ABORTION.......

maporsche,

I don't think anything other than it was uncalled for is called for.

0 Replies

I find it confusing to read all these quotes within quotes.I am against abortion if the alternative were adoption, which would make another couple happy and keep the child alive. I can't see that it would make much difference to the woman whether the child were aborted or adopted - if she's determined not to keep it. Abortion does damage to a woman she may not even realise till later, physical and emotional, so should be avoided if possible.

On the other hand, why do people think life is SO sacred these days? There's a lot of it about. Children dying at a huge rate in poor countries, which the prolife people are not going to save. Religious books such as the Bible and Koran don't seem to elevate life above virtue etc. and Christians have the pleasure of thinking life is better after death, so why are they so fierce about life? I ask for information only.

0 Replies

Clary Wrote:

Quote:

On the other hand, why do people think life is SO sacred these days? There's a lot of it about. Children dying at a huge rate in poor countries, which the prolife people are not going to save. Religious books such as the Bible and Koran don't seem to elevate life above virtue etc. and Christians have the pleasure of thinking life is better after death, so why are they so fierce about life? I ask for information only.

Christians have the pleasure of thinking life is better after death, so why are they so fierce about life?

One thing a Christian is not to do is use the fact that we are forgiven of our sins and will have everlasting life for our own selfish means. We are forgiven but it doesn't mean we can go out and do anything we please because of it. We are suppose to live as Christ-like as possible here on this earth.

To me, thinking I can do anything I want because I will be forgiven is the same thing as an agnostic believing they can do whatever they want because there is no God.

I am against abortion. I believe it is killing a child no matter if just conceived or full term. Life is sacred because God gave us life. His gifts should always be considered as sacred.

And about all the children dying in the world, yes, it saddens me. But, I can only tell you that I believe that we should take care of our own first. I can't stand the fact there is one homeless person in the United States while we spend billions on space exploration. We need to take care of our own first.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I am against abortion.

We understand that.

Quote:

I believe it is killing a child no matter if just conceived or full term.

We understand that you "believe" that a recently divided egg of eight or sixteen cells...is a child. Hey...some people "believe" they are Napoleon. The "belief" tells us nothing about the truth.

Quote:

Life is sacred because God gave us life.

It is obvious that you do not even know there is a God...or anything about any God that might exist. For you to assert...blindly...that life is "sacred" "because God gave us life"....

...is nothing more than pure bullshyt.

Suck up to this barbaric god of yours as much as you like....indulge your superstition to your heart's content...

...but please, stop trying to limit other peoples options because of your silliness.

Quote:

His gifts should always be considered as sacred.

Barrrrrffffff!

Quote:

And about all the children dying in the world, yes, it saddens me. But, I can only tell you that I believe that we should take care of our own first.

Right...you remember where Jesus said..."Look after your own first!"

That was in Matthew....no...no....Mark....no, not there either...hmmmm...was it Luke or John?

Jeez...you know...I cannot put my finger on it.

Maybe one of the Christians can help.

Quote:

I can't stand the fact there is one homeless person in the United States while we spend billions on space exploration. We need to take care of our own first.

Yeah...maybe one of the Christians can help.

0 Replies

I see. Yes, I understand the reasoning.
But it rather begs the question - if you weren't a Christian, would you not feel you should live as ethically as you can, simply for its own sake, or for humanity's sake?
And it seems that it is a catch 22 for you - meaning Christians generally - to sort out your motives: if you behave well you will get a reward, yet behaving well in order to get that reward is behaving badly. How do you resolve that?

0 Replies

Clary wrote:

I see. Yes, I understand the reasoning.
But it rather begs the question - if you weren't a Christian, would you not feel you should live as ethically as you can, simply for its own sake, or for humanity's sake?
And it seems that it is a catch 22 for you - meaning Christians generally - to sort out your motives: if you behave well you will get a reward, yet behaving well in order to get that reward is behaving badly. How do you resolve that?

There is no need for a god threatening punishment...or offering reward...in order to be moral, ethical, or humane.

Fact is...is many cases...a god doing those things is an impediment to morality, or ethical or humane behavior.

