Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 11:50 PM
281 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 280 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,321 Year: 15,144/29,783 Month: 1,088/1,502 Week: 86/492 Day: 49/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
30NextFF
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
Phat
Member
Posts: 11300
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 286 of 441 (837717)
08-07-2018 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by jar
08-07-2018 4:12 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
BUT... again, what I think personally is and should be irrelevant to the question of abortion.
If you were a voter your position would indeed be relevant.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by jar, posted 08-07-2018 4:12 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by jar, posted 08-07-2018 4:27 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 287 of 441 (837718)
08-07-2018 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Phat
08-07-2018 4:22 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Phat writes:

If you were a voter your position would indeed be relevant.

No Phat, I am a voter and still what I think personally is and should be irrelevant to the question of abortion.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Phat, posted 08-07-2018 4:22 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 441 (837722)
08-07-2018 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
08-07-2018 4:15 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Someone I know personally, married to one man for forty years, told me she'd had four abortions because children would interfere with their lifestyle. I had the impression it was more her husband's desire than her own but that wasn't stated. No idea how representative they may be.

I suspect that the answer is that it as representative as are all of your anecdotes.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 08-07-2018 4:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 289 of 441 (837731)
08-08-2018 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Percy
08-07-2018 12:24 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:

Why does society have to decide?


Because that's what society does - it makes policy to protect it's citizens. We have decided that we need to protect the rights of the unborn as well as the born.

Why isn't it the woman's choice?

And why should it be? A mother can not kill her baby when it is outside her body why should she be able to when it is within her? The question that you and Jar refuse to answer is critical. What is different about the baby immediately before birth that would give the mother the right to kill it?

I don't think a true abortion is possible just before birth. How would the abortion be accomplished except by inducing labor, which would produce birth, not an abortion.

So are you talking about killing the fetus (in which case the answer depends upon when life begins) or aborting the fetus (which likely isn't possible)?

How about we abandon the semantics and think about the principles.

If you believe that it's the woman's choice what happens to her baby while it's within her does she have the right to, let's say terminate, her pregnancy right up to the moment of birth? If not, why not?

Then all you have is your feelings that you're trying to impose on others.

Yes as I've said repeatedly, it's the feelings of people that form our laws. We collectively feel that theft is wrong so we punish it. These are moral issues that have non-objective groundings. We collectively feel that it is wrong to kill a baby just before birth so our laws prohibit it. Your feelings may be different and Jar pretends his are but I doubt they are actually much different. But if they are very different we take the views of the majority as best we can given the way our institutions are structured.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Percy, posted 08-07-2018 12:24 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 8:48 AM Tangle has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17736
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 290 of 441 (837732)
08-08-2018 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Stile
08-07-2018 3:33 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Stile writes:

Tangle writes:

And I'm not claiming all abortions are simply inconveniences, just a large number of them are.


I don't think that's true either.

I would even go so far as to say possibly even none are.
Can you dig up one example even? - Where a woman had an abortion and her reason was that the baby was "simply an inconvenience?"

I think this short excerpt from Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives indicates that back in 2004 inconvenience was one of the reasons women cited, though the study doesn't use that specific term:

quote:
Thirty-eight percent indicated that having a baby would interfere with their education, and the same proportion said it would interfere with their employment.

If you look at Table 2, the top four items seem to fall into the category of inconvenience:

Reason2004
(N=1,160)
1987
(N=1,900)
Having a baby would dramatically change my life 7478
  Would interfere with education3836
  Would interfere with job/employment/career3850
  Have other children or dependents3222

While I'm male so I guess you could argue my feelings are irrelevant, my own reaction was that it would be inconvenient.

I think it could also be argued that inconvenient is the wrong term, that it minimizes the impact of an unwanted child. Life-shattering might be more accurate.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Stile, posted 08-07-2018 3:33 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by jar, posted 08-08-2018 8:45 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 296 by Stile, posted 08-08-2018 10:12 AM Percy has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 291 of 441 (837733)
08-08-2018 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Percy
08-08-2018 8:04 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:

I think it could also be argued that inconvenient is the wrong term, that it minimizes the impact of an unwanted child. Life-shattering might be more accurate.

Remember the child.

If a child really is unwanted, if a parent really is unable or unwilling to properly raise the child but never does anything so egregious as to warrant removing the child from that situation, does society have any responsibility for creating the situation in the first place?

Mother always liked YOU best!


