sins of the mother.

Sins of the "father" for not using a condom. Why should a woman give up her life for a embryo she is not willing to carry or raise?

 

[aris2chat]

Things can go wrong from time to time on no special reasons. That's why everyone needs help. In case of abortion the most helpless group of human beings are the intentionally killed children. They lose everything.

I'm not an American. I'm not interested in the not existing secrets of others. I guess the NSA knows every reason why german women are aborting. The american politicians can publish this data, if they have a problem to publish the illegal data they have abhout the citizens of the USA. In general no one has to justify the own behavior in front of me or any believer in god - although I have to say very clear: the Oath of the Hippocrates is not allowing to do abortions or active euthanasia. If there are exceptions then doctors should have a very very clear indication why to kill a human being. Everyone is also responsible in the eyes of god. As far as I can see is the abortion rate in Germany much to high. A hundredthousand abortions every year are not explainable with the formula "things go wrong from time to time". I'm not surprised about, because of the side effects of the ideologies of the Nazis and Commies. Both idelogies saw in human beings only a useful or not useful part of their dead machines of thoughtless and senseless pseudoexistance.

I don't have any probem to live in a wild west world wide web, where everyone kills everyone on no reason to do so. Nevertheless I would shoot down in such a world everyone who tries to shoot down unarmed people - specially if he tries to shoot down innocent children. The answer I fear is not to have a right to do so - the answer I fear is to have the duty to do so. Do we have the duty to abort aborters?

Before an abortion is done in germany there is mandatory counseling. It is not a spur of the moment decision.

Abortion is forbidden in Germany. If I see it in the right way then to allow abortions would kill our complete system of justice including the Grundgesetz - our constitution. So we made some exceptions. We are great in making exceptions. The deeper reasons behind this exceptions is it to keep the number of all possibe abortions in a balance so we could be able to reach a minimum of the total numbers of abortions. We say: It's forbidden to do an abortion, but we don't punish someone if he aborts and fullfills some conditions. One of this conditions is a "Beratungsgespräch", a consultation. The sense of this is it to help the mother to find the best of all possible solutions for her problems and to avoid spontaneous actions. That's why we have less abortions than the USA. I heard it's only about 1/3 as high as in the USA per 100000 inhabitants. But even this is much to high. The very big problem in this context are the organsiations who are doing this consultations. One of the problems are for example organisations like "pro familia", which is one of the greatest organisation. "Pro familia" is against traditional families and for abortions. On the other side forbids the catholic church for example to do such consultations ... better to say: the catholic church allows not to give someone afterwards a paper where's written on, that she made such a consultation. The most Catholics in the world don't understand our system here and they see in such a writing a death sentence.

Whatever and however our system is - the numbers of abortions are much to high. It's impossible that all this abortions have a real serios background. More and more people seem to think abortion is only a kind of late contraception. If so then I have to say: "Abortion is the way to kill human beings just for sex".

So what do you think is the best way to minimize the number of abortions? And could it help to kill some doctors, who are doing abortions to reach a less number of abortions worldwide?

JibJab.com - Can-Can

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.

 

[IndependantAce]

I guess so. Please explain the difference between taking a vegetative stoke victim off a feeding tube is any different from not feeding a fertilized egg?

Let's see. . .

Do you mean other than the fact that a vegetative stroke victim who has NO prognosis for a normal life continuance at all is only being kept alive artificially while the fertilized egg typically has a much better prognosis and a NON artificial life support system?

Do you really think a doctor (any doctor) would remove life support from a stroke victim that has anywhere close to the same prognosis for further life, growth and development that a child even in the zygote stage of their life has?

or what?

Modern medical care give the embryo a better chance, but the woman's body treats it like an invasion. Miscarriages in the first trimester are common.

Unplugging someone at the end of life or unplugging en embryo from the umbilical connection to the women is a legal right. In some case there is even medical assisted suicide that is legal. Five state even allow euthanasia.

If someone wants to get pregnant or even raise a child with that person's DNA. Why should women who are not ready to raise a child be forced to keep it? When food is scares or there is some danger, some animals can actually put their pregnancy on hold till a better year. Women can put their eggs in storage to be used at a later time. Why is it necessary for a woman be required to carry her pregnancy to term? There are a few million children that need homes, adopt all of them by loving people before the need for more unwanted chidren. 30% of children have only one parent.

Consider the conditions and the ability of the women to care for a child and what type of life it will have. In times of war, natural disaster or catastrophic injury or illness either of the woman or someone she cares for. A child at that time endangers the woman, the person she cares for the child itself.

What ever the reason, it is the woman that needs to decide and her medical records are not open to your examination or judgement.

Some people by culture or religion have no opinion about abortion. Your morality should not trump theirs or you making you beliefs above someone elses. Your religion or morals are yours alone. You should not proselytize or force you ideas on others.

You don't get to decide if a person wants to end their life with dignity or if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy.

you only get to decide for your own body or if someone give you legal proxy to make decisions for them if they are unable to

Most responsible pet owners get their pet spayed or neutered. Why should people not decide if and when they are ready for become parent.

With the spread of STDs, all men should wear condoms, not leave birth control up to the women. Girls and young women should learn how to use nature to birth control, abortions and prenatal. They should be taught some moves to protect themselves as well.

Sex is health for body and mind. Just because you have your view based on your religion does not mean other share you ides or moral opinions.

You object to abortion, don't get one. Don't tell others what to do.

Chuz Life does not care about babies. He only cares about the fetus. He once told me that it's simply not his problem because there are (cough, cough) laws to protect the children. He's just fine with children going through up to 42 foster homes, with mental problems, who will never have a chance at a normal life, as long as he can save the fetus.

All of which are better than being murdered; sadly progressives take it upon themselves to decide what a "normal life is" and justify genocide.

He has no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will, even if she ends up physically abusing or killing the child because he only thinks about the fetus.

That's the mother's problem, not the child's, the child shouldn't suffer for the sins of the mother.

Sins of the "father" for not using a condom. Why should a woman give up her life for a embryo she is not willing to carry or raise?

Because it beats life in prison or the death penalty for infantide?

 

[LittleNipper]

punish the men who were too lazy or stupid to use a condom. Why burden the woman with a child she is not ready for?

Why would a woman have sex with some stupid lazy individual? The woman has brains --- unless raped the woman is the one in control.

 

[LittleNipper]

You have a serious reading & comprehension problem. Don't you.

I guess so. Please explain the difference between taking a vegetative stoke victim off a feeding tube is any different from not feeding a fertilized egg?

Let's see. . .

Do you mean other than the fact that a vegetative stroke victim who has NO prognosis for a normal life continuance at all is only being kept alive artificially while the fertilized egg typically has a much better prognosis and a NON artificial life support system?

Do you really think a doctor (any doctor) would remove life support from a stroke victim that has anywhere close to the same prognosis for further life, growth and development that a child even in the zygote stage of their life has?

or what?

Modern medical care give the embryo a better chance, but the woman's body treats it like an invasion. Miscarriages in the first trimester are common.

Unplugging someone at the end of life or unplugging en embryo from the umbilical connection to the women is a legal right. In some case there is even medical assisted suicide that is legal. Five state even allow euthanasia.

