Is killing an abortion doctor murder or self defense?

Yes, it is...just because you won't ever have to face that risk doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No, everything doesn't have a risk but if you do something risky and get hurt you have a right to medical attention.....so do women.

I am NOT insisting self defense be used as an argument for legal abortion. Abortion IS legal.

I am saying that if the fetus is deemed human women do NOT lose their right to self defense and pregnancy does cause harm no matter what anyone's opinion is.


YOU have NEVER proven that pregnancy causes women NO risks or harm, NEVER.

 

Absolute 100% rubbish, there is no such thing as natural rights, the only rights people have are the rights deemed theirs by OTHER people.
Nature, which is where natural rights come from, has no favourites, nature does not consider the human race to be of any more value than the worm in the soil, and unless you can prove that god, any god that is, exists then it is only your faith and belief that makes the assumption of god given rights.

There can be no balancing of rights when one of the people involved has to give up rights they had right up to the point they became pregnant, neither is giving the unborn the right to use another person body without their consent (a right NO other person has) a balancing of those rights all that does is place the unborn in a higher value position than the female. Add to this that the unborn's right to use another persons body without consent ceases upon birth, what gives you and any other pro-lifer the right to be so free and easy with other peoples rights?

 

Actually she does and always has. Back in the seventies before caesarean operations became as safe as they are today the procedure (that is still carried out in some remote rural areas of the world) to treat obstructed labour is to behead the baby. The baby is sacrificed to save the mother

That no longer happens anywhere in the western world that I know of

 

No doctor can predict that any pregnancy will be complication-free, and neither can you. There is ALWAYS a risk in every pregnancy.

 

The mere condition of being pregnant is not justification for killing the baby.

 

There is always a risk of serious complication. You, nor anyone else has the moral authority to force a woman to take that risk. AND IT ISN'T A BABY.

 

No, it isn't but no "baby" is killed.







YOU have NEVER proven that pregnancy causes women NO risks or harm, NEVER.

 

That's not what I wrote. A normal pregnancy - the simple condition of being pregnant - is not justification for abortion. If there is a serious complication, then that is a different matter. I do not (and have not) advanced the position that abortion is never allowed, the "life of the mother" situation is an exception.

 

Back to the topic. If someone kills a doctor who performs abortions then they are a murderer.

There is no "self-defense" of another person. You can defend another person but that's not self-defense.

And , since, there is no "person" to "defend" in abortion then killing the doctor is murder.....and very very ANTI-Life.

 

What part of "every pregnancy carries a health/life risk" do you not understand? Many women die suddenly in childbirth, after a 9 month "normal" pregnancy.

I don't understand why you think women don't have the right to determine what happens to their own bodies, or why you think you do.

 

Every person has the right to control their own bodies, including the baby inside the mother. When one persons rights interfere with another persons rights, that's when the 2 have to be balanced and a compromise made. A pregnant woman does not have complete autonomy because her actions impact the baby.

 

How can a fertilized egg control its own "body"?

By "balancing" the rights of the woman and the fertilized egg, don't you just mean take the woman's rights away?

 

Is the fertilized egg a person? When does it become a person? That's the fundamental question that the entire abortion issue revolves around.

If the fertilized egg is a person, the pregnant woman does not lose her rights, she is limited in her actions when those actions infringe on the rights of the baby.

For example, consider medications. If the woman gets a minor illness, such as a severe cold, she might be restricted from using certain medications because those would harm the baby. In that case, the discomfort of the mother does not outweigh the harm to the baby, and the mother has to suffer the discomfort. But if the illness is serious and requires immediate treatment to avoid life long complications to the mother, something like bacterial meningitis, then the need of the mother outweighs the risk to the baby. The rights of the mother and baby have to be balanced.

 

There is and can never be a balancing of rights between a woman and a fetus. the so called right to life has never and will never over rule the right of a person to defend themselves against non-consented injuries. No matter how you try to sugar coat it in the end pro-lifers want a pregnant woman to forgo her right to consent or not to another person (should the unborn be deemed as such) using her body, and that goes against every principle of the foundation of the USA.

 

It certainly is when the woman does not consent to being pregnant, and even most pro-lifers support abortion in the cases of rape and incest

 

None of that is "balancing" the rights of the woman and fertilized egg. It is taking rights from the woman, and giving the fertilized egg special rights that no human being has.

 

Then if the fertilized egg is not a person, at what point does it become a person, and why? All you have to do is provide a convincing answer to that question and the entire issue is resolved.

 

That question has already been answered .. at birth, that is the time the now baby becomes truly an independent separate person that has no biologically dependency on another person to sustain its life.

No matter the answers given they will never be a "convincing answer" for you or other fanatical pro-lifers.

 

I don't know why this is even a question. Personhood has always been understood to begin at birth. It has always meant a man, woman, or child. No one has ever thought otherwise until the pro-life movement began it's campaign to change its meaning solely for the purpose of taking rights away from women. If a fertilized egg were a person, why is Personhood USA trying to pass initiatives and amendments giving legal rights to fertilized eggs? And why have they been consistently defeated?

 

The issue was irrelevant until medical technology made it relevant. When there was little understanding of the pre-born, and nothing could be done about a pre-born baby anyway, there was no point in addressing the issue of personhood. With the advent of medical imaging and instrumentation and advances in medical knowledge, the development of a pre-born baby is much better understood to the point the baby can be monitored, diagnosed, treated and surgically operated upon if required.

Increased knowledge is driving people to question abortion, not politics. Politics is just the arena in which the battle is being waged.

 

Medical technology doesn't change what something is. We have basically the same medical technology as other developed countries around the world, but the global trend has been toward liberalization of abortion laws. It is the third world, developing countries which have the more restrictive laws.

Demographics show highly educated people are more pro-choice.

 

Agree. I sure don't consider a fertilized egg to be a person. When does it become a person? I can't really answer that, but an egg is certainly NOT a person.

 

it's really easy to understand the anti-abortion crowd, once you realize that they are wannabe Hitler pos's. Just like the Anti-gunners and anti-dopers, and pro-military messing around overseas, They are committed to sticking their noses in where it's definitely none of their biz.

 

The uterus—as private as that organ may otherwise be—ceases to be just the woman's business once there's a baby in there. (We can, of course, debate somewhat about when exactly that is.)
Murdering your little child is never ok, no matter where that child is. I understand that some women have pressing reasons for why they want to terminate, but many women simply don't. A fetus isn't something you can just toss in the trash at your easiest convenience.

There are many roles that government should not be taking on; But defending the lives those who cannot defend themselves is one of the primary duties of government.
You might see these threads:
Who Does The Government Think They Are Prohibiting Intentional killing?
Why is murder punished?

 

Medical science does not change what something "is", but it opens our eyes to the fact that we might have gotten what "is" wrong.

That's not quite accurate. The polls show that the greater the level of education, the more the person says abortion should be legal. For example:
http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0533.htm

"Legal" is no the same as "pro-choice", the recent Pew and Gallup polling shows that 50-60% of people have moral qualms about abortion but believe abortion should be legal due to concerns over the hardship cases (rape, incest, life of the mother). Depending on the poll, around 25% say abortion should be legal under all circumstances, 20% say illegal in all circumstances.

The abortion issue is clearly not binary - its not all or nothing, most people are conflicted about it and troubled by "abortion as contraception".

My guess is that this majority is held back and abortion is still generally unrestricted because people do not trust the government to mediate the issue, not due to loyalty to Roe or because of political allegiance to the pro-choice movement.