Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[alang1216]

Why would I not answer?

The fertilized egg of a human will be human.

Basic biology. (the enemy of abortion promoters.)

I agree but what is before it becomes a human? If it is not human as you infer then destroying it is not murder.

 

[aris2chat]

A doctor is performing a late term abortion and killing a baby which is an objectively human life, then would an individual have a moral right to kill them in defense of human life? (Just as some may argue that abolitionists had a right to kill slave owners in defense of the lives of slaves?)

(The state is of course a social construct and has no inherent rights but what the people give it, so while it might be illegal to kill an abortion doctor, if it's done in defense of an innocent life, I don't see why someone wouldn't have a right to do it).

Wrong.

An embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby.’

Abortion is not ‘murder.’

This thread exhibits the reprehensible right’s propensity to lie, their desire to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law in violation of the Constitution, and their contempt for the rule of law.

You simply have to get over this misguided notion of embryo/fetus. Because along with embryos and fetuses, this is what is being aborted:

^ This is, on a daily basis, literally being ripped limb from limb. Heads put in a vice like instrument and squeezed until they explode, poison injected into the hearts, necks slit, spinal cords severed. And not a drop of anesthesia.

I had an ancient Viking grandmother that was captured on the battlefield and drawn and quartered. I thought about the agony of slowly being split in half. How incredibly barbaric.
Do you think the pain of having that infants legs ripped off of it's torso is somehow less painful than if it were you having your legs ripped off of your body?
Clay, look at those two pictures. Would you have any compunction if I asked you to slit their necks?

Medicine is used to stop the heart. A miscarriage is induced and a D&C is done to clean the womb of any trace of death tissue.
What is aborted is not a baby.
There are day after, that can be used up to 7 weeks after, and home abortions by mail.

Many women at some point need a D&C. After birth if any tissue remains or during menses not everything is expelled, a D&C might be necessary.

No one tugs the limbs tearing the embryo/fetus apart. What you call limbs are nearly boneless, more like a squid.

It is a woman's choice and her right to control her own body. Nobody outside the office has a right to know what her medical records say.

Go find a tree to save.

I would be happy to show you the pictures of what is done to these infants, but they are too hard for some here to stomach. There is a reason for that. They could probably handle squid deconstruction, but squid isn't the case, and they absolutely do dismember the child. Bones are full formed in a 37 week old. You don't know what you are talking about.
A woman can partially birth a child and ask the doctor to slit it's neck if she doesn't like it's hair color. You are under the impression that a little saline, a little suction and the cells are removed by d&c. You have been mislead. Educate yourself. Google pictures of saline survivors. Listen to the nurses. Read their testimony to Congress for the truth. The practice of slitting the neck and throwing the baby into the trash, the nurses picking the infants up and holding them sometimes for hours before the babies succumb.

Educate yourself. Your tidy d&c isn't always the course. Crushed heads, slit necks, are also the norm. Hug that. Better yet google a nurse holding your little d&c and begging it to stop breathing to end it's pain.
A woman has many rights. She can keep her legs together. She can take a pill before, she can take a pill after. When a new life is created due to her actions, her rights should end there, for 9 whole months, and the rights of the other life should prevail.

They are not alive during abortion. heart is not beating, it cannot feel pain or scream. Fetal intracardiac potassium chloride injection is done to prevent a live birth.

This is what looks like at time of abortion. Till eights it does not have the ability to feel pain. At 16 weeks thin bones can be seen.
Even at 20 weeks it is barely the size of the palm of a hand.

Late term abortions, or even miscarriage, if necessary might require cutting the fetus so it can be removed. It is not torn apart. There is not heart beat.
Late term is usually in situation where the mothers life is in danger or before treatments like cancer, which would have killed the fetus anyhow. Doing it before treatment avoids infection in an already compromised system of the women.

Your "horror" stories are probably due to incompetence, malpractice. Doctors discuss the options and different abortion procedures for her term. it is done with minimal trauma to both the women and the embryo/fetus.

Women who were raped and at risk of being killed are given abortion by good people, but due to the situation, not always in a safe clinic. The practitioner, that was my neighbor did not loose a patient due to abortion. Hymens could in some case even be repaired later. The abuse some of the women suffered and then the risk by her family, caring doctors and practitioners did what they could for them, often with minimal supplies and not hospital or clinic could be reached. Far from the butchers in some back alley abortion. Each women had her story, some worse than others but all tragic. People did what they could to help and in some case protect them. Some were so badly damaged they needed repair.
If possible there were early alternatives to induce a miscarriage by natural means, but they were not foolproof. Teas, food, tinctures capsules were safer, but not widely used in modern medicine. When medicine is in short supply it is good to go back to nature.
What was done to fully pregnant women during massacres is not something to discuss and they left the women to bleed to death.
An abortion back then was saving the woman's life. There was enough loss of life, it should not have meant for victims to be killed as well.

Far cry in the US for most seeking an abortion, but they too have their story and reason why that is the right choice for them.

 

[aris2chat]

a fetus feeds off the women, as would a parasite or cancer. Maybe we should not kill cancer or parasites because they are life with their own dna.

