Would you convict this man?

@William,

William;66541 wrote:

It think it is ironic in todays politically correct society, when a woman becomes pregnant it's; "We're pregnant". But when she decides to abort, it's "her" baby and it's her body. When in fact that baby does not belong to her. That child belongs to both the mother and the father. See what tangle webs we weave.....!

William

Yes, but it's her body. And I think most of us can agree on that our society puts the responsebility of a child on the mother. (And I think that it usually "Im' pregnant")

@Lily,

Lily;66546 wrote:

Yes, but it's her body. And I think most of us can agree on that our society puts the responsebility of a child on the mother. (And I think that it usually "Im' pregnant")

The unborn child's body isn't the body of the mother.

@henry quirk,

henry quirk;66539 wrote:

"How come it should not be your concern?"

because it isn't...that's all the reason 'i' need

"Why should you not care?"

again: because 'i' don't

"Why does there have to be a relationship for you to care?"

that's one of 'my' criteria...i'm sure you have your own

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 AM ----------

"Hey Quirk, if you don't care about anything then why are you in a philosophy forum?"

where did i post that i don't care about anything?

please: direct me to the post or posts #'s

as for why i'm here: to discuss and debate...same reason as you, i'm guessing

Hey Henry, if you are going to use irony, please indicate that it is "ironic" and proceed. If you assume that it is understood, you come off as a "quirk". People have a hard time relating to "quirks" and most dismiss them immediately. Judging by your name, is your modus operandi as you are doing it intentionally. If so, would you please enlightened me as to "why"? Considering effective communication is so complicated, why complicate it further?

Just curious is all.
Thanks,

William

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;66547 wrote:

The unborn child's body isn't the body of the mother.

I don't know why I am bothering...Sure it is. The unborn cannot survive outside the mother's body before it fully developed. Without modern technology to keep premature babies alive, they would die.

@Lily,

Lily;66546 wrote:

Yes, but it's her body. And I think most of us can agree on that our society puts the responsebility of a child on the mother. (And I think that it usually "Im' pregnant")

Then, Lily, my sweet you must become "politically incorrect" and not listen to every thing society dictates. No "Mother" would.

William

---------- Post added at 11:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

salima;66545 wrote:

i too had always wondered why the father had no rights in the case of a woman wanting to have an abortion. i guess if you believe the foetus is part of the woman's body then you think the father is nothing. do people really believe that? i cant imagine a doctor saying that...

another question i had was, assuming we will agree to the fact that human beings have souls and are more than their physical body, when do they think the soul comes into the body? after birth? three months after conception?

i am also really interested about your observation, william, that " We do not have the answers yet to universally define the roles of man and woman. We are still discovering those." i definitely totally agree with that. that could be a whole new thread...i also agree that this problem is behind a lot of other problems in society, everywhere in the world, not just in the west.

It will take a little time and I would like to respond a little deeper. I just need to find the language. That's the hard part.

Thanks again,
William

@Bonaventurian,

I don't believe there is such thing as a soul.

@Bonaventurian,

The father doesnt carry the child and most of the time it's the woman who is it's primary carer, because of this and that she's carrying it, it's her decision. If it were men who carried it then it wuld be exactly the same-it would be their decision, it's not a question of rights, it's a question of what's best for everyone. Bo has failed to include what is best for the mother, more or less saying she's got no rights and noone has got the right to say that. Nor has anyone got the right to force a woman to carry a child for nine months because they are the father or because of thier beliefs. If a father is going to force the mother to carry the child because he is the father then he should have been more responsible and not got her pregnant in the first place. What if the mother wants to keep it but the father doesnt, are you going to force her to abort because you think you have to include what the father wants or do you change the rules again to suit your beliefs aswell as ignoring the womans rights and ignoring or not bothering to research how these women feel to gain a perspective and insight.

@Theaetetus,

irony was not intended, william

i was asked 'How come it should not be your concern?, Why should you not care?, and, Why does there have to be a relationship for you to care?'

my responses were: 'because it isn't...that's all the reason 'i' need, again: because 'i' don't, and, that's one of 'my' criteria...i'm sure you have your own'

i mean simply this: the death of a stranger is not my concern because 'it is not my concern'...as i see: strangers die all the time...in accidents, through violence, in war, and in sleep

i should care for them all?

or: am i to care 'more' for the publicized deaths?

or: am i to care because convention demands it?

it follows: when i care, the person in question is someone i have an acquaintance with...either as friend or enemy

if friend: i mourn the death, regardless of the cause of death

if enemy: i applaud the death, regardless of the cause of death

again: irony was not intended

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;66555 wrote:

I don't know why I am bothering...Sure it is. The unborn cannot survive outside the mother's body before it fully developed. Without modern technology to keep premature babies alive, they would die.

