Do you think abortion is murder?
(3 votes)
Loading...Similar Posts
Is the baby cat dangerous for me during pregnancy?
Hello, my husband and I wanted to get a very young cat. I found out a week ago that I'm pregnant. Do I have to worry about the cat now (litter box, etc.)? My husband would take care of it for the time being. But I'm still wondering whether it will be a danger to…
IUI at 22 successful?
BySaxa1241
I'm 22 and had an unsuccessful IUI (without hormone stimulation) using donor sperm, and everything looked fine for me. Has anyone else needed multiple attempts despite being so young and everything else being fine?
To the hospital or not?
I've been vomiting nonstop since 6 a.m. (15 weeks pregnant), and no matter what I eat, it keeps coming out. Whether it's rusks, vegetables, or fruit. I drank a glass of orange juice this morning and otherwise only water. I've vomited seven times today and just can't eat or drink anything. A friend advised me…
Get pregnant faster?
Hey🤗 My husband and I have been trying to get pregnant for six months. I know that you can't force it, but maybe you have some tips that helped you get pregnant "quicker". I am already taking the Mama Gynial tablets and doing ovulation tests. Do you perhaps have any more tips?
Is my life ruined without an abortion?
ByHannahWo
Many people have written to me saying that I should have an abortion because I am only 18 and cannot really stand on my own two feet yet because I have not yet completed any training or anything and do not earn any money. I've known for a week that I'm five weeks pregnant. It…
Huhu, JustForYouuu.
It really depends on the circumstances.
First of all, it’s about the welfare of the mother.
Otherwise there is always a solution. However, it is necessary to leave the decision of the mother, even if she is still very young….
Greetings, Renate.
Well, legally speaking, an abortion is never murder, others have already written.
Abortion is an abortion.
“Mord” is a legal term and it is precisely defined what murder means. Not every offence is immediately a murder, there is also death, injury with death or death on request in German criminal law.
The German criminal law as well as all the criminal orders of this earth known to me differs between crimes against unborn and born.
Crimes against born are, for example, death or murder.
With regard to unborns, there is the criminal offence of abortion.
Even countries with very strict abortion rights have this distinction.
You had asked explicitly whether it was murder for me – and I must say: no.
However, there is a difference between born and unborn life and therefore the situation requires a more differentiated approach.
I’m basically against abortions, except there’s a good reason for it. Like the pregnant woman doesn’t want to be pregnant.
With regard to the deadline, I think three months long enough to be able to determine pregnancy and make a well-considered decision.
I look forward to any unnecessary abortion. But sometimes, for reasons that I do not want to judge, it is the only way for those concerned. And this way should be available legally and under reasonable conditions.
Just because abortions are forbidden, that doesn’t mean there is no one. They then exist abroad or under medical, or hygienic, questionable circumstances. When the star published his famous “we have driven off” title story in 1971, 374 women publicly admitted that it was still completely illegal in Germany. (Yes, okay, 373 – Alice Schwarzer doesn’t count, she lied, I know).
It is according to our law a legal killing of a body fruit in the early stage of development.
It is certainly not an appropriate means of late contraception, but it is usually not carried out in an easy way, it is necessary for consultation and it takes place in a balance of goods.
That’s all but murder.
Abortion is always illegal. Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court. The legislature waives punishment only under certain conditions.
Illegal doesn’t mean murder. There is also no murder, nor a killing on request or a negligent killing.
In the text of the law, “The facts are not fulfilled…”
Therefore, this “forbidden but penalty-free” is basically wrong, because if there is no absentee, there is also no punishment that could be dispensed with.
No, even an abort with criminal indication is expressly not illegal.
I didn’t say anything about murder or death. I’ve only told you about legality. The Federal Constitutional Court only exempted the medical indication. An unborn disabled person may be killed legally, even until birth. From the “preposition of the selection into the germ path” the Nazi racists have dreamed immter. They had to kill or gasse still born children and adults with disabilities. We are now doing this legally and in full public before birth. And our constitution blesses it. Art. 2(2) GG would therefore have to be correctly: Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity unless he is unborn, disabled or old and ill. I do not want to begin with a human dignity in the context.