0 Replies

Clary Wrote:

Quote:

I see. Yes, I understand the reasoning.
But it rather begs the question - if you weren't a Christian, would you not feel you should live as ethically as you can, simply for its own sake, or for humanity's sake?
And it seems that it is a catch 22 for you - meaning Christians generally - to sort out your motives: if you behave well you will get a reward, yet behaving well in order to get that reward is behaving badly. How do you resolve that?

If I weren't a Christian? Well, I guess that depends on what I did believe in if it weren't Christianity. If I chose another religion, I would hope that living ethically would be a mainstay of that religion. If I had no religion, I would still hope I would try to live ethically.

The catch 22. I can't remember anyone ever posing that to me before.
But, it is a good question. Do I behave well because I will receive an award? I try to behave well and live a Christian life because it is what I believe is right in my heart. If I just did it to receive an award and not because I believed it, yes, that is behaving badly.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I can't stand the fact there is one homeless person in the United States while we spend billions on space exploration. We need to take care of our own first.

What can YOU do about homelessness? Do you have an extra bedroom in your house? Offer it to a homeless person. If you see an obviously poor person waiting at a bus stop, do you offer him a ride? Do you bake cakes, or cook casseroles, and hand them out to people on the streets? It is very easy for someone to suggest that "the government" (translated- all of us, through our taxes) should pay for the people who have not achieved an acceptable (to the person making the statement) lifestyle.

I have worked in the mental health field for many years. Yes, there are selected cases of unfortunate things happening to hard working people, rendering them homeless. But I believe that is the exception. For many, believe it or not, quite a few people who are homeless prefer it that way. Often when they are taken into a shelter, or given a chance to have a place of their own, they are back on the streets in short order.

M.A.- You are very quick to label people who become pregnant, and go for abortions, "irresponsible". Do you think that irresponsibility might account for some percentage of the homeless? And is society, through the government, obliged to lift up these people?

I believe that it is the job of the non-profit agencies, including religious institutions, to care for the homeless and the downtrodden.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
It seems entirely arbitrary.

In what respect?

First of all, I'll assume that my 'right' to freedom should be limited to some extent, and that this freedom does not extend to killing other people. Is that a fair assumption?

Yup!

Quote:
If so, then you need to explain what differences between a fetus (especially in the very late stages of pregnancy) and a baby make it justifiable to limit freedom to prevent the killing of babies, but not justifiable to limit freedom to prevent the killing of fetuses. Merely stating that the difference is that one is in the womb and the other is not, without explaining why the difference is important, makes the statement arbitrary.

How the hell can you people consider a statement like: The moment an egg is fertilized...there is a whole living human being present....to be logical and reasonable...

...and then consider my comment: "Until it is born into this world...it is not a whole living human being"...to be arbitrary????

Do you have any brains?

Do you use them?

Try again.

Who are 'you people'? No, wait, never mind, you'll only offend someone and evoke ten pages of useless backwards and forwards ranting...

Once again, as I thought would have been clear to anyone capable of reading the English language, I do not think that the statement :"The moment an egg is fertilized...there is a whole living human being present" is logical or reasonable. On the contrary, I find it to be illogical, and frankly absurd.

But if you're saying that because another statement is arbitrary that I cannot say that yours is also arbitrary, then you are scaling new heights of absurdity. I would recommend you take your own advice, and try again.

Frank Apisa wrote:

How the hell can you consider "It is my opinion that until there is birth...there is no "living human being" present"...to be absurd?

Until birth...the object is called a fetus. A fetus....IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING."

I am distinctly uninterested in what you happen to call it. I am interested in the difference in its attributes, and how this difference in attributes makes it fine to destroy it one minute, and utterly wrong to destroy it the next.

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
More generally: where do 'rights' come from? In what sense do they exist?

"Rights"...as I have often mentioned...are a fiction. They truly do not exist as a set of specifics.

A person is born into this world...when it exits its host's body...and has freedom or the right...to do any damn thing it wants.

Governments are instituted among humans to limit that freedom...those unlimited rights. We outlaw certain conduct...usually for reasons that have to do with allowing society to function.

