It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

page: 55
40
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


You can call me dishonest if it makes you feel better, I assure you though that I honestly believe that if more conversations were had about abortion, adoption etc before having sex, less people would end up shocked that a woman might consider abortion.

I do take issue with abortion being made illegal.




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
No one else can willfully abuse or intentionally kill your unborn child without breaking the law.


WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG


Try imagining what it would be like if someone could, for absolutely any reason, no matter how stupid.


I do not have to. It is reality. I am not sure where you are coming from with this at all.



Accidents are much different than someone wilfully abusing or intentionally killing your unborn child and such a mistake would almost certainly be considered gross negligence and you would have legal recourse.


I believe I said "accident."

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Do I really need to prove to you that men have "accidentally" caused their pregnant partners to miscarry and walked away scot free because it was "an accident?" Do I really need to show you that ugly side of reality?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by grahag
 



Because an abortion is almost always a decision by the woman carrying the fetus, it's not murder.

Well if that is the logic you are choosing to use, then I guess you think abortions at 8 and 9 months are ok. Because the mother is still carrying the human fetus. Right???

The human being/human person debate is a philosophical one. I have no doubt that the fetus will most likely develop into a human being, so don't think that I'm minimizing the impact of an abortion.

First of all...it will ALWAYS devlope into a human. A human fetus has never developed into a dog nor any other organism...always a human.
Second, this SHOULDN'T be a philosophical debate. That is the problem. If you want this to be a philosophical debate...go debate it with a religious person...personal philosophy vs personal philosophy.
Philosophy is SUBJECTIVE.
Which is why we should use OBJECTIVE SCIENCE. Biology has a perfect and accurate definition of LIFE. It doesn't only apply to humans, it applies to ALL LIFE.
This is why we should use it...because it is objective and 100% accurate. If you want to dispute the biological definition of life...please do so.


I've answered all this in a post just now, but I'll summarize. The fetus is not yet a human being. It is a potential human being, but that's not the same as a human being. You're just being obtuse by implying that I was thinking it was going to turn into a different species. Now I have to explain it, which makes you look more simple-minded than you really are. I mean that it's likely to develop into a child if allowed to develop. If you abort the fetus, it stops developing and does not develop into a human being. Life does not imply human, but I gave you the definition in my later post. Again, you're being obtuse because you're obviously smart enough to know the difference.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG


Great argument.


Originally posted by Sinnthia
I do not have to. It is reality. I am not sure where you are coming from with this at all.


No one can intentionally abuse or kill your unborn offspring without breaking the law.


Originally posted by Sinnthia
I believe I said "accident."

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Do I really need to prove to you that men have "accidentally" caused their pregnant partners to miscarry and walked away scot free because it was "an accident?" Do I really need to show you that ugly side of reality?


Can you give me an example?

If you're using "accident" instead of accident to indicate that it was intentional, it was probably a crime.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by grahag
 



Abortions have been around almost as long as birth has. And modern science IS awesome. Anyone who disagrees can go back to their 20 year lifespan before science helped lengthen that

The only people I see who are ignoring modern science are the pro-choicers that refuse to acknowledge basic Biology and the definition of life it provides.
There has been lots of barbaric customs that have been around since the beginnings of civilization...but we have evolved and have become aware that those practices are not good. Sacraficing virgins, sacraficing anyone really, slavery, etc.
The fact that abortion has been being practiced for a long time doesn't mean it should be an acceptable practice.


I was discussing with a co-worker today the pros and cons of circumcision, which is a similar debate on customs. It's not medically necessary, but it does provide benefits, yet some people feel that it's mutilation and cruel, but it's still legal.

I wish abortion wasn't seen as a necessity, but some people consider it so. Enough so that it's legal in most cases. It IS a philosophical question on whether it's MORALLY right, but legal, it is.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Great argument.


There was more after the wrongs. You should have gotten the argument before dismissing it.


[No one can intentionally abuse or kill your unborn offspring without breaking the law.


The law is determined in court. Tell OJ Simpson that no one can decapitate their wife and her boyfriend without breaking the law.


Can you give me an example?


Of men who were NOT convicted after "accidentally" causing a miscarriage? Admittedly it is hard to find police blotters of men found not guilty or even tried for beating up their girlfriends because, you know that is how that works when no one is prosecuted.

Are you honestly suggesting it does not happen? I


If you're using "accident" instead of accident to indicate that it was intentional, it was probably a crime.

Crime according to whom?