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 8:04 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17736
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 292 of 441 (837734)
08-08-2018 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Tangle
08-08-2018 3:04 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:

Percy writes:

Why does society have to decide?


Because that's what society does - it makes policy to protect it's citizens. We have decided that we need to protect the rights of the unborn as well as the born.

Can the unborn be considered citizens if they have no birth certificate?

Which unborn should society protect? Zygotes? Blastocysts? Embryos? Fetuses?

Or answering the same question again but based on time instead of state: After 1 week? 5 weeks? 10 weeks? 20 weeks? 30 weeks? 40 weeks?

Or answering the same question again but based on developmental characteristics: At conception? When there's a ball of cells? At implantation? When there's a head? When there's a heart? When there's a heartbeat? When there are fingernails? When it begins moving?

Why isn't it the woman's choice?

And why should it be?

Isn't the answer obvious? Need anything really be said?

A mother can not kill her baby when it is outside her body why should she be able to when it is within her?

When is it alive? You can only kill what is alive.

The question that you and Jar refuse to answer is critical. What is different about the baby immediately before birth that would give the mother the right to kill it?

Jar and I *have* answered the question many times (we don't know), you just refuse to accept it. You are the one refusing to provide an answer. Let me prove that you're not answering the question once again: When does life begin? The proof will be you lack of answer in your response.

I don't think a true abortion is possible just before birth. How would the abortion be accomplished except by inducing labor, which would produce birth, not an abortion.

So are you talking about killing the fetus (in which case the answer depends upon when life begins) or aborting the fetus (which likely isn't possible)?

How about we abandon the semantics and think about the principles.

Whether the fetus is alive before birth is not a semantic question. Stop avoiding the question. Phrasing the question a bit differently and a bit more directly, is the fetus alive before birth?

If you believe that it's the woman's choice what happens to her baby while it's within her does she have the right to, let's say terminate, her pregnancy right up to the moment of birth? If not, why not?

I'd like to answer your question, I really would, but in practical terms I don't see how it's possible to terminate a pregnancy just prior to the moment of birth. Let's say the woman is 10 cm dilated and the crown of the head is visible, likely just a very few more pushes are necessary, but suddenly the woman announces, "I'd like to terminate." How would that work exactly? That's a rhetorical question. I'm just trying to clear about why I don't see how terminating a pregnancy just before birth is possible.

Then all you have is your feelings that you're trying to impose on others.

Yes as I've said repeatedly, it's the feelings of people that form our laws.

I won't argue about the degree to which feelings govern our current laws, but will just say that we should strive for objectivity as opposed to subjectivity in our laws.

We collectively feel that theft is wrong so we punish it.

Uh, I think a strong argument can be made that theft is objectively wrong. But there are plenty of laws that are subjective and therefore are themselves wrong. No fishing for solo women in Montana. No drinking in Lynchburg, Tennessee.

These are moral issues that have non-objective groundings.

Yes, I just provided a couple examples.

We collectively feel that it is wrong to kill a baby just before birth so our laws prohibit it.

You keep switching back and forth from one message to the next between killing versus aborting the baby. Those are not the same thing, so which one are you arguing?

Your feelings may be different and Jar pretends his are but I doubt they are actually much different. But if they are very different we take the views of the majority as best we can given the way our institutions are structured.

If the law of the land were that men must be circumcised by age 12, how would men feel about the law's right to say what they should do with their bodies? Should there be such a a law?

In the same way, if the law of the land said that women have no say about terminating their pregnancy after some point that society chooses, how should women feel about the law's right to say what they should do with their bodies? Should there be such a law? Maybe there should, but then society has to answer the question: When does life begin?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 3:04 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 9:50 AM Percy has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 293 of 441 (837736)
08-08-2018 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Percy
08-08-2018 8:48 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:

Can the unborn be considered citizens if they have no birth certificate?

Both our societies have decided that the unborn child has rights. I agree with that.

Which unborn should society protect? Zygotes? Blastocysts? Embryos? Fetuses?

Or answering the same question again but based on time instead of state: After 1 week? 5 weeks? 10 weeks? 20 weeks? 30 weeks? 40 weeks?

Or answering the same question again but based on developmental characteristics: At conception? When there's a ball of cells? At implantation? When there's a head? When there's a heart? When there's a heartbeat? When there are fingernails? When it begins moving?

I think we have it about right now.

Isn't the answer obvious?

