In Germany the state finances illegal actions
From 1996 to 2003 the German state over 250 million euros on the vorgeburtliche final solution at 800.000 Federal citizens spent.
The affirmed the Pressereferentin `of the Christian democrats for the Leben' Monika Hoffmann.
Therefore `the Christian democrats for the Leben' welcome „the courageous raid of the CDU-governed countries Saxonia and Thuringia at the conference the land minister of health, who plans a shortening of the national subsidization of illegal abortions “.
„The request of Mrs. Helma Orosz (Saxonia) and Dr. Klaus toe (Thuringia) opens again the discussion whether the state may take part financially in illegal actions.
Practically it asks the question whether all women, who take national assistance up are really needy. “
According to valid right exists with abortions with so-called social indication, which are illegal, but remain exempt from punishment, if the pregnant woman lets itself advise, no fundamental requirement on assumption of the costs.
Only „in special cases “the countries are obligated to substitute those women who cannot apply the costs of an abortion.
Since 2003 are however well-known that from the exception the rule became.
In Lower Saxony 90 per cent of the abortions by the country are financed, in Saxonia 98 per cent, in Bavaria 71 per cent.
The question lies near whether the constitutionally demanded needyness is actually present with these numbers.
Justified it is therefore also - as desired of Thuringia and Saxonia - the income of the fathers, which was exceptional from the means test until today, to consider.
From 1996 to 2003 the German state spent on more than 800,000 abortions over 250 million euros.
The extremely high ratios of the national financing of illegal abortions contradict invariably and untenable clear the obligation of the state to protect unborn humans.
A country, which does not only accept the killing of its own children, but also still financially supported, does not have future, so Mrs. Hoffmann.
`The Christian democrats for the Leben' are a life right initiative within the CDU/CSU.
All reader opinions indicate
6 of 26 reader opinions:
6 of 26 reader opinions:Tuesday, 4 July 2006 13:15
The tradition connected: Peter Singer
It is undisputed the fact that the inviolable, to which comes to humans not only the person - humans from the outset, thus naturally also the yet not born the 4th pregnancy month ago.
If we make the inviolable dependent on „for person would be “, then our society becomes still crueler and as it is anyway already inhuman.
Thus Peter Singer concludes from its „person its “- born babies up to the age from 2 years obstructed theses that it had to be permitted, to kill, since they were not still „persons “. It is a scandal that it was not already long arrested for such contempting for human beings theses.
If we make the inviolable dependent on „for person would be “, then our society becomes still crueler and as it is anyway already inhuman.
Thus Peter Singer concludes from its „person its “- born babies up to the age from 2 years obstructed theses that it had to be permitted, to kill, since they were not still „persons “. It is a scandal that it was not already long arrested for such contempting for human beings theses.
Tuesday, 4 July 2006 09:46
legeslegmegszentségtelenithetetlenségeskedéseitekért †: Term confusion
I locate here - again times - from ignorance born conceptual mistakes. That humans humans are and no Zitteraal or brown bear (R.I.P from the outset. Bruno), understands itself automatically. For which it actually goes, is the person term. And that is hot discussed - one thinks e.g. of Peter Singer.
Monday, 3 July 2006 14:11
zwobbel: Yield Satan!
Like each respectable scientist white humans in the mother body develop always as humans from the outset. No humans develop to humans. Only complete idiots and ideologically brain-stuck together Hassprediger repeat prayer mill-like the lie.
Likewise it behaves with the imbecility under the term „Engelmacher “(if necessary also feminine). Also today always die with world-wide under whatever mode angeb. „“also mothers permitted murders at unborn humans. As if the fact whether the atrocity is punished or not something in medical conditions would change. From those those survive carry off many health damage. Arranged in Germany by physicians by health insurance companies or from the tax pot to be paid. Also for the psychatrischen consequences those may pay solvent bad A SHANk then. We do not want to conceal also the extremely high ratio of ill, i.e. alcohol-addicted Abtreibern. Oh as „philanthropic “. But the globalized Geschäftemacher need fresh infant corpses for turnover maximization.
Thus the reality looks. Misogynically up to declining.
Likewise it behaves with the imbecility under the term „Engelmacher “(if necessary also feminine). Also today always die with world-wide under whatever mode angeb. „“also mothers permitted murders at unborn humans. As if the fact whether the atrocity is punished or not something in medical conditions would change. From those those survive carry off many health damage. Arranged in Germany by physicians by health insurance companies or from the tax pot to be paid. Also for the psychatrischen consequences those may pay solvent bad A SHANk then. We do not want to conceal also the extremely high ratio of ill, i.e. alcohol-addicted Abtreibern. Oh as „philanthropic “. But the globalized Geschäftemacher need fresh infant corpses for turnover maximization.
Thus the reality looks. Misogynically up to declining.
Monday, 3 July 2006 13:23
The tradition connected: @ddl, deusexmachina, etc.
Only two Nicknames use you? And which is with „demondeluxe “, „deus ex machina “, „Mme. Pompadour “? No, those are naturally not from you…
1. Unborn children are humans. In §1Abs.1 of the GG it means: „Those became humans is inviolable “. Meets exactly according to Federal Constitutional Court on ungeb. Children too. And it implies that it concerns citizens (S. contribution of Jörg Guttenberger).
Explain your statement times to a biologist and/or a physician. Those will vibrate only the head over you. Call me please the time, starting from ungeb. Children humans are, lead you for it naturwissenschaftl. Proofs on.
Humans always develop as humans and not „to humans “.
2. At the 15.Mai you wrote: „However there are also (occurring more rarely) constellations, at which indeed „exemption from punishment is present “, the facts of the §218 thus exists, from a punishment is however refrained. That is not valid for „the Abruch within the prescribed period after consultation “.