Thought experiment. You have a comatose man hooked to a life support machine. The comatose man is dependent on the life support machine. He cannot survive away from it. Without the life support machine, he will die.

Is his body part of the life support machine? That is to say, if you take him away from the life support machine, are you actually harming the life support machine?

Clearly not. You are killing the comatose man. The comatose man's body is autonomous from the life support machine, even if one is physically dependent on the other for survival.

Likewise, it doesn't really matter that the unborn child is physically dependent on the mother. The body of the unborn child is not the body of the mother, and Leibniz's Law of the Indiscernibility of Identicals tells us that much. You are speaking nonsense.

---------- Post added at 12:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 PM ----------

Caroline;66562 wrote:

The father doesnt carry the child and most of the time it's the woman who is it's primary carer, because of this and that she's carrying it, it's her decision. If it were men who carried it then it wuld be exactly the same-it would be their decision, it's not a question of rights, it's a question of what's best for everyone. Bo has failed to include what is best for the mother, more or less saying she's got no rights and noone has got the right to say that.

No person has the right to commit murder. Nobody. Quoting Metallica, "Who made you God to say 'I'll take your life from you'?"

@Bonaventurian,

"No person has the right to commit murder"

i disagree, since 'right' and 'rights' are simply sometimes useful fictions

but: even is there was some 'right' to life, it -- the 'right' -- appears meaningless/impotent since every day lives are taken left and right

joe bludgeons stan with a hammer...janice aborts her fetal girl...lucy shoots alvin...and on and on

even if 'No person has the right to commit murder' sure as hell that 'fact' doesn't seem to stop anyone...

@Bonaventurian,

Quoting songs doesn't really address any of the points I made. I took the time to respond to points made in this thread, I dont think making statements like "no one has the right to commit murder" and quoting heavy metal songs warrants a good enough debate to continue. We have established that we disagree on the defination of what is murder. Who made you God to tell me what to do because of your belief? quote by Caroline.

---------- Post added at 12:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------

Besides you condone the murder of the Dr?

@Bonaventurian,

I agree with Caroline. I am sick of these pointless 'debates' littered with Metallica song lyrics taken out of context. Leibniz's Law of the Indiscernibility of Identicals has nothing to do with this topic, considering that there are not two distinct objects in the case of pregnant mother and her fetus.

@salima,

salima;66545 wrote:

i too had always wondered why the father had no rights in the case of a woman wanting to have an abortion. i guess if you believe the foetus is part of the woman's body then you think the father is nothing. do people really believe that? i cant imagine a doctor saying that...

another question i had was, assuming we will agree to the fact that human beings have souls and are more than their physical body, when do they think the soul comes into the body? after birth? three months after conception?

i am also really interested about your observation, william, that " We do not have the answers yet to universally define the roles of man and woman. We are still discovering those." i definitely totally agree with that. that could be a whole new thread...i also agree that this problem is behind a lot of other problems in society, everywhere in the world, not just in the west.

Salima,
Now this is going to take a completely neutral mind to follow. Please do not allow any bias you may have gathered to influence your ability to at least hear what I have to say. Please. In other words those perceptions that feed your ego.

Now we have to go back a little way to a time of which there is not recorded fact. The beginning of "human life" and what I consider the Genesis of it all. Please those "evolutionist" among you please restrict your input to what is human, not what is animal.

In my most humble opinion, man and woman represent the connection of the heavens and the earth. A most common phrase we toss around these days; "heaven and earth". Man, the heaven; woman, the earth. "Mother Nature; Father, God. Now we just didn't arbitrarily come up with those everyday phrases, IMO they were implanted, so to speak. You will be amazed how much truth you will find in the simplest of our language.
Now the heavens represent some imaginary place that is "up" distinguishing it what is "down", the Earth. That interpretation is where the truth began to get tainted. There is no separation. It's all the same place. What instituted that very first maladjustment that began further contamination is the woman was conceived from man and thereby offering the only "authority" as man was the "only" creation of God and woman just a "helpmate". When in truth God created both separately to bring the Earth and the Heavens into harmony. Man being the "Heavens" or God Head and woman being the "Mother Earth" in a partnership. That's why even what I am saying here can be misconstrued to offer man has autonomy over woman as we have always referred to both as being "mankind". Big mistake.