No. Obviously not. How about the rights of the father? How about the rights of the unborn child?

When is it alive? You can only kill what is alive.

Are you saying that a baby moments before birth is not alive? The opposite of alive is dead, are you saying that the baby that has a beating heart a functioning brain and in 1 minutes time will be deserving of a birth certificate is dead then miraculously becomes alive?

Jar and I *have* answered the question many times (we don't know). I'd like to answer your question, I really would, but in practical terms I don't see how it's possible to terminate a pregnancy just prior to the moment of birth. Let's say the woman is 10 cm dilated and the crown of the head is visible, likely just a very few more pushes are necessary, but suddenly the woman announces, "I'd like to terminate." How would that work exactly? That's a rhetorical question. I'm just trying to clear about why I don't see how terminating a pregnancy just before birth is possible.

I do not believe that you think that it would be ok for a mother to terminate/abort/kill her unborn baby just before birth. If a woman stuck a knitting needle through her cervix and skewered her baby moments before it was born you could not be philosophically neutral about it - could you? Could you say that it's a woman's choice to do that? Please don't reply that in this circumstance the woman is likely to be mentally ill. I'm trying to establish that you do know, it's just that you can't trust your feelings about it.

I won't argue about the degree to which feelings govern our current laws, but will just say that we should strive for objectivity as opposed to subjectivity in our laws.

The law is a combination of subjective and objective. We feel bad about both rape and murder but rank murder worse. Punishment is arranged in ladders of increasing harm. It's a rational system based on feelings. Feelings are real too and can, if necessary be measured objectively.

Uh, I think a strong argument can be made that theft is objectively wrong.

And how would we know? The test is whether it harms another. How much is the harm? Is it worse than rape? Is stealing from a pensioner worse than stealing from a bank? I think killing an unborn baby moments before it is born one of the worse crimes a person could commit, you can't decide whether it's a crime at all.

You keep switching back and forth from one message to the next between killing versus aborting the baby. Those are not the same thing, so which one are you arguing?

Yes I know. The reason is that abortion is a euphemism for killing. Let's quit messing about, the termination of a foetus kills it. Cells are alive, cells can be killed. Whether we call that 'life' as in an independent, living organism or not, what we're doing is killing the developing foetus.

If the law of the land were that men must be circumcised by age 12, how would men feel about the law's right to say what they should do with their bodies? Should there be such a a law?

Is a foreskin the equivalent of a human foetus?

In the same way, if the law of the land said that women have no say about terminating their pregnancy after some point that society chooses, how should women feel about the law's right to say what they should do with their bodies? Should there be such a law?

That was the case for many years. In the end society decided that it was less harmful to allow regulated abortion. That seems a reasonable outcome.

Maybe there should, but then society has to answer the question: When does life begin?

It wasn't necessary to answer that question when introducing the current policy was it? Or rather, we decided to fluff the question and say that termination could be allowed at 12 weeks which was the point that medics decided they could keep a baby alive outside the woman. We don't need an answer to your question to do what we feel is right.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 8:48 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 1:19 PM Tangle has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3236
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 294 of 441 (837737)
08-08-2018 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Tangle
08-07-2018 3:48 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Thanks for proving my point.

Tangle's NCBI quote writes:

Most respondents to a survey of abortion patients in 1987 said that more than one factor had contributed to their decision to have an abortion; the mean number of reasons was nearly four.

(bolding added by me)

The reasons for having any abortion are complicated.

Many/most of reason above are the reasons I've described are inconveniences.

No, they are not. You are simply choosing to see them that way.
That choice shows your agenda against the reality that woman in such a position is facing.

You are mistaking the ease of fact-display for an ease of real-life-situation.

Can you imagine the size of the article if it went and asked each woman and described their situations individually?

Again - do you deny that having a child is a life-changing event that goes on for 20+ years?
How can you honestly imply that choosing against a 20+ year life-changing event is equivalent to avoiding "an inconvenience?"

If you're going to label the reasons any woman has for getting an abortion as not wanting to deal with an inconvenience - you are heavily implying that you think having a baby is barely life-altering at all.

If you don't want to search for the truth of this matter - feel free to keep a vice-grip on your opinions against the facts.
You can't have it both ways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 3:48 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 11:35 AM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3236
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 295 of 441 (837738)
08-08-2018 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
08-07-2018 4:15 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Faith writes:

Someone I know personally, married to one man for forty years, told me she'd had four abortions because children would interfere with their lifestyle. I had the impression it was more her husband's desire than her own but that wasn't stated. No idea how representative they may be.