If the women does not want to be used to feed something that will distort her body and disrupt her life and cause fluctuation of hormones, shouldn't that be her right? Maybe it would make her work harder or even unable to work in some cases.
Maybe she smokes and drinks and does not want to stop for nine months. Maybe she has issues with weight and maintaining a manageable weight? Maybe back issues or other health conditions would be aggravated by a pregnancy. Perhaps she takes meds that would effect the fetus.

There are as many reason as women that say no to pregnancy.

It is not for strangers to decide what is right for her. That should be her decision. It is her life.
Till the fetus is viable, it has no say. If she needs to deliver early then they will do so after the 7th month or more. Between the 6th and 7th month, most would abort as that is too early and too risky to try and save the fetus/baby. If she waits a few years she might be able to try again.

I doubt any woman take the idea of abortion lightly. Now before the 7th week women can walk into a pharmacy to terminate.

Why is it different if she does it at home or pays $500 to go to a clinic? The result is the same. If she does not go to a phamacy, there are things in the grocery store she can make tea from or eat to induce a miscarriage. How are you going to stop her from buying food with those items? How will you stop the mail if she orders online for a kit with different pills for three days?

It is better for a woman to have safe options to choose from.

Not your body, not our decision. Keep you nose out of other people's medical decisions or what happens in her doctors office.

 

[aris2chat]

Man charged with manslaughter in Mountain Brook crash that killed unborn baby

A very weak argument. Girls were tried and convicted of witchcraft in Massachusetts but that didn't make them witches.

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....


.

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.

Personally I think they should fry the guy and that is really the purpose of these laws.

Transplant the fetus so you can carry it and she can get on with her life. Then you can raise the baby for the next 18 or so years at your expense. Why make a woman responsible for a child she is not ready for? She might be struggling to care for her self and would not be capable to take on someone else. Maybe she wants children, but not now, perhaps in three or four years. Maybe she got sick and her birth control failed.

If you want children, you have them. If someone else does not want children at that time, she should have the right to make that decision. She should not have to make excuses to you or any one.

 

[emilynghiem]

till it i

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

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

What are 'rights'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear aris2chat Treating your beliefs and all others equal under law,
it seems equally wrongful to make any laws that assume either your beliefs or others
at the exclusion of each other; it makes sense that policies should be neutral of belief,
and either include and protect all, without discrimination,
or else govt should avoid making a policy at all establishing a bias in belief, to be fair.

I don't think it's necessary to deny the existence of life in the unborn child
in order to make the argument that
(1) govt should not intervene in private personal matters without consent
(2) abortion laws should not be enforced in ways that burden women
more than men by focusing on pregnancy instead of prevention

If we focus on areas we can agree are causing problems that need be solved,
this might be more effective than focusing on conflicting beliefs that go around in circles.
Govt should never be abused to make laws based on faith-based arguments,
so why not focus on areas or problems we could agree need attention to solve the root causes?

 

[zaangalewa]

... Every skin cell and every cancerous tumor has human DNA. Are they human beings?

Congrats. You wan the price for the best mimicry of pseudointelligence I read this year. The problem why cancer is cancer is exactly the destructive mutation and degeneration of the DNA in the cells. They lose information and don't have any plan any longer what to do on what reason. Such cells show very clear that cellular "egocentrism" helps not a lot in a living organism, because a successfull cancer dies together with the complete organism.

It's really extremly stupid what you say here: The body of a human being as a biological organism begins with a first cell where the DNA of the biological father and biological mother are combined and ends normally with the death of every single cell of the billions of cells of the organism. In a view of natural science there's no doubt that a human being begins with a first cell.

 

[aris2chat]

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.

 

[zaangalewa]

Is a fertilized egg human?

Well it isn't feline.

It isn't a lot of things but is it a human being entitled to legal rights equal to those of an adult human being?

A "cell" is able to get billions of dollars if the father - a billionaire - dies during sex for example.

 

[zaangalewa]

Why would I not answer?

The fertilized egg of a human will be human.

Basic biology. (the enemy of abortion promoters.)

I agree but what is before it becomes a human? If it is not human as you infer then destroying it is not murder.

I'm not sure about this. The more I learn about this world here the more I say: human begins should also not murder animals! Not to allow to kill animals - except on very good comprehensible reasons - is for sure not wrong. And in case you kill something, where you have absolutelly no idea what it is, then do me the favor to be sure, that this, what you will kill, is part of our own biosphere and not part of an extraterrestrian biosphere. Mamma Alien could perhaps not be happy about.

 

[there4eyeM]

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

 

[zaangalewa]

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

To be free and to be without orientation are not the same. Lots of people give themselve not enough time to grow - and politics has to take care that everyone has a chance to grow.

 

[Mudda]

"
Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?"

Sure, if you have the morals of a wet, smelly turd.

 

[alang1216]

... Every skin cell and every cancerous tumor has human DNA. Are they human beings?