Yes, I believe there is an order to it all but as I effort to express that in today's climate, it will be viewed as prejudicial. That's why I said you must allow your mind to be neutral. There is a hierarchy. But it is also a harmonic one. Man/Heaven; Earth/Woman/child. That is the universal, intelligent design as I understand it. IMO. As God (man) provided the Earth (woman) the home(child). Man provides for woman the home for which she can bring forth her child. Simple, cut and dried. Huh? Now that is Eden. As interpretation goes, it was not until they were "cast" out of there home was the child conceived as a punishment of sorts, based on how one interprets it. Not good and a bad interpretation on man's part. Once we start messing with this universal paradigm another axiom we have created comes into affect; "What goes around comes around".

Because of our erroneous interpretations that offered his autonomy led to that "dominance" and the word "obey" in the marriage vows. There are many erroneous words we have created in our vocabulary that should not belong there. Those were created in our attempts to "understand and defend" our life as we "know it". In other words they are indeed a part of our educational process which is in fact "trial and error". It is the dominance of man "over woman" that has separated the heavens and the Earth and created the "ungodly" amount of turmoil that exist today. So we should have said "humankind" instead "mankind". We, man and woman, were created separate but equal. Yet as we even attempt to define equal gets bogged down in language.

Now we bring the child into this confused picture and that poor soul doesn't stand a chance; male or female. And the final straw is a woman's permission to kill her unborn child. God's way of saying enough is enough. Now you can interpret that any ******* way you want to. Now I am sure there is a reason I said that. As I have often said, sometimes my post even surprise myself. So are we on the brink of something. Yeah, I think we are.

Now I know this sounds like Bible Talk, and if it does it is because that book is what has caused the most harm because it has the most power in the world. IMO. It is all about interpretation and man's interpretation of God and treats woman as an after thought. Hmmmm? Bad mistake, hence the saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." We all suffer. Now oddly enough that phrase comes from two "Williams' "; the first was William Congreve (1697) from his play "The Mourning Bride" and later quoted by William Shakespeare whom most think the phrase originated. The complete quote from Congreve is "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." Congreve also wrote "The Way of the World". Now I am getting chill bumps.:perplexed: Ha. My last name begins with Con.......!

Now all the problems over the centuries are a few to numerous to mention; but you can be assured they all come from man's domination and that came from, among other things the religions he wrote. Now the Bible is not the first religious tome. Yet none of them regard that value that is Woman. Hey, guy's have we screwed up or what? Mankind needs to get his act together. Men and women aren't equal as we define it. It is those wonderful differences that draw us together. They weren't meant to be "equals". There is a universal reason for both and that is to bring forth life. We must bring harmony to that union. As far as the rest, I have related in all my other posts. Again, IMMHO.
Thank you Salima for making me dig a little deeper.
Your friend,
William
PS: If a moderator want to create another thread such as "Man and Woman" be my guest.

---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

henry quirk;66563 wrote:

irony was not intended, william

i mean simply this: the death of a stranger is not my concern because 'it is not my concern'...as i see: strangers die all the time...in accidents, through violence, in war, and in sleep
i should care for them all?
again: irony was not intended

This thread is not about accidents, violence (as you are I assume you are referring to, though it is violent) war, or sleep.

No sir, you are not required to care about anything. All I can say then you are living up to your self proclaimed avatar and as far as your location, you could find me with a road map. IMO.

William

@William,

"This thread is not about accidents, violence (as you are I assume you are referring to, though it is violent) war, or sleep."

william: all my comments in this thread are relevant to this thread

if you doubt this: go back and read the thread...witness, if you like, the flux and flow of the conversation...certainly: go back and read my initial post in this thread

i'm sure the relevance of 'accidents, violence, war, or sleep' will be apparent

i note: still, no one attempts to dispute, refute, counter, or diminish my positions

this is a 'philosophy' forum, yes?