Nice shift you are all employing on your terribly flawed argument. You started by saying women never had to worry about someone else harming their unborn child and getting off. Every pregnant woman that gets in a car, has needed surgery, or has a jerk at home is in risk of her unborn child being harmed by the actions of others. For that matter, why should intention really matter?

If you get a woman pregnant and then find out you have a tumor that needs to be removed. You do not have to worry that the operation will kille the baby. Many women are put in the position all the time of trying to stave off needed procedures for fear of what may happen to their baby due to the actions of others.

Women lose their unborn children in real accidents all the time. If I were to lose my child in a car wreck because someone else was reckless, why would his intentions to kill my baby matter? Gone is gone and they will walk away free if it is indeed deemed an accident and not willfull.

Are you really saying that life is only important when someone really WANTS to end it? Ending it by accident is not actually a real fear for pregnant women?

LOUSY ARGUMENT.

Sorry but yes, women do actually worry that someone else might do something to cause the loss of their child. I am not sure how you can try to argue that is not true at all. Add in intentions and legality all you like. It does not change the reality, the possibility, the fear, or the loss.

To even pretend that men have a bigger concern over the matter is insane

As someone else very astutely pointed out, why are you knocking up someone that might abort their baby anyway?

How about you worry about where you stick your penis before you get your nose in my ovaries.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
A fetus (in my mind, anyway) becomes a person when a soul enters the body, which us generally just a few days before birth.

If one takes the fetus argument to its end then "spilling seed" could be called genocide too.

I await the day (surely about to arrive) when some right-winger declares that m@sterb@tion is genocide.
THEN you will hear all the self-righteous men SCREAMING about controlling their own bodies.
Maybe, THEN they will understand what women mean about who can say what to whom.


edit on 25-2-2011 by UncleVinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



Refusing to acknowledge refutations is hardly the same as not being refuted but far be it for me to get between you and your back patting on the subject of abortion. I see how happy it makes you.


Refute that human life begins when human sperm fertilizes a human egg and cell division begins.

Please...if you say it has been done...it should be easy for you to do it as well.


That is a really pointless argument to make. I just ate some broccoli. If I agree with you that life begins at conception and life is precious then you should be quite upset about this broccoli. I am guessing you are not as concerned with life as you are a specific type of life. So the actual argument is when life becomes something you value. Do you value the life of a gnat as much as the life of a fetus simply because you can define it as life?


Playbook...hilarious.

Is broccoli HUMAN? What do you not understand about this...HUMAN LIFE.

I have repeatedly said over and over and over and over and over....that I am ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT HUMAN LIFE. I have no issues with this....I eat plants (life)...I eat animals (life)...I don't eat humans


I value a human fetus over any other non-human life. It's quite simple.

Do you value a human fetus over a gnat???


Cool. Try to take my argument and twist it into some false personal assessment.


I used your EXACT WORDS...I twisted nothing. If that isn't what you meant..then don't write it.


I am not afraid of being raped every moment of my life. In fact, I hardly fear it personally.


Well then you should of said so...but you didn't.


Unfortunately, that does not make it a possibility every moment.


Is it a possibility now?

How about now?

Now?

Did you get raped any of those times???

It's a possibility I am going to get hit by a meatorite every moment...doesn't effect my behavior.



The only thing a women needs in order to be a potential rape victim is an opening.


I have an opening...I guess I'm a potential rape victim.

Oh...but you only care about humans that can get pregnant from rape. Those poor old ladies that get raped...I guess you don't think they are as important than other rape victims. Or the men in jail that get raped.


That is reality, is it not? Did you post that list of women immune to rape and I missed it?


By your definition...having an opening...we are all potential victims of rape. I guess we should all live in fear



You are seriously trying to twist my words in order to avoid the actual argument and paint me as a paranoid nut. This is ATS. You are going to have to do way better than that. I never mentioned lizard people or anything.


I am twisting nothing...speak plainly and clearly if you don't want your words to be misunderstood.

It is a fact that you said...and I quote..."I specifically pointed to living in fear that you may be raped and impregnated against your will. This is not a rare circumstance. This is a part of the reality of being a woman, EVERY MOMENT OF OUR LIVES."

No call me crazy...but it sounds like you are saying that because you are a women you are living in fear of being raped EVERY MOMENT OF YOUR LIFE.

I have no idea how I came to that conclusion....oh yeah....YOU SAID EXACTLY THAT.

And you are right...this is ATS...so there is a good chance that you are in fact a paranoid nut...not helping your case here.


Let me try to be as simplistic as I can for you.
I am not a paranoid nut, constantly worrying about being raped


Then you shouldn't write that you are in fact scared every moment of you life of being raped (see above for quote).