If someone wants to get pregnant or even raise a child with that person's DNA. Why should women who are not ready to raise a child be forced to keep it? When food is scares or there is some danger, some animals can actually put their pregnancy on hold till a better year. Women can put their eggs in storage to be used at a later time. Why is it necessary for a woman be required to carry her pregnancy to term? There are a few million children that need homes, adopt all of them by loving people before the need for more unwanted chidren. 30% of children have only one parent.

Consider the conditions and the ability of the women to care for a child and what type of life it will have. In times of war, natural disaster or catastrophic injury or illness either of the woman or someone she cares for. A child at that time endangers the woman, the person she cares for the child itself.

What ever the reason, it is the woman that needs to decide and her medical records are not open to your examination or judgement.

Some people by culture or religion have no opinion about abortion. Your morality should not trump theirs or you making you beliefs above someone elses. Your religion or morals are yours alone. You should not proselytize or force you ideas on others.

You don't get to decide if a person wants to end their life with dignity or if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy.

you only get to decide for your own body or if someone give you legal proxy to make decisions for them if they are unable to

Most responsible pet owners get their pet spayed or neutered. Why should people not decide if and when they are ready for become parent.

With the spread of STDs, all men should wear condoms, not leave birth control up to the women. Girls and young women should learn how to use nature to birth control, abortions and prenatal. They should be taught some moves to protect themselves as well.

Sex is health for body and mind. Just because you have your view based on your religion does not mean other share you ides or moral opinions.

You object to abortion, don't get one. Don't tell others what to do.

Chuz Life does not care about babies. He only cares about the fetus. He once told me that it's simply not his problem because there are (cough, cough) laws to protect the children. He's just fine with children going through up to 42 foster homes, with mental problems, who will never have a chance at a normal life, as long as he can save the fetus. He has no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will, even if she ends up physically abusing or killing the child because he only thinks about the fetus.

Fetus cannot lie if the mother dies. It is not a living being till it can live on it's own.

Why should a female have to put her life on hold because a pregnancy? It should be her right to choose if and when to become a mother, to be ready to raise and love a child, otherwise it is just a carcass that is a burden on society. No child that is not loved can truly thrive. Even if a child is wanted during pregnancy, a woman can reject it at birth. Mother hormones just are not there and she can be repulsed by the infant. Some women just are not meant to be a mother.
A child should be brought into the world with love, not because a woman is forced to carry and give birth. She is not a brood mare or slave.
A child can be a wonderful thing, but a mother that rejects her child can result in tragic results.
Better to have fewer children that will be cherished than children that are not wanted. There are enough millions of children in the world that need love. We don't need to produce more children fighters, drug addicts and criminals. We can't produce enough food or jobs as it is.
We don't need human factories, we need care and devotion to raise the best children to carry us into the next several generation. Now we have too many that can't make change, sign their name, speak in public or write a proper letter.

It is not more children we need but better raised and educated children that can compete in the world. Quality of exceptional children not quantity. We don't live in the time of the black death where 50% of the population died off.

Perhaps we should pull the plug on all those people living on life support ---- cause they are not really living and no one wants to pay the hospital bill anyway. All this is just another rung down the ladder suggesting that man is God.

 

[aris2chat]

Let's see. . .

Do you mean other than the fact that a vegetative stroke victim who has NO prognosis for a normal life continuance at all is only being kept alive artificially while the fertilized egg typically has a much better prognosis and a NON artificial life support system?

Do you really think a doctor (any doctor) would remove life support from a stroke victim that has anywhere close to the same prognosis for further life, growth and development that a child even in the zygote stage of their life has?

or what?

Modern medical care give the embryo a better chance, but the woman's body treats it like an invasion. Miscarriages in the first trimester are common.

Unplugging someone at the end of life or unplugging en embryo from the umbilical connection to the women is a legal right. In some case there is even medical assisted suicide that is legal. Five state even allow euthanasia.

If someone wants to get pregnant or even raise a child with that person's DNA. Why should women who are not ready to raise a child be forced to keep it? When food is scares or there is some danger, some animals can actually put their pregnancy on hold till a better year. Women can put their eggs in storage to be used at a later time. Why is it necessary for a woman be required to carry her pregnancy to term? There are a few million children that need homes, adopt all of them by loving people before the need for more unwanted chidren. 30% of children have only one parent.

Consider the conditions and the ability of the women to care for a child and what type of life it will have. In times of war, natural disaster or catastrophic injury or illness either of the woman or someone she cares for. A child at that time endangers the woman, the person she cares for the child itself.

What ever the reason, it is the woman that needs to decide and her medical records are not open to your examination or judgement.

Some people by culture or religion have no opinion about abortion. Your morality should not trump theirs or you making you beliefs above someone elses. Your religion or morals are yours alone. You should not proselytize or force you ideas on others.

You don't get to decide if a person wants to end their life with dignity or if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy.

you only get to decide for your own body or if someone give you legal proxy to make decisions for them if they are unable to

Most responsible pet owners get their pet spayed or neutered. Why should people not decide if and when they are ready for become parent.

With the spread of STDs, all men should wear condoms, not leave birth control up to the women. Girls and young women should learn how to use nature to birth control, abortions and prenatal. They should be taught some moves to protect themselves as well.

Sex is health for body and mind. Just because you have your view based on your religion does not mean other share you ides or moral opinions.

You object to abortion, don't get one. Don't tell others what to do.

Chuz Life does not care about babies. He only cares about the fetus. He once told me that it's simply not his problem because there are (cough, cough) laws to protect the children. He's just fine with children going through up to 42 foster homes, with mental problems, who will never have a chance at a normal life, as long as he can save the fetus.

All of which are better than being murdered; sadly progressives take it upon themselves to decide what a "normal life is" and justify genocide.

He has no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will, even if she ends up physically abusing or killing the child because he only thinks about the fetus.

That's the mother's problem, not the child's, the child shouldn't suffer for the sins of the mother.

Sins of the "father" for not using a condom. Why should a woman give up her life for a embryo she is not willing to carry or raise?

Because it beats life in prison or the death penalty for infantide?

Eating the wrong foods and having a miscarriage is not killing an infant, only the body rejecting an embryo that is an invader, alien to the woman's natural rhythm and health. It is the reason women get sick in the first trimester, the body is fighting against the invader.
What happens between a woman and her doctor is private and not usable against the woman.
Abortions are legal, a woman's right to control her body. Doctor is treating the woman for what ails her as is his/her duty. The woman in any ER or hospital is the patient, not the embryo. It is her life first and foremost that is the priority. She can have miscarriages or loose several children and still be able to have children later on. It is not necessary for each and every pregnancy to go to term. The best chance for the fetus to come to term is when the woman in old enough, strong enough and both willing and able to care for herself and the fetus.
An 8 yr old can become pregnant, but that does not mean she should. A woman might have some underline health issue that would be complicated or unable to be treated while pregnant. It would not be risking just the fetus but her life as well. She is already alive, the fetus is only a parasite feeding on her, not an independent life form. It is her body and she should have the right to say if she is willing to share it for nine months or not.

 

[aris2chat]

I guess so. Please explain the difference between taking a vegetative stoke victim off a feeding tube is any different from not feeding a fertilized egg?

Let's see. . .

Do you mean other than the fact that a vegetative stroke victim who has NO prognosis for a normal life continuance at all is only being kept alive artificially while the fertilized egg typically has a much better prognosis and a NON artificial life support system?