That is a clearly wrong statement of you. Because the straight „abort within the prescribed period after consultation “is according to decision Federal Constitutional Court illegally. Am I to quote you those according to passage of the Federal Constitutional Court decision once again?
My advice to it: Instead of your statements in each case with your making nervous confirmation formulas („point. “, „Is that understood? “, etc.) too „support “, would times rather start more quotations, proofs and/or references.
1. Unborn children are humans. In §1Abs.1 of the GG it means: „Those became humans is inviolable “. Meets exactly according to Federal Constitutional Court on ungeb. Children too. And it implies that it concerns citizens (S. contribution of Jörg Guttenberger).
Explain your statement times to a biologist and/or a physician. Those will vibrate only the head over you. Call me please the time, starting from ungeb. Children humans are, lead you for it naturwissenschaftl. Proofs on.
Humans always develop as humans and not „to humans “.
2. At the 15.Mai you wrote: „However there are also (occurring more rarely) constellations, at which indeed „exemption from punishment is present “, the facts of the §218 thus exists, from a punishment is however refrained. That is not valid for „the Abruch within the prescribed period after consultation “.
That is a clearly wrong statement of you. Because the straight „abort within the prescribed period after consultation “is according to decision Federal Constitutional Court illegally. Am I to quote you those according to passage of the Federal Constitutional Court decision once again?
My advice to it: Instead of your statements in each case with your making nervous confirmation formulas („point. “, „Is that understood? “, etc.) too „support “, would times rather start more quotations, proofs and/or references.
Saturday, 1 July 2006 23:16
DDL: @Der tradition connected
Complaints concerning my 2 Nicknames address you please to kreuz.net - editorship, which limits both accounts. ME it would also rather be, I could simply a name use. Thus would we then have checked off, not your strange assumptions probably?
And then we turn still to your term confusion: I criticized the designation in this Thread explicitly CITIZENS; It faseln here of „humans “. One is legal, the other one a primarily biological term. If one uses terms, one should do that correctly.
1. Unborn ones are not humans - they become which. From the Federal Constitutional Court awarded the human rights do not oppose that.
2. Unborn ones are not citizens. Never been. And the Federal Constitutional Court said never also only the smallest in this direction - because it would be legal nonsense, which would guard to say so a rubbish.
Perhaps does they make themselves only once smart, before you accuse so aggressively different of the ignorance and false testimony?
P.S.: Is the fact that abortion is regarded as „illegally “well-known - where exactly gets you from „the few exceptional cases “, TC? Times again sticking comrades set up? They want to be so good to show me what you appropriate here me. It quatschen straight substantial stupid things.
And then we turn still to your term confusion: I criticized the designation in this Thread explicitly CITIZENS; It faseln here of „humans “. One is legal, the other one a primarily biological term. If one uses terms, one should do that correctly.
1. Unborn ones are not humans - they become which. From the Federal Constitutional Court awarded the human rights do not oppose that.
2. Unborn ones are not citizens. Never been. And the Federal Constitutional Court said never also only the smallest in this direction - because it would be legal nonsense, which would guard to say so a rubbish.
Perhaps does they make themselves only once smart, before you accuse so aggressively different of the ignorance and false testimony?
P.S.: Is the fact that abortion is regarded as „illegally “well-known - where exactly gets you from „the few exceptional cases “, TC? Times again sticking comrades set up? They want to be so good to show me what you appropriate here me. It quatschen straight substantial stupid things.
Saturday, 1 July 2006 22:40
The tradition connected: @DDL, deusexmachina,…
… or however you still call themselves otherwise here.
Who in a forum several identities necessarily around itself support to give, has itself already disqualifiziert.
In addition you disqualifizieren yourselves however still with your arrogance, your Unwissen and your wrong factual statements, which put you with a presumption as final, the here many anwidert.
They stated, children in the 3.Schwangerschaftsmonat were not „humans “and in your arrogance also still „legislation and science “for it stressed. Both the Federal Constitutional Court and scientists (biologist and physician) got straight that it concerns humans, to who the same right comes to lives as all different also. This is clear also each to layman, who has healthy human understanding, im übrigen.
They stated that there would be illegal abortions only in „few exceptional cases “. Wrongly, over 90% of the abortions durchgeführen in Germany take place after the consulting regulation and are illegal thereby.
Their unqualified, wrong factual statements can never occupy you. Instead of acquiring itself times knowledge, you are suitable on here only new identities, with which you want to support each other.
Very weakly, DDL, deusexmachina, etc.!
Who in a forum several identities necessarily around itself support to give, has itself already disqualifiziert.
In addition you disqualifizieren yourselves however still with your arrogance, your Unwissen and your wrong factual statements, which put you with a presumption as final, the here many anwidert.
They stated, children in the 3.Schwangerschaftsmonat were not „humans “and in your arrogance also still „legislation and science “for it stressed. Both the Federal Constitutional Court and scientists (biologist and physician) got straight that it concerns humans, to who the same right comes to lives as all different also. This is clear also each to layman, who has healthy human understanding, im übrigen.
They stated that there would be illegal abortions only in „few exceptional cases “. Wrongly, over 90% of the abortions durchgeführen in Germany take place after the consulting regulation and are illegal thereby.
Their unqualified, wrong factual statements can never occupy you. Instead of acquiring itself times knowledge, you are suitable on here only new identities, with which you want to support each other.
Very weakly, DDL, deusexmachina, etc.!
All reader opinions indicate 20 further reader opinions
20 further reader opinionsThe editorship does not take responsibility for contents of the contributions. She reserves herself the right to delete contributions as well as to exclude readers from the debate.
They followed the star