Abortion violates human rights.
%%20and%20and%20
I cannot find anything to involve the universally recognised human rights in embryos or fetuses. Is that somewhere?
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Birth or other circumstances.
I didn’t ignore anything, or re-interpreted. I asked you a question you could answer now. Thanks for that!
Now I’ve joined. If I saw my world image threatened, I wouldn’t be happy to have helped. But taking prejudices about unknown people is difficult, I know about myself. I guess almost everyone has problems with that.
Since it is not explicitly stated that the embryos do not have the same rights, this means fully automatic that human rights must be fully applied to embryos. UN law is right to object. This means that everything that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed. And as the AMER states that the ADDITIONAL unequal treatments of people are prohibited, it also refers to embryos.
But it’s always like that for people like you. All the facts that do not correspond to the opinion of their own bubbles are deterred, re-interpreted or inferred in order not to endanger their own worldview.
Exactly. It’s nowhere. It is nowhere that embryos have the same rights, nor that they have the rights. So I asked you if you could show me the job if I missed it.
I do not distinguish people with regard to their skin color, sexual preference etc., so I would never have come to a distinction of people through the skin color or sexual preference. You made this distinction now.
It is completely irrelevant which skin color, gender or sexual orientation someone has, because regardless of it, they are born people.
Your statement abortion would be violated by universally recognized human rights is not true, unless you can refer to any source that makes it clear that already unborn people without consciousness or pain feeling have the same rights as born people.
Where in the AEMR is that these rights do not relate to unborn? Right, nowhere! I could now take your entry and replace the word “embryo” with any other word. For example: “Black,” “homosexual,” “prevented,”… Then it should be clear that you are evaluating people.
An embryo is not yet a human being, but an evolving individual, which may become a human being if there is not a miscarriage or the like.
In human rights, there is nothing that embryos are already humans and apply to these same human rights, as for people who have already been born and are capable of being felt.
As regards human rights, everyone is equal. If the mother’s life is in great danger during pregnancy, it is obvious everywhere that pregnancy is terminated to protect the life of pregnant women. It is seen that the life of the already living person is weighted higher here.
Never mind. An embryo is a human being, so human rights apply.
The birth has not yet taken place.
Right: No.
The legislator has defined the matter relatively clearly. Murder can only be humans and a person is legally present only after the birth.
Everything during pregnancy is regulated by separate criminal provisions; it is therefore definitely not a murder, neither legally nor for me.
Personally, I am not a friend of abortions, but there are enough reasons as there can be an empathy that was not wanted, and then to force someone to carry out a child I do not consider to be beneficial to the welfare of the future child or to the welfare of the future parent parts.
No, but in a few cases.
After the comments below, I would like to reply directly.
Yes for me, abortion is murder.
The actual motives almost never justify the killing of the unborn man. But socially, abortion is completely accepted and the alternative to bring the child to the world and to allow an increase in a more suitable environment by adoption is totally condemned. The mother who decides for the life of the child is a devout raven mother, while the mother who kills her child is even celebrated as part of a completely misunderstood aggressive feminism.
No human being has the right to kill another person. Therefore, any abortion which does not take place from medical indication is and remains illegal (2nd sentence BVerfG 1993). I personally very much regret this limitation, because such disabled children are allowed to be killed until birth, only because they are disabled.
The questioner wanted to ask a personal opinion, not a legal position. If §§ 218, 219ff did not exist (some stupid people ask for the deletion), then the prosecutor would have to investigate in each of these offences and, depending on the motive, charge charges for murder or death. The penalty would then be measured according to the facts of §§ 211 – 222 StGB in the chapter “Straftats Against Life”. The preferential rules of Sections 218 and 219 with the subparagraphs would be omitted.