Do you really think a doctor (any doctor) would remove life support from a stroke victim that has anywhere close to the same prognosis for further life, growth and development that a child even in the zygote stage of their life has?

or what?

Modern medical care give the embryo a better chance, but the woman's body treats it like an invasion. Miscarriages in the first trimester are common.

Unplugging someone at the end of life or unplugging en embryo from the umbilical connection to the women is a legal right. In some case there is even medical assisted suicide that is legal. Five state even allow euthanasia.

If someone wants to get pregnant or even raise a child with that person's DNA. Why should women who are not ready to raise a child be forced to keep it? When food is scares or there is some danger, some animals can actually put their pregnancy on hold till a better year. Women can put their eggs in storage to be used at a later time. Why is it necessary for a woman be required to carry her pregnancy to term? There are a few million children that need homes, adopt all of them by loving people before the need for more unwanted chidren. 30% of children have only one parent.

Consider the conditions and the ability of the women to care for a child and what type of life it will have. In times of war, natural disaster or catastrophic injury or illness either of the woman or someone she cares for. A child at that time endangers the woman, the person she cares for the child itself.

What ever the reason, it is the woman that needs to decide and her medical records are not open to your examination or judgement.

Some people by culture or religion have no opinion about abortion. Your morality should not trump theirs or you making you beliefs above someone elses. Your religion or morals are yours alone. You should not proselytize or force you ideas on others.

You don't get to decide if a person wants to end their life with dignity or if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy.

you only get to decide for your own body or if someone give you legal proxy to make decisions for them if they are unable to

Most responsible pet owners get their pet spayed or neutered. Why should people not decide if and when they are ready for become parent.

With the spread of STDs, all men should wear condoms, not leave birth control up to the women. Girls and young women should learn how to use nature to birth control, abortions and prenatal. They should be taught some moves to protect themselves as well.

Sex is health for body and mind. Just because you have your view based on your religion does not mean other share you ides or moral opinions.

You object to abortion, don't get one. Don't tell others what to do.

Chuz Life does not care about babies. He only cares about the fetus. He once told me that it's simply not his problem because there are (cough, cough) laws to protect the children. He's just fine with children going through up to 42 foster homes, with mental problems, who will never have a chance at a normal life, as long as he can save the fetus. He has no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will, even if she ends up physically abusing or killing the child because he only thinks about the fetus.

Fetus cannot lie if the mother dies. It is not a living being till it can live on it's own.

Why should a female have to put her life on hold because a pregnancy? It should be her right to choose if and when to become a mother, to be ready to raise and love a child, otherwise it is just a carcass that is a burden on society. No child that is not loved can truly thrive. Even if a child is wanted during pregnancy, a woman can reject it at birth. Mother hormones just are not there and she can be repulsed by the infant. Some women just are not meant to be a mother.
A child should be brought into the world with love, not because a woman is forced to carry and give birth. She is not a brood mare or slave.
A child can be a wonderful thing, but a mother that rejects her child can result in tragic results.
Better to have fewer children that will be cherished than children that are not wanted. There are enough millions of children in the world that need love. We don't need to produce more children fighters, drug addicts and criminals. We can't produce enough food or jobs as it is.
We don't need human factories, we need care and devotion to raise the best children to carry us into the next several generation. Now we have too many that can't make change, sign their name, speak in public or write a proper letter.

It is not more children we need but better raised and educated children that can compete in the world. Quality of exceptional children not quantity. We don't live in the time of the black death where 50% of the population died off.

Perhaps we should pull the plug on all those people living on life support ---- cause they are not really living and no one wants to pay the hospital bill anyway. All this is just another rung down the ladder suggesting that man is God.

People have the right to determine if they want to be on life support. Patients have the right to refuse treatment. Patients can in many cases seek hospice, doctor assisted termination or euthanasia. They can write their own medical directives and refuse resuscitation. It is unnatural to put someone on life support if there is no reasonable expectation of recovery. Just because you can stick a tube in someone does not mean you should. Quality of life should be more important. Patient's desires are the priority, it is their body after all.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

1. plants are not the same level of sentience and conscience as humans
we can kill and eat plants legally but not humans.

2. the bible also recounts history when slaves were permitted,
and when food could be sold and served without proper inspection.

Not all things in Bible history are legal today.

Other faiths permit abortions, including some christian denominations.

1. There is nothing wrong with forgiving the fact abortion happens.
But that's not the same as "permitting something legally."
Christianity also calls to forgive all manner of wrongs, and accept the fact they may happen
and not "punish people ourselves" for it. Just because "people forgive murder and accept that killing happens" doesn't mean
that it is still wrong by the state and the govt has authority to issue consequences by law.

2. Also just because one or other faiths permit something doesn't necessitate that others do.
Buddhism advises followers not to intoxicate oneself. But in our secular laws, it is not illegal to get drunk on alcohol.
Islam and Hinduism teach against eating pork or beef.
Advising something in religion or prohibiting something is separate from secular law.
Under religious freedom, people cannot be forced to follow something by religion, especially by someone else.

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.

1. I understand if you are trying to make an argument for religious freedom and things that fall under personal or private matters.

2. However, with people who believe that abortion is a form of murder,
you may not be successful using arguments for privacy:
it is still illegal to commit murder in private.
So someone who thinks that way is not going to swayed by such argument.

Remember your audience. You'd have to explain using
their own values, not yours, not another religion they didn't agree to follow.

The best argument I use with prolife to explain prochoice:
A. Constitutional arguments on the principle of religious freedom and
that faith-based arguments on when life begins are outside jurisdiction of govt.
These are best taught in private as a personal choice like Christianity.
But Christianity and other beliefs are not the job of govt to impose by law.

B. the fact that all prolife activism, awareness and prevention is done
freely by choice. None of the work and outreach done to prevent abortion
is by force of law because of bans. So that is the ideal, to give everyone
the same freedom to become as educated and willing to choose prevention
instead of abortion. If prolife people can do that by free choice, then it is not
legally necessary to ban abortion to prevent it; the prolife actions are proof this is possible by free choice.

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's see. . .

Do you mean other than the fact that a vegetative stroke victim who has NO prognosis for a normal life continuance at all is only being kept alive artificially while the fertilized egg typically has a much better prognosis and a NON artificial life support system?

Do you really think a doctor (any doctor) would remove life support from a stroke victim that has anywhere close to the same prognosis for further life, growth and development that a child even in the zygote stage of their life has?

or what?

Modern medical care give the embryo a better chance, but the woman's body treats it like an invasion. Miscarriages in the first trimester are common.

Unplugging someone at the end of life or unplugging en embryo from the umbilical connection to the women is a legal right. In some case there is even medical assisted suicide that is legal. Five state even allow euthanasia.

If someone wants to get pregnant or even raise a child with that person's DNA. Why should women who are not ready to raise a child be forced to keep it? When food is scares or there is some danger, some animals can actually put their pregnancy on hold till a better year. Women can put their eggs in storage to be used at a later time. Why is it necessary for a woman be required to carry her pregnancy to term? There are a few million children that need homes, adopt all of them by loving people before the need for more unwanted chidren. 30% of children have only one parent.

Consider the conditions and the ability of the women to care for a child and what type of life it will have. In times of war, natural disaster or catastrophic injury or illness either of the woman or someone she cares for. A child at that time endangers the woman, the person she cares for the child itself.