How does any of this show that this person considered the children an inconvenience?

It seems to me she's dealing with reality.
She seems to understand that having a child is a 20+ year, life-changing commitment.

She can have more time to spend with her husband, her friends, her social life, her hobbies.
Or she can have much less time and money for those things and spend most of her time taking care of a child or the next 20+ years.

Yeah, you can say the baby is "inconvenient" in the sense that being jailed for a crime you didn't commit is also "inconvenient."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 08-07-2018 4:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Faith, posted 08-09-2018 12:36 PM Stile has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3236
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 296 of 441 (837739)
08-08-2018 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Percy
08-08-2018 8:04 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:

If you look at Table 2, the top four items seem to fall into the category of inconvenience:

How so?
Notice how the numbers don't add up to 100%.

Obviously this is a tally where each woman entered multiple answers.

Over three-quarters agree that their lives would be "dramatically changed" (well, duh...) and you think they consider it "an inconvenience?"

Again, it's a simply question:

Do you agree that taking care of a child is a 20+ year, life-changing commitment?

If yes - then obviously the child is more than an "inconvenience."

Is it wrong that a 20+year, life-changing commitment will "interfere with education" or a job or other children you're already committed to?
The people who took the survey did not choose to write the survey.
They did not choose the words to report in the final tally, either.

But the only way an abortion can be decided on because the baby is an "inconvenience" is if the woman is unaware that a child is a 20+ year, life-changing commitment.
Otherwise, it's a very important decision and some people simply value their time and resources more in what they have planned rather than an un-planned 20+ year, life-changing commitment.
That's really not very difficult to understand.

Find one woman who thinks raising a child "takes up no time at all" or "hardly any additional effort required" or "barely noticeable" and I'll agree with you.
Without that - you're merely taking a tally which has been condensed in order to provide the factual information, and mistaking that "simple form" for women thinking children are "simple things." That jump is very unrealistic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 8:04 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 1:59 PM Stile has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 297 of 441 (837740)
08-08-2018 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Stile
08-08-2018 9:51 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Stile writes:

The reasons for having any abortion are complicated.

They're not normally complicated, but I'm sure they can be very difficult.

No, they are not.

Yes they are

You are simply choosing to see them that way.

You are simply choosing not to see them that way.

Again - do you deny that having a child is a life-changing event that goes on for 20+ years?

Actually it goes on for life. It's a massive inconvenience.

How can you honestly imply that choosing against a 20+ year life-changing event is equivalent to avoiding "an inconvenience?"

I can do that very easily when I read the reasons given for it. 'Interferes with study, career, husband etc.

If you're going to label the reasons any woman has for getting an abortion as not wanting to deal with an inconvenience - you are heavily implying that you think having a baby is barely life-altering at all.

Nope

If you don't want to search for the truth of this matter - feel free to keep a vice-grip on your opinions against the facts.

You've been shown the facts. Feel free to avoid the conclusion that many if not most women chose abortion because it would interfere with the way they want their life to be at the moment.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Stile, posted 08-08-2018 9:51 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Stile, posted 08-08-2018 11:56 AM Tangle has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3236
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 298 of 441 (837741)
08-08-2018 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Tangle
08-08-2018 11:35 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:

Actually it goes on for life. It's a massive inconvenience.

"Massive" inconvenience now? That's what I'm saying.
I thought you were saying it was a "simple" inconvenience.

Thank-you for agreeing with the point I was trying to make.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 11:35 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 12:23 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15398
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 299 of 441 (837742)
08-08-2018 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by LamarkNewAge
08-07-2018 1:28 PM


Re: I think the issue might have to do with allowing a premature birth.
LamarkNewAge writes:

The issue here seems to be having a doctor simply remove the baby prematurely, as opposed to using surgical tools to dismember it.


The issue is who decides. The medical staff need to decide what can be done and the woman needs to decide what should be done without interference from every Tom, Dick and Harry who has an opinion.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-07-2018 1:28 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15398
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 300 of 441 (837743)
08-08-2018 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Tangle
08-07-2018 2:19 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:

And, of course, the law already does.


There is no such thing as "the" law. It varies. There is nothing absolute about it.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 2:19 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 12:30 PM ringo has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
30NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018