Congrats. You wan the price for the best mimicry of pseudointelligence I read this year. The problem why cancer is cancer is exactly the destructive mutation and degeneration of the DNA in the cells. They lose information and don't have any plan any longer what to do on what reason. Such cells show very clear that cellular "egocentrism" helps not a lot in a living organism, because a successfull cancer dies together with the complete organism.

So your criteria for a human being is perfect DNA. Therefore people born with birth defects are not human? (Thanks for the award, how do I collect my price money? )

It's really extremly stupid what you say here: The body of a human being as a biological organism begins with a first cell where the DNA of the biological father and biological mother are combined and ends normally with the death of every single cell of the billions of cells of the organism. In a view of natural science there's no doubt that a human being begins with a first cell.

So a human being can be a single set of DNA molecules. You'd give them the same rights as an adult human? Some of us think it takes more to be a human being than just a small collection of molecules, a collection little different from that of a fruit fly. And that is something natural science can not address.

 

[alang1216]

Is a fertilized egg human?

Well it isn't feline.

It isn't a lot of things but is it a human being entitled to legal rights equal to those of an adult human being?

A "cell" is able to get billions of dollars if the father - a billionaire - dies during sex for example.

After developing for 18 or so years.

 

[zaangalewa]

"
Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?"

Sure, if you have the morals of a wet, smelly turd.

What about if the "abortion doctors" are black Blacks or white Germans? Allows your "moral" to murder Blacks on racistic reasons and Germans on nationalistic reasons? But another question now: What happens if someone shoots on you? Nothing? Hmm! This problem is well known here in Europe in the area of the holy empire. If you like to solve it then you should use a silverbullet. So do your next suicide on your own free will with silver bullets. This helps. If my Gargoyles brought me back Excalibur from the Lady of the sea, then I will send this wonderful sword to bring you one. So if you see in the next time a sword searching after you with hyperspeed then don't be worried. Excali is harmless as long as a heart is noble and pure, Nazi.



PS: What do you win if your own people kill their own babies? Every year a million?

 

[Mudda]

"
Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?"

Sure, if you have the morals of a wet, smelly turd.

What about if the "abortion doctors" are black Blacks or white Germans? Allows your "moral" to murder Blacks on racistic reasons and Germans on nationalistic reasons? But another question now: What happens if someone shoots on you? Nothing? Hmm! This problem is well known here in Europe in the area of the holy empire. If you like to solve it then you should use a silverbullet. So do your next suicide on your own free will with silver bullets. This helps. If my Gargoyles brought me back Excalibur from the Lady of the sea, then I will send this wonderful express sword to you to bring you one. So if you see in the next time a sword searching after you with hyperspeed then don't be worried. Excali is harmless as long as a heart is noble and pure, Nazi.

????????????????????????????

Put the Shnapp's down and go lie down. Again.

 

[zaangalewa]

"
Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?"

Sure, if you have the morals of a wet, smelly turd.

What about if the "abortion doctors" are black Blacks or white Germans? Allows your "moral" to murder Blacks on racistic reasons and Germans on nationalistic reasons? But another question now: What happens if someone shoots on you? Nothing? Hmm! This problem is well known here in Europe in the area of the holy empire. If you like to solve it then you should use a silverbullet. So do your next suicide on your own free will with silver bullets. This helps. If my Gargoyles brought me back Excalibur from the Lady of the sea, then I will send this wonderful express sword to you to bring you one. So if you see in the next time a sword searching after you with hyperspeed then don't be worried. Excali is harmless as long as a heart is noble and pure, Nazi.

????????????????????????????

Put the Shnapp's down and go lie down. Again.

I don't use drugs. I don't drink alcohol. You know this. Nevertheless you are even to lazy to find some new defamations. If you are without fantasy and your are not able to think at all - why do you not try to find some new stereotypes or to try to learn to use arguments? "Amoralic wet, smelly turd" is for example not any argument at all for the people here, who try to discuss what moral allows us to do or allows us not to do - in context of such a very difficult question with a wide range and great importance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I agree but what is before it becomes a human? If it is not human as you infer then destroying it is not murder.

Again, take a biology class. There is no "before human."

Reread the abortion promotion points. You don't even grsp the line that you are supposed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They are not alive during abortion. heart is not beating, it cannot feel pain or scream. Fetal intracardiac potassium chloride injection is done to prevent a live birth.

Ah lying, how cool.

This is what looks like at time of abortion. Till eights it does not have the ability to feel pain. At 16 weeks thin bones can be seen.
Even at 20 weeks it is barely the size of the palm of a hand.

No sploogy, human offspring are not baby mice, even if that helps you justify killing them

Late term abortions, or even miscarriage, if necessary might require cutting the fetus so it can be removed. It is not torn apart. There is not heart beat.

Oh do stop fucking lying, you ignorant sot.

The heart develops at 5 weeks gestation, moron.

Your lust to kill the most vulnerable members of the species does not alter biology.

 

[Uncensored2008]

a fetus feeds off the women, as would a parasite or cancer.

Oh do stop lying, you fucking retard.

A baby is nourished through a complex mechanism of placental umbilical.

You scumbag ghouls need to take a basic biology course and learn what gestation is,