What ever the reason, it is the woman that needs to decide and her medical records are not open to your examination or judgement.

Some people by culture or religion have no opinion about abortion. Your morality should not trump theirs or you making you beliefs above someone elses. Your religion or morals are yours alone. You should not proselytize or force you ideas on others.

You don't get to decide if a person wants to end their life with dignity or if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy.

you only get to decide for your own body or if someone give you legal proxy to make decisions for them if they are unable to

Most responsible pet owners get their pet spayed or neutered. Why should people not decide if and when they are ready for become parent.

With the spread of STDs, all men should wear condoms, not leave birth control up to the women. Girls and young women should learn how to use nature to birth control, abortions and prenatal. They should be taught some moves to protect themselves as well.

Sex is health for body and mind. Just because you have your view based on your religion does not mean other share you ides or moral opinions.

You object to abortion, don't get one. Don't tell others what to do.

Chuz Life does not care about babies. He only cares about the fetus. He once told me that it's simply not his problem because there are (cough, cough) laws to protect the children. He's just fine with children going through up to 42 foster homes, with mental problems, who will never have a chance at a normal life, as long as he can save the fetus. He has no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will, even if she ends up physically abusing or killing the child because he only thinks about the fetus.

Fetus cannot lie if the mother dies. It is not a living being till it can live on it's own.

Why should a female have to put her life on hold because a pregnancy? It should be her right to choose if and when to become a mother, to be ready to raise and love a child, otherwise it is just a carcass that is a burden on society. No child that is not loved can truly thrive. Even if a child is wanted during pregnancy, a woman can reject it at birth. Mother hormones just are not there and she can be repulsed by the infant. Some women just are not meant to be a mother.
A child should be brought into the world with love, not because a woman is forced to carry and give birth. She is not a brood mare or slave.
A child can be a wonderful thing, but a mother that rejects her child can result in tragic results.
Better to have fewer children that will be cherished than children that are not wanted. There are enough millions of children in the world that need love. We don't need to produce more children fighters, drug addicts and criminals. We can't produce enough food or jobs as it is.
We don't need human factories, we need care and devotion to raise the best children to carry us into the next several generation. Now we have too many that can't make change, sign their name, speak in public or write a proper letter.

It is not more children we need but better raised and educated children that can compete in the world. Quality of exceptional children not quantity. We don't live in the time of the black death where 50% of the population died off.

Perhaps we should pull the plug on all those people living on life support ---- cause they are not really living and no one wants to pay the hospital bill anyway. All this is just another rung down the ladder suggesting that man is God.

People have the right to determine if they want to be on life support. Patients have the right to refuse treatment. Patients can in many cases seek hospice, doctor assisted termination or euthanasia. They can write their own medical directives and refuse resuscitation. It is unnatural to put someone on life support if there is no reasonable expectation of recovery. Just because you can stick a tube in someone does not mean you should. Quality of life should be more important. Patient's desires are the priority, it is their body after all.

^ Dear aris2chat
how is your statement on what is unnatural or natural (in bold)
respecting people's right to determine if they want life support or not.
how are you to say that "quality of life is more important" than
giving someone a chance to live and die naturally?

Now
1. if you are paying for other people and you have these conditions
then fine; but why not let other people for other conditions if they
believe those to be more important to support? Why not separate funding
so it's "not anyone's business" what decisions we make with our own doctors health and life?

2. What if people are deprived of knowledge they could be healed or cured of a condition.
Is it fair to judge their decisions, consent and quality of life
based on incomplete or incorrect knowledge?
again, if you want to limit the decisions and costs, that's fine;
but let's separate who believes in funding what criteria
and not impose conflicting beliefs and standards on each other.

why not start by separating health care, taxes and benefits by party.
Wouldn't that be a start in organizing people with like values
who agree to fund the same things and NOT fund things they don't believe in.
why not organize by group by beliefs, so people only fund what they agree to pay for.

 

[aris2chat]

punish the men who were too lazy or stupid to use a condom. Why burden the woman with a child she is not ready for?

Why would a woman have sex with some stupid lazy individual? The woman has brains --- unless raped the woman is the one in control.

She should be in control, but few men have enough respect, patience or self control. how many women are given too much to drink, drugged, date raped, abused or coerced? Even in marriage, too many women are controlled by men.
"No",should be enough for a man to stop, better yet he should ask before each base, few men do.
Far too many girls are molested, abused, manipulated and raped. They grow with low self esteem. Unfortunately many think they need a man to give them value.

Women should be empowered, beginning with their own body. Women have brains, but not enough are taught to use them fully. Even in this day and age women are treated as second class. Better than in many part of the middle east and asia, but not as equal as they should be.

 

[aris2chat]

Modern medical care give the embryo a better chance, but the woman's body treats it like an invasion. Miscarriages in the first trimester are common.

Unplugging someone at the end of life or unplugging en embryo from the umbilical connection to the women is a legal right. In some case there is even medical assisted suicide that is legal. Five state even allow euthanasia.

If someone wants to get pregnant or even raise a child with that person's DNA. Why should women who are not ready to raise a child be forced to keep it? When food is scares or there is some danger, some animals can actually put their pregnancy on hold till a better year. Women can put their eggs in storage to be used at a later time. Why is it necessary for a woman be required to carry her pregnancy to term? There are a few million children that need homes, adopt all of them by loving people before the need for more unwanted chidren. 30% of children have only one parent.

Consider the conditions and the ability of the women to care for a child and what type of life it will have. In times of war, natural disaster or catastrophic injury or illness either of the woman or someone she cares for. A child at that time endangers the woman, the person she cares for the child itself.

What ever the reason, it is the woman that needs to decide and her medical records are not open to your examination or judgement.

Some people by culture or religion have no opinion about abortion. Your morality should not trump theirs or you making you beliefs above someone elses. Your religion or morals are yours alone. You should not proselytize or force you ideas on others.

You don't get to decide if a person wants to end their life with dignity or if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy.

you only get to decide for your own body or if someone give you legal proxy to make decisions for them if they are unable to

Most responsible pet owners get their pet spayed or neutered. Why should people not decide if and when they are ready for become parent.

With the spread of STDs, all men should wear condoms, not leave birth control up to the women. Girls and young women should learn how to use nature to birth control, abortions and prenatal. They should be taught some moves to protect themselves as well.

Sex is health for body and mind. Just because you have your view based on your religion does not mean other share you ides or moral opinions.

You object to abortion, don't get one. Don't tell others what to do.

Chuz Life does not care about babies. He only cares about the fetus. He once told me that it's simply not his problem because there are (cough, cough) laws to protect the children. He's just fine with children going through up to 42 foster homes, with mental problems, who will never have a chance at a normal life, as long as he can save the fetus. He has no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will, even if she ends up physically abusing or killing the child because he only thinks about the fetus.

Fetus cannot lie if the mother dies. It is not a living being till it can live on it's own.

Why should a female have to put her life on hold because a pregnancy? It should be her right to choose if and when to become a mother, to be ready to raise and love a child, otherwise it is just a carcass that is a burden on society. No child that is not loved can truly thrive. Even if a child is wanted during pregnancy, a woman can reject it at birth. Mother hormones just are not there and she can be repulsed by the infant. Some women just are not meant to be a mother.
A child should be brought into the world with love, not because a woman is forced to carry and give birth. She is not a brood mare or slave.
A child can be a wonderful thing, but a mother that rejects her child can result in tragic results.
Better to have fewer children that will be cherished than children that are not wanted. There are enough millions of children in the world that need love. We don't need to produce more children fighters, drug addicts and criminals. We can't produce enough food or jobs as it is.
We don't need human factories, we need care and devotion to raise the best children to carry us into the next several generation. Now we have too many that can't make change, sign their name, speak in public or write a proper letter.