But not just to allow society to function. Also to make society more, well, good. That would be why, for example, torture is illegal. Or is it only wrong to kill because having a law against killing generally make society run more smoothly? If not, if there is something morally wrong with killing, then you must explain why it is morally wrong to kill a person, and why this does not also make it wrong to kill a nearly-born fetus.

I don't have to do any of that...but I have several times already in this thread. I suspect you are voluntarily blind to any arguments in this respect, in any case...so it probably will not register.

Please point out where. The thread is now fairly long, and I haven't read every page, for which I apologise. You certainly haven't done this since I joined the discussion.

0 Replies

Phoenix Wrote:

Quote:

What can YOU do about homelessness? Do you have an extra bedroom in your house? Offer it to a homeless person. If you see an obviously poor person waiting at a bus stop, do you offer him a ride? Do you bake cakes, or cook casseroles, and hand them out to people on the streets? It is very easy for someone to suggest that "the government" (translated- all of us, through our taxes) should pay for the people who have not achieved an acceptable (to the person making the statement) lifestyle.

I have worked in the mental health field for many years. Yes, there are selected cases of unfortunate things happening to hard working people, rendering them homeless. But I believe that is the exception. For many, believe it or not, quite a few people who are homeless prefer it that way. Often when they are taken into a shelter, or given a chance to have a place of their own, they are back on the streets in short order.

M.A.- You are very quick to label people who become pregnant, and go for abortions, "irresponsible". Do you think that irresponsibility might account for some percentage of the homeless? And is society, through the government, obliged to lift up these people?

I believe that it is the job of the non-profit agencies, including religious institutions, to care for the homeless and the downtrodden.

What am I doing? Normally, I wouldn't address this because of those that would say I am blowing my own horn, but since you asked, I will.

We own more than one house. Our biggest home is usually occupied by someone that has no home, no job, nothing. We do what we can to help them get back on their feet while providing them with a place to live.

I also have worked in mental health. 60% of the homeless in our nation are mentally ill. They may appear to want to live the way they do, but because of their mental illnesses, they cannot make rational decisions.

And yes, some are homeless because of irresponsibility. I am concerned with the ones that cannot help themselves or are not given the chance to help themselves. And yes, I believe it is every citizen's duty and responsibility to help take care of those that need it.

If you help someone and they do not use that help to the good then you stop helping them and go help someone else.

0 Replies

I can take or leave this whole discussion - its not unlike a hundred we've had here before. There's just one thing that's unclear to me. I guess he's said it as clearly as he can, but I just am having a hard time believing that ANYONE seriously thinks this. Does anyone else here think there's a big difference between ending the life in the body of a child an hour before it exits it's mother's body, and ending it right after it is outside her body? And if you think that way, can you explain to me what exactly are the quantitative differences? Is it that the "fetus" hasn't breathed O2 on its own yet? Because it can do just about everything else. If someone can explain this without hurling insults, I'd be appreciative.

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

Who are 'you people'?

If you think this applies to you...apply it. If you think it doesn't...pass it by.

Quote:

No, wait, never mind, you'll only offend someone and evoke ten pages of useless backwards and forwards ranting...

Ahhh...so this is what I am in your opinion.

Interesting!

Quote:

Once again, as I thought would have been clear to anyone capable of reading the English language, I do not think that the statement :"The moment an egg is fertilized...there is a whole living human being present" is logical or reasonable. On the contrary, I find it to be illogical, and frankly absurd.

But if you're saying that because another statement is arbitrary that I cannot say that yours is also arbitrary, then you are scaling new heights of absurdity. I would recommend you take your own advice, and try again.

If I have ever said that my statement is not arbitrary..I apologize. But I honestly do not think I've ever said that. In fact, I think every take on this issue is almost of necessity, arbitrary.

I do happen to think my take is less arbitrary than the others.

I think a fertilized egg should be considered a "fertilized egg."

I think a zygote should be considered a "zygote."

I think an embryo should be considered an embryo.

I think a fetus should be considered a fetus.

I do not think any of those things should be considered a "living human being" until the fetus has existed its host's body.

I have no idea of why you have any trouble with this...but I suspect it involves a problem with you and your perceptions....and not with the content of my reasoning.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
How the hell can you consider "It is my opinion that until there is birth...there is no "living human being" present"...to be absurd?