So: instead of the predictable 'distaste', how about a little debate?

*shrug*

"you are not required to care about anything"

this is the second time someone implies or states i don't care about anything

i never said i don't care about anything...to state or imply that i did is either reactionaryism, or, illiteracy

"you could find me with a road map"

bully for you!

Wink

@Bonaventurian,

There's a very big difference between Tiller and someone like Hitler. Hitler had the power, he made the decisions, he ordererd the killing. If someone had shot Hitler the killing and the war would have ended. Tiller was shot, are they changing laws now? If you disagree with something, either accept it or make a change, don't be grumpy and go and shoot someone. And btw, the pope recently spoke against condoms in areas in Africa with HIV. Should I go and shoot him?

@Caroline,

Caroline;66562 wrote:

The father doesnt carry the child and most of the time it's the woman who is it's primary carer, because of this and that she's carrying it, it's her decision. If it were men who carried it then it wuld be exactly the same-it would be their decision, it's not a question of rights, it's a question of what's best for everyone. Bo has failed to include what is best for the mother, more or less saying she's got no rights and noone has got the right to say that. Nor has anyone got the right to force a woman to carry a child for nine months because they are the father or because of thier beliefs. If a father is going to force the mother to carry the child because he is the father then he should have been more responsible and not got her pregnant in the first place. What if the mother wants to keep it but the father doesnt, are you going to force her to abort because you think you have to include what the father wants or do you change the rules again to suit your beliefs aswell as ignoring the womans rights and ignoring or not bothering to research how these women feel to gain a perspective and insight.

Hello Caroline,
First and foremost it is not the male who controls the impregnation of a woman; it is the woman. Unless it is indeed rape. Abortion in not exclusively about rape or incest or the health of the mother. It has become a method of birth control for irresponsible and irrational sexual behavior. Let me explain what I think.

Allow me to make an assumption as to why women today regard the unborn child as "her child". Now she doesn't come out and say that. The emphasis is place on "her body" and because it is her body, she can do with it what she wants to. As I mentioned earlier the use of "we're pregnant" and "It's my baby, when it come to abortion" as an irony. It is not ironic; those two phrases come from two different constructs. One of which there is a father present and one in which there isn't. One agrees having a child is a family matter, father/mother/child; in same sex situations, 'we" can't get pregnant. It comes from single woman who are having children, they have to proclaim "it is my baby" for there is no father in the picture. Because, IMO, she has had an abortion and it gives her a relief to espouse such an erroneous excuse for in truth she does not know why she had a abortion in the first place. There has to be a reason that will allow her to believe that what she did was right. You see, Caroline, it was not really, IMO, in most cases her fault.

"It is my body" concept is a phrase that was coined by the radical feminist movement that led to Roe v Wade that led to the legalization of abortions. Now what allowed that voice to emerge, is the real reason behind abortion, of which I will not get into now. The radical feminist are man haters for reasons I think stemmed from family dysfunction involving the behavior of the ego driven male who dominated his family, that created that feminist anger. It could have arisen from incest or other characteristics attributable to both male and female domination. Male domination of the female has been going one for millennia and it has always been wrong as is those instances in which the female dominates. I addressed this in another post. Feminism is a consequence of that. In a male/female love relationship, there is no such domination.

Here is the real irony. The feminist that instituted the "it is my body" language that was the instrumental foundation that legalized abortions, would never have to worry about getting an abortion for she would never allow a man to get that close to her. Now thanks to the "miracle of science", and I use the term very loosely, she can get pregnant. And I promise you when she does, she will never opt for an abortion. Not in a million years. So the reproductive rights came from an outside source. The real reason for abortions. Again, I will not get into that here. I was writing a thesis on the real reason behind abortions, but I don't think I need to. It is coming out a little at a time in ways that will explain it better. There was an agenda afoot in which the radical feminist was merely a tool.

Now what I am about to say is strictly based on my opinion and is open for debate. Why there are so many fatherless, single woman/child "homes". There is no clear definitive proof of the repercussions that a woman feels once she has aborted a child. And I would never, in a million years try and make her feel "guilty". I explained that above. I am not a woman and do not know what she goes through; I can only imagine. I just cannot believe she would just abort without it having some kind of affect, since in my mind she and her ability to give life as she does, is the most wondrous miracle of the universe and to go against that innate purpose has to carry with it some repercussions, just as it should in the male that fathered the child to a certain extent dependent on how much he cares for the woman. All to often, he care's more for the woman than she cares for him. In her mind, because of her biological clock she doesn't take the time to develop the relationship especially when she "needs" to have a child.

