Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[emilynghiem]

till it i

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

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

What are 'rights'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making sure the heart is not beating is the first step of an abortion. At that point it become necessity to remove all the tissue before it become toxic inside the women.
In a miscarriage the body responds, most of the time, to expel the placenta. If not a D&C is scheduled. The idea of a screaming moving suffering fetus in the first couple of months is wrong, urban myth out out by anti-abortionists.
To keep or abort, either way the decision is made by the women. Not the general public in the streets with pitch forks and torches.

Dear aris2chat Science has not yet proven when the soul/consciousness/"will" of the person enters the body
either before during or after birth. So until this is proven it is all faith-based conjecture. The same way you are right that nobody can impose such beliefs through law, neither can you or I bar people from defending their beliefs by this same token -- thus my stance, that no laws should be made by govt that either are objected to by prochoice beliefs or prolife beliefs, in order to be equally fair to both.

Do you agree how one's sides beliefs should be kept out of policy until they are proven,
the same holds for the other sides beliefs? Can we agree that bullying back and forth
is going to happen in private, but wrongful to abuse govt that way,
since beliefs are involved on both sides that deserve equal protection.
Can we be fair about equal protection of laws? Is it too much to ask
for the same respect of others that we seek for ourselves, to be treated equally?

 

[alang1216]

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.

I agree the "fertilized egg of a human will be human" but I disagree that just because it contains a set of unique DNA it is a human being. I has no nervous system, brain, organs, or any sense of the world. In fact it is little different from the fertilized egg of any other animal. It has the potential to become a human being just has a blueprint has the potential to become a house (lots of assembly required).

 

[Uncensored2008]

Making sure the heart is not beating is the first step of an abortion.

You just lie with complete disregard.

Fucking scumbag.

Even for a ghoul you are a piece of shit.

The heart is beating by 11 weeks gestation.

Fetal development: The 1st trimester - Mayo Clinic

 

[Uncensored2008]

I agree the "fertilized egg of a human will be human" but I disagree that just because it contains a set of unique DNA it is a human being.

You can "disagree" that gravity is a deformation of the fabric of space, but that simply reveals you as ignorant.

Biological fact does not require your agreement.

I has no nervous system, brain, organs, or any sense of the world.

Ah, another ghoul who believes in the magic vagina. It is a "blob" until it passes through the magic vagina that forms the blob into a baby instantly.

No little ghoul, gestation is a process. The heart develops at about 5 weeks gestation. The heart beat can be measured by 11 weeks.

In fact it is little different from the fertilized egg of any other animal. It has the potential to become a human being just has a blueprint has the potential to become a house (lots of assembly required).

Again, you need to study the ghoul talking points. DNA confirms that we are talking human. Reality exists regardless of your ignorant fantasy.

 

[alang1216]

I agree the "fertilized egg of a human will be human" but I disagree that just because it contains a set of unique DNA it is a human being.

You can "disagree" that gravity is a deformation of the fabric of space, but that simply reveals you as ignorant.

Biological fact does not require your agreement.

Bad example since we don't fully understand gravity but I take you point. I there a biological fact that says when a someone is old enough to vote? It is an arbitrary line society draws, just like the line between human tissue and human being.

I has no nervous system, brain, organs, or any sense of the world.

Ah, another ghoul who believes in the magic vagina. It is a "blob" until it passes through the magic vagina that forms the blob into a baby instantly.

No little ghoul, gestation is a process. The heart develops at about 5 weeks gestation. The heart beat can be measured by 11 weeks.

You're confusing me with another poster I think. I'm perfectly fine with call a 9-month-old, unborn fetus a human being and giving it legal protection. I'm not fine with calling a single, fertilized cell a human being and giving it legal protection. There is an arbitrary line between the two extremes.

 

[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.

After developing for 18 or so years.

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

 

[Mudda]

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

Do you just make shit up as you go along?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bad example since we don't fully understand gravity but I take you point.

Great example. Einstein is well vetted on the general theory,

I there a biological fact that says when a someone is old enough to vote? It is an arbitrary line society draws, just like the line between human tissue and human being.

Perhaps you should switch to the ghould term "person."

To argue that the unborn are not human is simply ignorant.

You're confusing me with another poster I think. I'm perfectly fine with call a 9-month-old, unborn fetus a human being and giving it legal protection. I'm not fine with calling a single, fertilized cell a human being and giving it legal protection. There is an arbitrary line between the two extremes.

Would you call it a cat then?

Human is irrefutable, a matter of biological fact.

The question is that of independent life. At what point does the offspring attain what we call life? This is a known quantity, The AMA defines life as the presence of measurable brain or heart activity. I already pointed out that the heart can be measured at 11 weeks, the brain at 8 to 9 weeks. So according to the AMA, we have a living human at 8 weeks gestation.