Until birth...the object is called a fetus. A fetus....IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING."

I am distinctly uninterested in what you happen to call it. I am interested in the difference in its attributes, and how this difference in attributes makes it fine to destroy it one minute, and utterly wrong to destroy it the next.

Well...what I "happen to call it" is inexorably involved in why I think what I think in this regard.

While it is in its host's body...while it is a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus...it is my opinion that the host has the option of terminating her pregnancy...for whatever reasons she wants...and at any time that she wants.

I don't know how to make that any more clear. Once again, I suspect you simply are refusing to see my postion for some reasons not yet explained...and that it has nothing whatever to do with whether or not I have articulated my opinions clearly enough....or whether my reasoning is logical.

I have...and it is.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
More generally: where do 'rights' come from? In what sense do they exist?

"Rights"...as I have often mentioned...are a fiction. They truly do not exist as a set of specifics.

A person is born into this world...when it exits its host's body...and has freedom or the right...to do any damn thing it wants.

Governments are instituted among humans to limit that freedom...those unlimited rights. We outlaw certain conduct...usually for reasons that have to do with allowing society to function.

But not just to allow society to function. Also to make society more, well, good. That would be why, for example, torture is illegal. Or is it only wrong to kill because having a law against killing generally make society run more smoothly? If not, if there is something morally wrong with killing, then you must explain why it is morally wrong to kill a person, and why this does not also make it wrong to kill a nearly-born fetus.

I don't have to do any of that...but I have several times already in this thread. I suspect you are voluntarily blind to any arguments in this respect, in any case...so it probably will not register.

Please point out where. The thread is now fairly long, and I haven't read every page, for which I apologise. You certainly haven't done this since I joined the discussion.

I have already given you a very clear explanation of my position.

It is my opinion that a pregnant woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy whenever she wants...for whatever reasons she wants. I do not think that any supposed rights you want to arbitrarily assign to the fetus...trump her rights.

You may not agree with this...and if so...let's discuss it.

But stop pretending that I have not given you a complete and concise explanation of my opinion.

0 Replies

Yes, I am also interested in this, snood.

But the thing that interests me most is the data Terry has presented. I don't want to take the word of just one article, but no-one is countering it. Surely someone from the anti-abortion side of this debate has criticisms of it, or at least links to contradictory research...

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

Yes, I am also interested in this, snood.

But the thing that interests me most is the data Terry has presented. I don't want to take the word of just one article, but no-one is countering it. Surely someone from the anti-abortion side of this debate has criticisms of it, or at least links to contradictory research...

If you and Snood would simply open up your minds....you would see the answer to your question with no problem.

In any case...it is obvious that the idiots on the other side of this question intend to limit a woman's right from the moment an egg is fertilized in her body.

The only way to deal with that is not to budge from the opposite extreme.

So even if I didn't feel as strongly as I do on this issue...I would take that position as a contingency against them gaining ground.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case...it is obvious that the idiots on the other side of this question intend to limit a woman's right from the moment an egg is fertilized in her body.

The only way to deal with that is not to budge from the opposite extreme.

So even if I didn't feel as strongly as I do on this issue...I would take that position as a contingency against them gaining ground.

Well, I guess your tactics are up to you, but it seems to me that this would be playing into your opponents' hands. But never mind....

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't know how to make that any more clear. Once again, I suspect you simply are refusing to see my postion for some reasons not yet explained...and that it has nothing whatever to do with whether or not I have articulated my opinions clearly enough....or whether my reasoning is logical.

You have been absolutely clear what your position is, but rather less clear on why it is you position.

It seems to me like there's you on the one hand, saying "fetuses have no rights because I say so", and Christians on the other saying "fetuses do have rights because God says so". Not believing in God, I'm not going to take the Christians' word for it, but I can't see why I should take yours either.

Every time I ask you why you believe what you do, you merely restate your beliefs. Sparring of insults aside, I am genuinely interested in your point of view, I have no agenda, I may even end up agreeing with you. But I still can't see the big why.