It is not more children we need but better raised and educated children that can compete in the world. Quality of exceptional children not quantity. We don't live in the time of the black death where 50% of the population died off.

Perhaps we should pull the plug on all those people living on life support ---- cause they are not really living and no one wants to pay the hospital bill anyway. All this is just another rung down the ladder suggesting that man is God.

People have the right to determine if they want to be on life support. Patients have the right to refuse treatment. Patients can in many cases seek hospice, doctor assisted termination or euthanasia. They can write their own medical directives and refuse resuscitation. It is unnatural to put someone on life support if there is no reasonable expectation of recovery. Just because you can stick a tube in someone does not mean you should. Quality of life should be more important. Patient's desires are the priority, it is their body after all.

^ Dear aris2chat
how is your statement on what is unnatural or natural (in bold)
respecting people's right to determine if they want life support or not.
how are you to say that "quality of life is more important" than
giving someone a chance to live and die naturally?

Now
1. if you are paying for other people and you have these conditions
then fine; but why not let other people for other conditions if they
believe those to be more important to support? Why not separate funding
so it's "not anyone's business" what decisions we make with our own doctors health and life?

2. What if people are deprived of knowledge they could be healed or cured of a condition.
Is it fair to judge their decisions, consent and quality of life
based on incomplete or incorrect knowledge?
again, if you want to limit the decisions and costs, that's fine;
but let's separate who believes in funding what criteria
and not impose conflicting beliefs and standards on each other.

why not start by separating health care, taxes and benefits by party.
Wouldn't that be a start in organizing people with like values
who agree to fund the same things and NOT fund things they don't believe in.
why not organize by group by beliefs, so people only fund what they agree to pay for.

Abortions are payed out of pocket except in cases of rape or the women's life is endangered. They have not been funded by government since the hyde amendment in '76

You can pay for your own health care or buy private insurance. You don't want to buy into health insurance, that is your option and you can pay a fine instead.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear aris2chat:
1. as long a

Chuz Life does not care about babies. He only cares about the fetus. He once told me that it's simply not his problem because there are (cough, cough) laws to protect the children. He's just fine with children going through up to 42 foster homes, with mental problems, who will never have a chance at a normal life, as long as he can save the fetus. He has no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will, even if she ends up physically abusing or killing the child because he only thinks about the fetus.

Fetus cannot lie if the mother dies. It is not a living being till it can live on it's own.

Why should a female have to put her life on hold because a pregnancy? It should be her right to choose if and when to become a mother, to be ready to raise and love a child, otherwise it is just a carcass that is a burden on society. No child that is not loved can truly thrive. Even if a child is wanted during pregnancy, a woman can reject it at birth. Mother hormones just are not there and she can be repulsed by the infant. Some women just are not meant to be a mother.
A child should be brought into the world with love, not because a woman is forced to carry and give birth. She is not a brood mare or slave.
A child can be a wonderful thing, but a mother that rejects her child can result in tragic results.
Better to have fewer children that will be cherished than children that are not wanted. There are enough millions of children in the world that need love. We don't need to produce more children fighters, drug addicts and criminals. We can't produce enough food or jobs as it is.
We don't need human factories, we need care and devotion to raise the best children to carry us into the next several generation. Now we have too many that can't make change, sign their name, speak in public or write a proper letter.

It is not more children we need but better raised and educated children that can compete in the world. Quality of exceptional children not quantity. We don't live in the time of the black death where 50% of the population died off.

Perhaps we should pull the plug on all those people living on life support ---- cause they are not really living and no one wants to pay the hospital bill anyway. All this is just another rung down the ladder suggesting that man is God.

People have the right to determine if they want to be on life support. Patients have the right to refuse treatment. Patients can in many cases seek hospice, doctor assisted termination or euthanasia. They can write their own medical directives and refuse resuscitation. It is unnatural to put someone on life support if there is no reasonable expectation of recovery. Just because you can stick a tube in someone does not mean you should. Quality of life should be more important. Patient's desires are the priority, it is their body after all.

^ Dear aris2chat
how is your statement on what is unnatural or natural (in bold)
respecting people's right to determine if they want life support or not.
how are you to say that "quality of life is more important" than
giving someone a chance to live and die naturally?

Now
1. if you are paying for other people and you have these conditions
then fine; but why not let other people for other conditions if they
believe those to be more important to support? Why not separate funding
so it's "not anyone's business" what decisions we make with our own doctors health and life?

2. What if people are deprived of knowledge they could be healed or cured of a condition.
Is it fair to judge their decisions, consent and quality of life
based on incomplete or incorrect knowledge?
again, if you want to limit the decisions and costs, that's fine;
but let's separate who believes in funding what criteria
and not impose conflicting beliefs and standards on each other.

why not start by separating health care, taxes and benefits by party.
Wouldn't that be a start in organizing people with like values
who agree to fund the same things and NOT fund things they don't believe in.
why not organize by group by beliefs, so people only fund what they agree to pay for.

Abortions are payed out of pocket except in cases of rape or the women's life is endangered. They have not been funded by government since the hyde amendment in '76

You can pay for your own health care or buy private insurance. You don't want to buy into health insurance, that is your option and you can pay a fine instead.

Chuz Life does not care about babies. He only cares about the fetus. He once told me that it's simply not his problem because there are (cough, cough) laws to protect the children. He's just fine with children going through up to 42 foster homes, with mental problems, who will never have a chance at a normal life, as long as he can save the fetus. He has no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will, even if she ends up physically abusing or killing the child because he only thinks about the fetus.

Fetus cannot lie if the mother dies. It is not a living being till it can live on it's own.

Why should a female have to put her life on hold because a pregnancy? It should be her right to choose if and when to become a mother, to be ready to raise and love a child, otherwise it is just a carcass that is a burden on society. No child that is not loved can truly thrive. Even if a child is wanted during pregnancy, a woman can reject it at birth. Mother hormones just are not there and she can be repulsed by the infant. Some women just are not meant to be a mother.
A child should be brought into the world with love, not because a woman is forced to carry and give birth. She is not a brood mare or slave.
A child can be a wonderful thing, but a mother that rejects her child can result in tragic results.
Better to have fewer children that will be cherished than children that are not wanted. There are enough millions of children in the world that need love. We don't need to produce more children fighters, drug addicts and criminals. We can't produce enough food or jobs as it is.
We don't need human factories, we need care and devotion to raise the best children to carry us into the next several generation. Now we have too many that can't make change, sign their name, speak in public or write a proper letter.

It is not more children we need but better raised and educated children that can compete in the world. Quality of exceptional children not quantity. We don't live in the time of the black death where 50% of the population died off.

Perhaps we should pull the plug on all those people living on life support ---- cause they are not really living and no one wants to pay the hospital bill anyway. All this is just another rung down the ladder suggesting that man is God.