Now, as I have mentioned the woman has all the controls as to when sexual intercourse occurs. In that they know more about the singularity of the male sex drive, she can get pregnant any time she wants to. No doubt about it and there are plenty of men who will supply the sperm that will allow her to do just that. I am of the opinion the reason why there are so many fatherless homes is because once a woman has had an abortion, as some sort of measure to relieve that remorse, which I can only assume must exist, she must have a child to offset the one she aborted. Having a father in the picture isn't a part of that equation. Sure she would like to think he would be, but you see, there was no courtship involved. It didn't matter, she had to have a child. When you combine the innate desire to bring life, coupled with that deed that did take that life, makes it all more reason to recompense for the deed. It is not a matter of "hating men", for most of these women are normal, healthy heterosexual women. IMO. It's just their desire for atonement supercedes anything else. Having the child is all that matters.

Caroline, I hope this brings a little more clarity as my life's work has been dedicated to understanding why human being's do the things they do. Most are just innocent bystanders trying to survive life, when they should be a part of that life. I can only hope that this helped in arriving at that understanding that will explain why we kill our unborn. Though there is much that I have not said, but as it relates to your post, I hope it was sufficient. IMMHO, from a male prospective. Please feel free to comment. Smile

William

@Bonaventurian,

The key is prevention-not to get pregnant in the first place but accidents happen, noone wants to go through an abortion it is often the last resort, the hardest decision and pain for the rest of ones life and people dont need others shoving their beliefs down your throat when your going through such a traumatic experience. Prevention.

---------- Post added at 04:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 AM ----------

re:william, birth control is both peoples responsibiliy. If I were a man i'd be wearing a condom, i wouldnt be taking any chances. I dont know where you get this idea that it is soley the womans responsibity, because it is both. The act takes two, two people are responsible, i think its a bit of a cop out to say anything else such as it is the womans responsibilty only. You say its the womans responsibility to get pregnant, who gets her pregnant!?????? She cant get pregnant on her own can she so its not her responsibility entirely, is it!!!! Cop out. It takes two people to impregnate a woman therefore two peopl are responsible making it two peoples responsibilty to prevent it, im sorry i dont believe its all on the womans shoulders i think that is a cop out.
And saying abortin is a method for birth control is the most ridiculas horrifying thing you can say, i cant believe someone has actualy said that, it doesnt even warrant a response, ignorance is prevailant in this thread, yes i think i'd rather have an abortion then use any other form of birth control, i think i can have unprotected sex whenever because i can just nip down the hospital after work and get it sucked out of me blah blah blah, you really have no idea do you. I advise you all to go away and do your research. Apart from the medical implications of having one abortion let alone using it as a form of birth control, (which it isnt is it?), the trauma surrounding it, well i couldnt imagine anyone thinking, "ah well dont worry about contraception love, i'll just nip down the hospital when i've finished shopping". Have you actually done any research? Any of you?

And noone has addressed the point i made about what if the father wants to abort but the mother doesnt, again do your rules change? Are his rights not included now because it doesnt tie in with your beliefs? If you want to talk about rights then you must include everyones no matter what the scenario. Its all very hypocrtical and hypthetical with no actual real research included to substantiate any of your points.

@Bonaventurian,

Yea I find it really tiresome that so many of us conjure up the worst possible motives for doing <whatever>, then go around spouting it as if is therefore the reason EVERYONE does similarly. Why is that, I wonder?

@Bonaventurian,

RE: William There are single mothers and fatherless children because of many reasons and I do not believe that it is because they've all had an abortion, felt so bad about it that they had a child to offset these feelings. Again im afraid to say that i have to say this assumption is ridiculas and again i say do your research because if you did you would find varying interesting results. There are many reasons why there are single parent families and like i said saying it's because all of them felt remorse over having an abortion, well what facts is that based on william? for a start your saying that every one of these women have had an abortion.???????? That's alot of women. Why dont you find out the real reasons.