It would help me if you could answer these questions:

(1) What attributes must a thing possess for it to be wrong to kill it?
(2) Why does having these attributes make it wrong to kill it?
(3) Does a new-born baby possess these attributes?
(4) Does a fetus, at any time, possess these attributes?

To be fair, I'll answer them too. I'll be happy to explain further, if necessary.

(1) Sensation. If a thing experiences, it is wrong to cause it to cease to experience.
(2) I wish to stay alive because of the positive (pleasurable) sensations life allows me to experience. I see no other reason to place a value on life. This life may well be the only chance I will ever have to experience. Likewise, anything else that experiences. I think it is wrong to deny anything its only chance to experience.
(3) Highly likely.
(4) Very likely, in the later stages of pregnancy, if Terry's article is to be believed. Certainly it does not at conception, but at some point during pregnancy.

0 Replies

ABORTION

djbt wrote:

Well, I guess your tactics are up to you, but it seems to me that this would be playing into your opponents' hands. But never mind....

Okay...we'll "never mind" on this.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I don't know how to make that any more clear. Once again, I suspect you simply are refusing to see my postion for some reasons not yet explained...and that it has nothing whatever to do with whether or not I have articulated my opinions clearly enough....or whether my reasoning is logical.

You have been absolutely clear what your position is, but rather less clear on why it is you position.

I think you are closing your mind to the "why."

The "why" I call an oak tree...an "oak tree"...is because it is an oak tree.

Adapt that to what you want to know...and it will be clear.

Quote:

It seems to me like there's you on the one hand, saying "fetuses have no rights because I say so"

I said a fetus has no rights??????

Can you tell me where?

I did say that it is my opinion that the fetus has no rights that cause its host to lose certain of her rights. I also said that it is my opinion that a fetus is not a living human being. But I do not remember saying that a fetus has no rights.

Quote:

..., and Christians on the other saying "fetuses do have rights because God says so". Not believing in God, I'm not going to take the Christians' word for it, but I can't see why I should take yours either.

I'm not asking you to take my word on anything. You are asking for my opinions...and I am giving them.

Quote:

Every time I ask you why you believe what you do...

You are never going to get anywhere asking me about "beliefs." I have none.

If you want opinions, I will give them. If you want guesses...I may give them. But don't suppose I have "beliefs", because I don't.

Quote:

...., you merely restate your beliefs.

NEVER!

Quote:

Sparring of insults aside, I am genuinely interested in your point of view, I have no agenda, I may even end up agreeing with you. But I still can't see the big why.

Okay...let's talk about my point of view.

Quote:

It would help me if you could answer these questions:

(1) What attributes must a thing possess for it to be wrong to kill it?

If it is alive...a case can be made that it is "wrong" to kill it.

I try not to kill things. I shoo mosquitos...and capture spiders in the house to release them outside.

I try never to kill vegetable matter unnecessarily (mushrooms on a golf course, comes to mind.)

Quote:

(2) Why does having these attributes make it wrong to kill it?

If it is alive...it should be allowed to continue to stay alive. That is strictly an opinion. Nothing more complicated than that.

Obviously, this is not something set in stone. Sometimes bees will not cooperate...and a decent family barbecue requires more than reasoning with them. They die. Sometimes a mushroom is in the way of a shot...and gets clipped. Sometimes a mosquito takes me by surprise and gets squashed rather than shooed.

Quote:

(3) Does a new-born baby possess these attributes?

Yep.

Quote:

(4) Does a fetus, at any time, possess these attributes?

Yep.

Quote:

To be fair, I'll answer them too. I'll be happy to explain further, if necessary.

(1) Sensation. If a thing experiences, it is wrong to cause it to cease to experience.
(2) I wish to stay alive because of the positive (pleasurable) sensations life allows me to experience. I see no other reason to place a value on life. This life may well be the only chance I will ever have to experience. Likewise, anything else that experiences. I think it is wrong to deny anything its only chance to experience.
(3) Highly likely.
(4) Very likely, in the later stages of pregnancy, if Terry's article is to be believed. Certainly it does not at conception, but at some point during pregnancy.

Whatever.

I tried to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.

Make your point. We can discuss it. I am interested in where you are going with this.