People have the right to determine if they want to be on life support. Patients have the right to refuse treatment. Patients can in many cases seek hospice, doctor assisted termination or euthanasia. They can write their own medical directives and refuse resuscitation. It is unnatural to put someone on life support if there is no reasonable expectation of recovery. Just because you can stick a tube in someone does not mean you should. Quality of life should be more important. Patient's desires are the priority, it is their body after all.

how is your statement on what is unnatural or natural (in bold)
respecting people's right to determine if they want life support or not.
how are you to say that "quality of life is more important" than
giving someone a chance to live and die naturally?

Now
1. if you are paying for other people and you have these conditions
then fine; but why not let other people for other conditions if they
believe those to be more important to support? Why not separate funding
so it's "not anyone's business" what decisions we make with our own doctors health and life?

2. What if people are deprived of knowledge they could be healed or cured of a condition.
Is it fair to judge their decisions, consent and quality of life
based on incomplete or incorrect knowledge?
again, if you want to limit the decisions and costs, that's fine;
but let's separate who believes in funding what criteria
and not impose conflicting beliefs and standards on each other.

why not start by separating health care, taxes and benefits by party.
Wouldn't that be a start in organizing people with like values
who agree to fund the same things and NOT fund things they don't believe in.
why not organize by group by beliefs, so people only fund what they agree to pay for.

Abortions are payed out of pocket except in cases of rape or the women's life is endangered. They have not been funded by government since the hyde amendment in '76

You can pay for your own health care or buy private insurance. You don't want to buy into health insurance, that is your option and you can pay a fine instead.

Dear aris2chat

As long as policies are endorsed and enforced through govt
then it "represents" the public. Some people do not want certain beliefs to be considered public policy. People have a legal right to contest that as unconstitutional, so it may be cheaper
to mediate and resolve conflicts in advance, before writing and passing laws, instead of passing laws first then costing money to reform them through a longer drawn out process.

The public pays for enforcement of laws. Any litigation or legislative matter
dealing with this is done through govt, officials/reps, and public resources.
So it costs taxpayer's money.

If it was a private inhouse policy then people would deal with administration etc. in private.

If people feel violated because govt policy imposes on or excludes their beliefs,
and they spend 20-30 years pushing legislative corrections and lawsuits
that tie up our courts and legislators time, guess who pays for that?

 

[IsaacNewton]

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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

At least when suicide bombers believe in sacrificing lives they include their own.
That's more than I can say for people who issue the death penalty to others, but wouldn't have anyone kill them based on belief!

Does anyone really think about what if that justification and thinking were applied back to THEM, would THEY agree to that??
We all want "due process' and "right to defense" if WE are accused of doing something wrongful or illegal.
But judge someone else, if they deny doing wrong, what then? Punish or kill them anyway?
Really? What if the tables were turned, and you were the one being shot to death without a trial to prove you did wrong.

 

[zaangalewa]

If no one forced a woman to get pregnant on her own free will: Why should force someone her child to have to be dead? On the other side: Why should we only kill her baby - why not the father of the baby too?

Why do women who want a child have miscarriages, still birth or other complications?

Things can go wrong from time to time on no special reasons. That's why everyone needs help. In case of abortion the most helpless group of human beings are the intentionally killed children. They lose everything.

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

I'm not an American. I'm not interested in the not existing secrets of others. I guess the NSA knows every reason why german women are aborting. The american politicians can publish this data, if they have a problem to publish the illegal data they have abhout the citizens of the USA. In general no one has to justify the own behavior in front of me or any believer in god - although I have to say very clear: the Oath of the Hippocrates is not allowing to do abortions or active euthanasia. If there are exceptions then doctors should have a very very clear indication why to kill a human being. Everyone is also responsible in the eyes of god. As far as I can see is the abortion rate in Germany much to high. A hundredthousand abortions every year are not explainable with the formula "things go wrong from time to time". I'm not surprised about, because of the side effects of the ideologies of the Nazis and Commies. Both idelogies saw in human beings only a useful or not useful part of their dead machines of thoughtless and senseless pseudoexistance.

None of your business. If she sees and herbalist, how do you know what she is buying? If she orders a kit by mail or buys one accross the counter at the corner CVS, it is none of your Business.
If she is pregnant and wants to drink or use drugs, not you place to tell her what to do with her body. She might get tattoos and piercings, she might go bungie jumping, not your business. She might go to the grocery store and buy foods that induce a miscarriag, none of your business.

Her moral and religious values might permit abortions, that is her right. You don't get to stuff your religion down everyone's throat, your religion is for you alone. If you don't believe in abortion, then you should not have one. You don't get to tell other they cannot have a legal procedure or buy legal medicine across the counter.

None of your business

I don't have any probem to live in a wild west world wide web, where everyone kills everyone on no reason to do so. Nevertheless I would shoot down in such a world everyone who tries to shoot down unarmed people - specially if he tries to shoot down innocent children. The answer I fear is not to have a right to do so - the answer I fear is to have the duty to do so. Do we have the duty to abort aborters?

Before an abortion is done in germany there is mandatory counseling. It is not a spur of the moment decision.

Abortion is forbidden in Germany. If I see it in the right way then to allow abortions would kill our complete system of justice including the Grundgesetz - our constitution. So we made some exceptions. We are great in making exceptions. The deeper reasons behind this exceptions is it to keep the number of all possibe abortions in a balance so we could be able to reach a minimum of the total numbers of abortions. We say: It's forbidden to do an abortion, but we don't punish someone if he aborts and fullfills some conditions. One of this conditions is a "Beratungsgespräch", a consultation. The sense of this is it to help the mother to find the best of all possible solutions for her problems and to avoid spontaneous actions. That's why we have less abortions than the USA. I heard it's only about 1/3 as high as in the USA per 100000 inhabitants. But even this is much to high. The very big problem in this context are the organsiations who are doing this consultations. One of the problems are for example organisations like "pro familia", which is one of the greatest organisation. "Pro familia" is against traditional families and for abortions. On the other side forbids the catholic church for example to do such consultations ... better to say: the catholic church allows not to give someone afterwards a paper where's written on, that she made such a consultation. The most Catholics in the world don't understand our system here and they see in such a writing a death sentence.

Whatever and however our system is - the numbers of abortions are much to high. It's impossible that all this abortions have a real serios background. More and more people seem to think abortion is only a kind of late contraception. If so then I have to say: "Abortion is the way to kill human beings just for sex".

So what do you think is the best way to minimize the number of abortions? And could it help to kill some doctors, who are doing abortions to reach a less number of abortions worldwide?

JibJab.com - Can-Can

>>Abortion in Germany is permitted in the first trimester upon condition of mandatory counseling, and later in pregnancy in cases of medical necessity<<

You don't know your own laws?.

I'm not very interrested what existing laws say about this theme. We will change our laws if necessarry. But it's not possible from all forms of logic to allow abortion without to destroy the human rights. So abortion is not permitted or allowed in Germany. But under some conditions we intentionally ignore this on reasons of pragmatism. This pragmatism is only sensefull as long as we are really able to minimize the total numbers of all abortion - as well "legal" and "illegal" abortions. I don't think this is a fact in Germany. Hopefully we did not open the box of the Pandorra again.

If you personally don't agree with abortions, then you should not get one. You should not presume to speak for everyone else, in germany or elsewhere.