Prior to this we cannot scientifically point to independent life. Hence my support for plan B and the morning after pill.

GIVEN that these exist, there is ZERO excuse for abortion. IF you had unprotected sex the night before, take the MAP.

 

[zaangalewa]

I agree the "fertilized egg of a human will be human" but I disagree that just because it contains a set of unique DNA it is a human being.

You can "disagree" that gravity is a deformation of the fabric of space, but that simply reveals you as ignorant.

Biological fact does not require your agreement.

Bad example since we don't fully understand gravity but I take you point. I there a biological fact that says when a someone is old enough to vote? It is an arbitrary line society draws, just like the line between human tissue and human being.

Everyone should have a vote. As long as children don't have a vote this very important part of the society is misrepresented. Parents can be the legal guardian of this right.

 

[alang1216]

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

People have left their money to pets too.

 

[zaangalewa]

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

Do you just make shit up as you go along?

I don't have any idea how someone like you is able to survive. Someone has only to take the opposit of this what you say and is automatically right. How can this be? Why are you always with everything what you say wrong? And why are you not able to speak in a normal way - without words like "shit", "fuck" and so on? Whatever. Where's written in the laws of the USA that an unborn child is not able to be a heir?

 

[Mudda]

I agree the "fertilized egg of a human will be human" but I disagree that just because it contains a set of unique DNA it is a human being.

You can "disagree" that gravity is a deformation of the fabric of space, but that simply reveals you as ignorant.

Biological fact does not require your agreement.

Bad example since we don't fully understand gravity but I take you point. I there a biological fact that says when a someone is old enough to vote? It is an arbitrary line society draws, just like the line between human tissue and human being.

Everyone should have a vote. As long as children don't have a vote this very important part of the society is misrepresented. Parents can be the legal guardian of this right.

So someone with 5 kids could have six votes? That's probably how Hitler got elected.

 

[Mudda]

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

Do you just make shit up as you go along?

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

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

 

[alang1216]

Bad example since we don't fully understand gravity but I take you point.

Great example. Einstein is well vetted on the general theory

Quantum gravity is not well understood.

[

I'm not fine with calling a single, fertilized cell a human being and giving it legal protection.

Would you call it a cat then?

Human is irrefutable, a matter of biological fact.

Human tissue.

The question is that of independent life. At what point does the offspring attain what we call life? This is a known quantity, The AMA defines life as the presence of measurable brain or heart activity. I already pointed out that the heart can be measured at 11 weeks, the brain at 8 to 9 weeks. So according to the AMA, we have a living human at 8 weeks gestation.

Prior to this we cannot scientifically point to independent life. Hence my support for plan B and the morning after pill.

GIVEN that these exist, there is ZERO excuse for abortion. IF you had unprotected sex the night before, take the MAP.

It seems we've come down to a semantic difference. What you call "independent life" I call a "human being". We may not be so very far apart. The AMA has their definition, I'm sure other groups have other definitions. I don't really have a firm one, I'm willing to be convinced

 

[zaangalewa]

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

People have left their money to pets too.

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

Quantum gravity is not well understood.

Which is relevant how?

Gravity is well understood, this is a fact. The behavoir of quarks is not relevant to the discussion.

Human tissue.

That defines all humans.

It seems we've come down to a semantic difference. What you call "independent life" I call a "human being". The AMA

[/QUOTE]

Your talking points say "person" for a reason. Human is irrefutable.

Would you agree that abortion is not justifiable, given Plan B and the MAP?

 

[zaangalewa]

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

Do you just make shit up as you go along?

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

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

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

 

[alang1216]

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

Pets that inherited a fortune

 

[alang1216]

Would you agree that abortion is not justifiable, given Plan B and the MAP?

Certainly not desirable but justifiable in some cases. The morning after pill may kill an otherwise health fertilized egg (#3):

The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three modes of action (as does the regular birth control pill); that is, it can work in one of three ways:

1. The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
2. Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.

I have no problem with any of these but I'm surprised you could approve of #3 which to me is just another type of abortion.

 

[zaangalewa]

I agree the "fertilized egg of a human will be human" but I disagree that just because it contains a set of unique DNA it is a human being.

You can "disagree" that gravity is a deformation of the fabric of space, but that simply reveals you as ignorant.

Biological fact does not require your agreement.

Bad example since we don't fully understand gravity but I take you point. I there a biological fact that says when a someone is old enough to vote? It is an arbitrary line society draws, just like the line between human tissue and human being.

Everyone should have a vote. As long as children don't have a vote this very important part of the society is misrepresented. Parents can be the legal guardian of this right.

So someone with 5 kids could have six votes? ...

In my view to the world someone with 5 Kids should have seven votes. Your inability to have a feeling of responsibilty explains also a lot in context with the theme "abortion". Abortion seems to be "sex without risk" for you.