0 Replies

Thanks for your patience and repose, dgbt. I think you make excellent points. Some here try to lump everyone together as "the other side" of a 2-sided argument, when it isn't necessary. In this case for instance, my interest isn't in trying to side with anti or pro abortion camps. I'm interested in dissecting the thought processes of those who so resignedly leap to, and hold to, one side or the other. Why, as you've so much more eloquently pointed out, would anyone insist there's a quantifiable difference between a baby inside the womb and moments outside of it, that's immutable enough that with these differences, hard lines of political and legal argument can be drawn? Besides the regretable tendency so prevalent in this country for everyone to try to herd everything and everyone into 2-dimensional categories of "right", "wrong", "liberal", "conservative", etc., I can't understand a reasonable human being who doesn't at least minimally struggle with the very complicated subtleties involved.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I said a fetus has no rights??????

Can you tell me where?

I did say that it is my opinion that the fetus has no rights that cause its host to lose certain of her rights. I also said that it is my opinion that a fetus is not a living human being. But I do not remember saying that a fetus has no rights.

Fair enough.

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
Every time I ask you why you believe what you do...

You are never going to get anywhere asking me about "beliefs." I have none.

If you want opinions, I will give them. If you want guesses...I may give them. But don't suppose I have "beliefs", because I don't.

Sorry to use unclear language. By 'beliefs' I meant opinions.

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
(1) What attributes must a thing possess for it to be wrong to kill it?

If it is alive...a case can be made that it is "wrong" to kill it.

I try not to kill things. I shoo mosquitos...and capture spiders in the house to release them outside.

I try never to kill vegetable matter unnecessarily (mushrooms on a golf course, comes to mind.)

I agree.

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
(2) Why does having these attributes make it wrong to kill it?

If it is alive...it should be allowed to continue to stay alive. That is strictly an opinion. Nothing more complicated than that.

Obviously, this is not something set in stone. Sometimes bees will not cooperate...and a decent family barbecue requires more than reasoning with them. They die. Sometimes a mushroom is in the way of a shot...and gets clipped. Sometimes a mosquito takes me by surprise and gets squashed rather than shooed.

Well, I'd say that a bee's interest in staying alive outweighs your interest in having a barbecue nearby to it, but that's another discussion. Generally we agree.

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
(3) Does a new-born baby possess these attributes?

Yep.

djbt wrote:
(4) Does a fetus, at any time, possess these attributes?

Yep...

I tried to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.

Make your point. We can discuss it. I am interested in where you are going with this.

Now I feel like I should have some cunning trap to spring... sorry to disappoint, but I'm trying to understand your position, rather than make a point.

Anyway, we seem to agree that a case can be made that it is wrong to kill a fetus, that it should be allowed to stay alive. You say, it would seem, that it would be more wrong to partially and temporarily deny someone their right to freedom to act as they please than it would be wrong to kill someone. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

0 Replies

Abortion? Look around you. Life is cheap.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Thanks for your patience and repose, dgbt. I think you make excellent points. Some here try to lump everyone together as "the other side" of a 2-sided argument, when it isn't necessary. In this case for instance, my interest isn't in trying to side with anti or pro abortion camps. I'm interested in dissecting the thought processes of those who so resignedly leap to, and hold to, one side or the other. Why, as you've so much more eloquently pointed out, would anyone insist there's a quantifiable difference between a baby inside the womb and moments outside of it, that's immutable enough that with these differences, hard lines of political and legal argument can be drawn? Besides the regretable tendency so prevalent in this country for everyone to try to herd everything and everyone into 2-dimensional categories of "right", "wrong", "liberal", "conservative", etc., I can't understand a reasonable human being who doesn't at least minimally struggle with the very complicated subtleties involved.

Thanks, snood. It is frustrating when a debate descend to just a clash of extremes. I blame the media. Seriously, I know someone who wrote a pitch for a documentary for the BBC, and they turned it down because it took a sensible, logical, middle-ground view. They thought it was well-researched and intelligently approached, but that viewers would prefer two extreme positions presented in opposition, rather than a honest attempt to present the facts objectively. Oh well...

I haven't got a handle on your position on all this abortion malarky yet. What would be your answers to my questions?

0 Replies

ABORTION.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know