I personally don't agree with the mass-murder called abortion. So you sound hyperarrogant in my ears if you think I have a choice in this question. I would love it very much if abortion would be not problem, but unfortunatelly my logic tells me something else. The question is in my case: If I am not against mass-murder, whoelse in the world should be against mass-murder? Freedom is for me always only freedom in the responsibility of the eyes of the Lord - freedom is for sure not freedom in the eyes of the united slaveholders of this planet. So: In some cases an abortion is able to be a sensefull instrument of medical care. But this is in most cases of abortions not so worldwide. Also not in Germany. The number of abortions is to high. So what do you think can we do to reduce drastically the total numbers of all abortions worldwide?

 

[aris2chat]

Dear aris2chat:
1. as long a

Fetus cannot lie if the mother dies. It is not a living being till it can live on it's own.

Why should a female have to put her life on hold because a pregnancy? It should be her right to choose if and when to become a mother, to be ready to raise and love a child, otherwise it is just a carcass that is a burden on society. No child that is not loved can truly thrive. Even if a child is wanted during pregnancy, a woman can reject it at birth. Mother hormones just are not there and she can be repulsed by the infant. Some women just are not meant to be a mother.
A child should be brought into the world with love, not because a woman is forced to carry and give birth. She is not a brood mare or slave.
A child can be a wonderful thing, but a mother that rejects her child can result in tragic results.
Better to have fewer children that will be cherished than children that are not wanted. There are enough millions of children in the world that need love. We don't need to produce more children fighters, drug addicts and criminals. We can't produce enough food or jobs as it is.
We don't need human factories, we need care and devotion to raise the best children to carry us into the next several generation. Now we have too many that can't make change, sign their name, speak in public or write a proper letter.

It is not more children we need but better raised and educated children that can compete in the world. Quality of exceptional children not quantity. We don't live in the time of the black death where 50% of the population died off.

Perhaps we should pull the plug on all those people living on life support ---- cause they are not really living and no one wants to pay the hospital bill anyway. All this is just another rung down the ladder suggesting that man is God.

People have the right to determine if they want to be on life support. Patients have the right to refuse treatment. Patients can in many cases seek hospice, doctor assisted termination or euthanasia. They can write their own medical directives and refuse resuscitation. It is unnatural to put someone on life support if there is no reasonable expectation of recovery. Just because you can stick a tube in someone does not mean you should. Quality of life should be more important. Patient's desires are the priority, it is their body after all.

^ Dear aris2chat
how is your statement on what is unnatural or natural (in bold)
respecting people's right to determine if they want life support or not.
how are you to say that "quality of life is more important" than
giving someone a chance to live and die naturally?

Now
1. if you are paying for other people and you have these conditions
then fine; but why not let other people for other conditions if they
believe those to be more important to support? Why not separate funding
so it's "not anyone's business" what decisions we make with our own doctors health and life?

2. What if people are deprived of knowledge they could be healed or cured of a condition.
Is it fair to judge their decisions, consent and quality of life
based on incomplete or incorrect knowledge?
again, if you want to limit the decisions and costs, that's fine;
but let's separate who believes in funding what criteria
and not impose conflicting beliefs and standards on each other.

why not start by separating health care, taxes and benefits by party.
Wouldn't that be a start in organizing people with like values
who agree to fund the same things and NOT fund things they don't believe in.
why not organize by group by beliefs, so people only fund what they agree to pay for.

Abortions are payed out of pocket except in cases of rape or the women's life is endangered. They have not been funded by government since the hyde amendment in '76

You can pay for your own health care or buy private insurance. You don't want to buy into health insurance, that is your option and you can pay a fine instead.

Fetus cannot lie if the mother dies. It is not a living being till it can live on it's own.

Why should a female have to put her life on hold because a pregnancy? It should be her right to choose if and when to become a mother, to be ready to raise and love a child, otherwise it is just a carcass that is a burden on society. No child that is not loved can truly thrive. Even if a child is wanted during pregnancy, a woman can reject it at birth. Mother hormones just are not there and she can be repulsed by the infant. Some women just are not meant to be a mother.
A child should be brought into the world with love, not because a woman is forced to carry and give birth. She is not a brood mare or slave.
A child can be a wonderful thing, but a mother that rejects her child can result in tragic results.
Better to have fewer children that will be cherished than children that are not wanted. There are enough millions of children in the world that need love. We don't need to produce more children fighters, drug addicts and criminals. We can't produce enough food or jobs as it is.
We don't need human factories, we need care and devotion to raise the best children to carry us into the next several generation. Now we have too many that can't make change, sign their name, speak in public or write a proper letter.

It is not more children we need but better raised and educated children that can compete in the world. Quality of exceptional children not quantity. We don't live in the time of the black death where 50% of the population died off.

Perhaps we should pull the plug on all those people living on life support ---- cause they are not really living and no one wants to pay the hospital bill anyway. All this is just another rung down the ladder suggesting that man is God.

People have the right to determine if they want to be on life support. Patients have the right to refuse treatment. Patients can in many cases seek hospice, doctor assisted termination or euthanasia. They can write their own medical directives and refuse resuscitation. It is unnatural to put someone on life support if there is no reasonable expectation of recovery. Just because you can stick a tube in someone does not mean you should. Quality of life should be more important. Patient's desires are the priority, it is their body after all.

how is your statement on what is unnatural or natural (in bold)
respecting people's right to determine if they want life support or not.
how are you to say that "quality of life is more important" than
giving someone a chance to live and die naturally?

Now
1. if you are paying for other people and you have these conditions
then fine; but why not let other people for other conditions if they
believe those to be more important to support? Why not separate funding
so it's "not anyone's business" what decisions we make with our own doctors health and life?

2. What if people are deprived of knowledge they could be healed or cured of a condition.
Is it fair to judge their decisions, consent and quality of life
based on incomplete or incorrect knowledge?
again, if you want to limit the decisions and costs, that's fine;
but let's separate who believes in funding what criteria
and not impose conflicting beliefs and standards on each other.

why not start by separating health care, taxes and benefits by party.
Wouldn't that be a start in organizing people with like values
who agree to fund the same things and NOT fund things they don't believe in.
why not organize by group by beliefs, so people only fund what they agree to pay for.

Abortions are payed out of pocket except in cases of rape or the women's life is endangered. They have not been funded by government since the hyde amendment in '76

You can pay for your own health care or buy private insurance. You don't want to buy into health insurance, that is your option and you can pay a fine instead.

Dear aris2chat

As long as policies are endorsed and enforced through govt
then it "represents" the public. Some people do not want certain beliefs to be considered public policy. People have a legal right to contest that as unconstitutional, so it may be cheaper
to mediate and resolve conflicts in advance, before writing and passing laws, instead of passing laws first then costing money to reform them through a longer drawn out process.

The public pays for enforcement of laws. Any litigation or legislative matter
dealing with this is done through govt, officials/reps, and public resources.
So it costs taxpayer's money.

If it was a private inhouse policy then people would deal with administration etc. in private.

If people feel violated because govt policy imposes on or excludes their beliefs,
and they spend 20-30 years pushing legislative corrections and lawsuits
that tie up our courts and legislators time, guess who pays for that?

Government should exclude all religion and beliefs.
You can lie your life according to your beliefs, up to the point they interfere with the beliefs and rights of other people.
Abortion, the right of choice, is the law. You don't have to get an abortion, but neither do you have the right to impose your beliefs on the women make the right choice for her or to threaten the doctor that is caring for her.