And in no few cases, the motives are quite so that they fulfill the concept of murder. I am far away from the fact that I want this state that in any case the prosecutor must determine, but in complete legal misunderstanding, the deletion of these §§ is repeatedly demanded. I quite see the emergency situation in which a pregnant woman, often urged by close people, must make such a decision. And in many conversations it becomes clear how tempting the discreet abortion for the pregnant woman is. To do this, she’ll be suggesting it’s a pure cell lump. In fact, in the 14th SSW p.m. this is the 12.SSW p.c., which is called in the law, the child completely developed, has legs and arms, plays with the fingers and can possibly already suck at his thumb. The restriction 12th SSW p.c. came into the legislation because after that it is no longer possible to aborp the child’s head through the suction pipe. In the collecting container of the suction device, it is then possible to see the parts of the child which were torn from the sharp front part and the suction pressure in the womb. There are plenty of pictures in the net as it looks.
And many women affected are also very bad because they find that they have made a completely wrong decision by the pressure of the environment and the presumption of completely false facts. Many then manage to heal this burden with the birth of a child. But not all.
No, the embryopathic indication was abolished.
That is why it is not allowed to be expelled because the child is disabled, but only if the continuation of pregnancy poses a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman.
No! Every woman decides about her body and you should not vibrate the moral lobe if you do not know the reasons of the woman.
There is also a duty – consultation required, before an engravity is interrupted.
To criminal and medical indication! For example, a 14-year-old girl who was raped cannot be expected to take a child or a pregnant woman whose child is suffering from an anenzephaly.
https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/themes/family/pregnantity-and-children’s request/pregnantity termination/pregnancies termination-by-218-strafgesetzbuch-81020
so many untruths and negligences in this context are common. Pregnancy is not interrupted but terminated. Definitely. And the woman decides not about her body but about the life of another person. This other person is killed when the pregnant woman decides to abortion. This is reality and not a question of morality.
Criminalistic indication (which is no longer available) and anencephaly are, in relation to the approximately 100,000 reported abortions, rather Ratities (about 0.02 and 0.04%). over 96% are provided with advice. And in the disabled children who are driven off, very slight disabilities such as Trisomie 21 prevail.
You seem to be an extreme antidote of abortions.
Do you have no understanding at all when a woman is in an emergency situation?
Abortion is an interruption of gravity. This is very well explained:
https://www.profamilia.de/themes/pregnancies
Of course, there is a criminalistic/criminological indication. You’re wrongly informed.
https://www.profamilia.de/angebote-vor-ort/hessen/beratungstelle-ruesselsheim/pregnantschaftskonfliktberatung/pregnantschaftsabbruch-mit-indikationsstellung/kriminologische-indikation
from certain age of the embryo in D. not allowed …
If you don’t want children, use preservatives.
and who is raped shall also prevent one of you
Moderate.
Call a 100% safe (except entertaining!)
There’s nothing 100%.
One also has 1% risk of being passed by the bus.
Of course, for the unintentional pregnant woman. How to the just asking?
One can discuss at most what is more important: the physical and mental integrity of the pregnant, or the life of the embryo which has no perception at the time of abortion. (From a desire for life cannot be mentioned here, as the embryo does not even know what it exists at the stage.)
For me, the answer is more than clear: the existing person who can already feel and think is clearly above the embryo, for the it doesn’t even make a difference whether it would never have been created or it will be driven off in the first weeks.
Killing a human is not a help.
Also, no one would come to ask for the idea of who would have feared to be overrun, should only remain home.
No, who then has the bad luck to be overrun, he’s getting medical help, just like he’s running away.
An embryo that is not viable cannot be murdered.
I save myself the conditions for an abortion, etc., because they have already been answered in a few questions.
An abortion is an abortion
A murder is a murder
Death strike is death strike, etc.
You can’t kill unborn people.
You can murder first-born people.
Why do so many have such a strong need to mix clearly separate legal terms?
No. Only for pensioners and Christians. They usually think that, I think.
Generally monotheists (My experience)
What makes you think that only retired people (Christians let me get away) usually think?
There are the lower motives missing.
No ‘born’ life.
No.