@Caroline,

Caroline;66788 wrote:

The key is prevention-not to get pregnant in the first place but accidents happen, noone wants to go through an abortion it is often the last resort, the hardest decision and pain for the rest of ones life and people dont need others shoving their beliefs down your throat when your going through such a traumatic experience. Prevention.

---------- Post added at 04:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 AM ----------

re:william, birth control is both peoples responsibiliy. If I were a man i'd be wearing a condom, i wouldnt be taking any chances. I dont know where you get this idea that it is soley the womans responsibity, because it is both. The act takes two, two people are responsible, i think its a bit of a cop out to say anything else such as it is the womans responsibilty only. You say its the womans responsibility to get pregnant, who gets her pregnant!?????? She cant get pregnant on her own can she so its not her responsibility entirely, is it!!!! Cop out. It takes two people to impregnate a woman therefore two peopl are responsible making it two peoples responsibilty to prevent it, im sorry i dont believe its all on the womans shoulders i think that is a cop out.
And saying abortin is a method for birth control is the most ridiculas horrifying thing you can say, i cant believe someone has actualy said that, it doesnt even warrant a response, ignorance is prevailant in this thread, yes i think i'd rather have an abortion then use any other form of birth control, i think i can have unprotected sex whenever because i can just nip down the hospital after work and get it sucked out of me blah blah blah, you really have no idea do you. I advise you all to go away and do your research. Apart from the medical implications of having one abortion let alone using it as a form of birth control, (which it isnt is it?), the trauma surrounding it, well i couldnt imagine anyone thinking, "ah well dont worry about contraception love, i'll just nip down the hospital when i've finished shopping". Have you actually done any research? Any of you?

And noone has addressed the point i made about what if the father wants to abort but the mother doesnt, again do your rules change? Are his rights not included now because it doesnt tie in with your beliefs? If you want to talk about rights then you must include everyones no matter what the scenario. Its all very hypocrtical and hypthetical with no actual real research included to substantiate any of your points.

hi caroline-
i know your post was directed to william, but i would like to step in here. i agree that prevention is the key-if it worked there would be far less reasons for anyone to seek abortions. that is why i consider it to be solely MY responsibility whether or not i get pregnant. (lol, not now, before when i was young i mean). but i do not tell all women that it is their responsibility. i reason it out this way-there are better temporary guaranteed ways of not getting pregnant for a woman than there are for a man-at least last i had any reason to investigate it. a condom is not a very good way not to get pregnant. what i am saying is i chose to be responsible for whether or not i got pregnant when that was a possibility.

a man wanting to abort and the mother doesnt isnt the same issue. it goes back to whether or not abortion is murder. either it is or it isnt, it doesnt matter whether it is the man or the woman who wants to do it. if i had taken responsibility for conceiving a child, i would also have to choose a partner to raise that child. suppose my husband decided he wanted me to have an abortion. should he be able to force me to have one? if the basis is that abortion is murder, then no, he should not be able to force me to have an abortion. furthermore since he took part in the act of conception he should be financially responsible for the child as well as me. but he should not be forced to keep the child in his home and behave as a father to him-he would make a rotten father anyway.

so how is it that a couple becomes pregnant and the man wants the child and the woman doesnt? it happens. i do believe that the man's wish to have his child should be considered. there are a number of ways that could be done. his motives would have to be verified, and his ability to care for the child. but here the woman has agreed to conceive, now she may have to agree to bear the child. she should certainly not be forced to rear it-remove it from her at birth by all means. and she too should be held financially responsible in part for its upbringing.

i am not in favor of stopping abortion for the reason that anyone who wants to have one would not make a good mother to that child. we do not need any more lousy parenting in this world. i am not making any judgment whether or not it is moral or immoral, because i only do that for myself, not others.

there have to be laws in society to protect people from being hurt but we can carry that too far. where do we draw the line? protecting the helpless is a good start. i resented being told i had to wear a helmet riding a motorcycle-MY BODY MY CHOICE. i am not helpless. the unborn child is helpless. the argument then becomes: if it is not a child, not a human being, when does it become one and how? do you know the answer to that? if there is a law that abortion is illegal, i will not do it. if society decides abortion should be legal, i am not going to go out and kill all the doctors who do it and the people who want it done even if i think abortion is murder. there are other more appropriate ways of communicating.

does that answer your question?

Philosophy Forum

Would you convict this man?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know