What you call life is not the same for others. no one is forcing you to get an abortion, and you cannot force women to carry and give birth if it is not what she wants at that time. She can have children later on when she is ready, if that is her choice. It is better for a child to be wanted and loved not just born and give away to be lost in the system. There are too many children that go unloved already.

If there is no god, there is no moral judgement. For other faiths that have no opinion or that permit abortions, they have the right to follow those beliefs.

Abortions were not always frowned on by christians. A how to manual was even written by a pope. Bible even mentions abortions and women being given the bitter water.

No one has a right to know what happens between a woman and her doctor. You should never know if a women gets and abortion let alone judge her. She can walk into any pharmacy and buy pills, she can order online or see a doctor. She can even buy food at any grocery store if she knows what to get. You have no say in what she does. It is her body and she has a right to control her life.

Go start a rabbit farm if you want, but don't tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her reproductive organs. If her and her doctor agree to remove them, that is her right.

If you try to interfere or threaten her doctor, you will have broken the law and can go to jail.

Killing a doctor is never a moral right. If there is a case of malpractice or some crime then a judge and jury will hear the case, not up to you to take action on your own.

The thought or threat of taking action against the doctor makes you wrong and potentially a criminal.

 

[IsaacNewton]

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

At least when suicide bombers believe in sacrificing lives they include their own.
That's more than I can say for people who issue the death penalty to others, but wouldn't have anyone kill them based on belief!

Does anyone really think about what if that justification and thinking were applied back to THEM, would THEY agree to that??
We all want "due process' and "right to defense" if WE are accused of doing something wrongful or illegal.
But judge someone else, if they deny doing wrong, what then? Punish or kill them anyway?
Really? What if the tables were turned, and you were the one being shot to death without a trial to prove you did wrong.

And this is the main horrific drawback of all religions. It provides an airtight justification to kill other people. The people doing the killing actually feel good about it. This is far more dangerous than a criminal that gets his jollies harming or killing other people. Religion allows millions to perpetrate the most heinous acts on millions of others and think they are moral doing it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why do women who want a child have miscarriages, still birth or other complications?

Things can go wrong from time to time on no special reasons. That's why everyone needs help. In case of abortion the most helpless group of human beings are the intentionally killed children. They lose everything.

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

I'm not an American. I'm not interested in the not existing secrets of others. I guess the NSA knows every reason why german women are aborting. The american politicians can publish this data, if they have a problem to publish the illegal data they have abhout the citizens of the USA. In general no one has to justify the own behavior in front of me or any believer in god - although I have to say very clear: the Oath of the Hippocrates is not allowing to do abortions or active euthanasia. If there are exceptions then doctors should have a very very clear indication why to kill a human being. Everyone is also responsible in the eyes of god. As far as I can see is the abortion rate in Germany much to high. A hundredthousand abortions every year are not explainable with the formula "things go wrong from time to time". I'm not surprised about, because of the side effects of the ideologies of the Nazis and Commies. Both idelogies saw in human beings only a useful or not useful part of their dead machines of thoughtless and senseless pseudoexistance.

None of your business. If she sees and herbalist, how do you know what she is buying? If she orders a kit by mail or buys one accross the counter at the corner CVS, it is none of your Business.
If she is pregnant and wants to drink or use drugs, not you place to tell her what to do with her body. She might get tattoos and piercings, she might go bungie jumping, not your business. She might go to the grocery store and buy foods that induce a miscarriag, none of your business.

Her moral and religious values might permit abortions, that is her right. You don't get to stuff your religion down everyone's throat, your religion is for you alone. If you don't believe in abortion, then you should not have one. You don't get to tell other they cannot have a legal procedure or buy legal medicine across the counter.

None of your business

I don't have any probem to live in a wild west world wide web, where everyone kills everyone on no reason to do so. Nevertheless I would shoot down in such a world everyone who tries to shoot down unarmed people - specially if he tries to shoot down innocent children. The answer I fear is not to have a right to do so - the answer I fear is to have the duty to do so. Do we have the duty to abort aborters?

Before an abortion is done in germany there is mandatory counseling. It is not a spur of the moment decision.

Abortion is forbidden in Germany. If I see it in the right way then to allow abortions would kill our complete system of justice including the Grundgesetz - our constitution. So we made some exceptions. We are great in making exceptions. The deeper reasons behind this exceptions is it to keep the number of all possibe abortions in a balance so we could be able to reach a minimum of the total numbers of abortions. We say: It's forbidden to do an abortion, but we don't punish someone if he aborts and fullfills some conditions. One of this conditions is a "Beratungsgespräch", a consultation. The sense of this is it to help the mother to find the best of all possible solutions for her problems and to avoid spontaneous actions. That's why we have less abortions than the USA. I heard it's only about 1/3 as high as in the USA per 100000 inhabitants. But even this is much to high. The very big problem in this context are the organsiations who are doing this consultations. One of the problems are for example organisations like "pro familia", which is one of the greatest organisation. "Pro familia" is against traditional families and for abortions. On the other side forbids the catholic church for example to do such consultations ... better to say: the catholic church allows not to give someone afterwards a paper where's written on, that she made such a consultation. The most Catholics in the world don't understand our system here and they see in such a writing a death sentence.

Whatever and however our system is - the numbers of abortions are much to high. It's impossible that all this abortions have a real serios background. More and more people seem to think abortion is only a kind of late contraception. If so then I have to say: "Abortion is the way to kill human beings just for sex".

So what do you think is the best way to minimize the number of abortions? And could it help to kill some doctors, who are doing abortions to reach a less number of abortions worldwide?

JibJab.com - Can-Can

>>Abortion in Germany is permitted in the first trimester upon condition of mandatory counseling, and later in pregnancy in cases of medical necessity<<

You don't know your own laws?.

I'm not very interrested what existing laws say about this theme. We will change our laws if necessarry. But it's not possible from all forms of logic to allow abortion without to destroy the human rights. So abortion is not permitted or allowed in Germany. But under some conditions we intentionally ignore this on reasons of pragmatism. This pragmatism is only sensefull as long as we are really able to minimize the total numbers of all abortion - as well "legal" and "illegal" abortions. I don't think this is a fact in Germany. Hopefully we did not open the box of the Pandorra again.

If you personally don't agree with abortions, then you should not get one. You should not presume to speak for everyone else, in germany or elsewhere.

I personally don't agree with the mass-murder called abortion. So you sound hyperarrogant in my ears if you think I have a choice in this question. I would love it very much if abortion would be not problem, but unfortunatelly my logic tells me something else. The question is in my case: If I am not against mass-murder, whoelse in the world should be against mass-murder? Freedom is for me always only freedom in the responsibility of the eyes of the Lord - freedom is for sure not freedom in the eyes of the united slaveholders of this planet. So: In some cases an abortion is able to be a sensefull instrument of medical care. But this is in most cases of abortions not so worldwide. Also not in Germany. The number of abortions is to high. So what do you think can we do to reduce drastically the total numbers of all abortions worldwide?

Dear zaangalewa
I agree there are ways to stop abortion fully
but without making it illegal where it affects women more then men.

Solve that problem and people might unite around a solution.
I already suggested enforcing conditions on sex instead of abortion,
since the decision to have sex involves both partners, and doesn't just target the women.