I hope your wife finds facts as funny as the topics of rape and abortion.


She only found your paranoia funny....she is disgusted by rape and abortion. You seem to only be disgusted by rape...sad.


We got it. You cannot make a valid argument so you are using hyperbole to conflait facts with paranoia in order to make me look crazy.


You did fine making yourself look crazy...again...see above quote of your own words.



Yes, let the fetuses that are going to be aborted worry about it because your made up empty stat does not give you any more say in the matter so if your concern is with them, let them worry about them. The fact that they are unborn fetuses is not your problem. You want to see them as individual lives, worthy of a say in their life. Let them say it then. If some collection of cells fails to speak up, so be it. Not your call, even by your own standards.


LOL...seriously???


Because it was not the least bit relevant. If you want to argue about fair pay for fair work, that is for an entirely different discussion and one I would be more than happy to engage you in but it hardly applies here. If I put in the same quality work as a counterpart, I have earned equal pay. My EARNING equal pay does not then relate to men being able to be impregnated against their will. I am sorry you cannot understand the huge failure that arguement would be.

Equality in what? If you want a uterus, go get one. If you find that hard to do, so sorry. If I can do your job as good as you do it, I see no reason to pay me less.


So you are ok with men beign paid more as firemen...because they have to pass a more physically demanding test than the women do....huh?

Your uterus does not give you the right to kill another mans child...sorry.


I am sorry that you think I care enough to want to put forth the effort it would take to silence some stranger on an internet forum. Are you suggesting I not express my opinion in response?


Well...you did tell me to shush...which generally means to be silent


And by all means...express your opinion...I don't even have to do anything to invalidate it...you are doing fine by yourself.


If you want credibility in the argument that you are concerned about the sanctity of life, it just really helps to not have a post history contradicting that very sentiment. Just sayin'. I guess you are telling me that people that die outside abortions are not as valuable so those lives do not matter as much then?


Like I said...sorry my resume isn't up to your standards...I think I will continue to express my opinion regardless.


Actually it is just one of many valid arguments that I and others have pointed out to you. You just ignore, blow off, or demonize anything you find hard to deal with on an intellectual level. I am sorry I notice these things. You can say you are for the death penalty once but then to spend 40 pages only going on about abortion would go a long way to demonstrate exactly how you really prioritze your concern for "all" life.

Your entire argument is based on "life" how it is defined and when it begins. Once people are born, they are still alive and people concerned with ALL LIFE should show at least a relative level of conern for all life. To not do so is a clear demonstration of the deception being employed to disguise a very specific agenda that unfortunately belies the very reasoning you are using here to make your "point."


I am only concerned about HUMAN LIFE.

I disagree with wars, I don't support the death penalty. I'm sorry my entire belief system isn't well referenced in my 1 month of posting on a website
You know what I am really passionate about...racism...but you know what...an opportunity hasn't presented itself for me to discuss it in the one month I have been here....OH NO...I DON'T CARE ABOUT RACISM BECAUSE IT ISN"T IN MY POSTING HISTORY...


I'm not sure how this is a "valid argument"...I have one month of posting here...but somehow because I don't have enough anti-war or anti-death penalty posts...my views on abortion are invalid???

Yeah...great logic there.

Instead of worrying about my posting history...why not just refute the argument that life is a biological process STARTING at conception???



No it is not. Your main focus is only on protecting unborn life. Saying things are X do not make them X when we can all just look at your posts as see nothing but Y.


In this thread...YES...that is my main focus...becaus this topic is about ABORTION.

Shall I hold your hand as I explain what staying "on topic" is???



But you do not have as big a dog in the fight for the genocides happening across the globe in the less oil rich countries? How about the alarming number of innocent people being freed from death row compared to the number still awaiting appeals? How about our soldies and any civillians caught in any of the battles going on? Do you not see people ACTUALLY DYING every day while you sit here fretting with tears over lives that have not even begun yet?


On topic dear...let's stay on topic.

And like I said...I'm against wars for oil...I'm against innocent people dying...I think the worst is killing babies.

Apparently you don't, as you mock them dying...really nice.


Real people die and you use your concern for all life to concentrate on the unborn babies that may not even exist yet. And I am confusing.


Unborn babies are real people.

Pretending they aren't doesn't change the fact that women that have had an abortion have murdered their child.


You are the one claiming that life begins at conception and should be protected because ALL LIFE matters. So spend about 40 pages worrying about some other causes of death for a bit and show us that you mean what you say instead of just saying what you say and continuing to prove it pretty much a lie.


Abortion is my focus right now...you are just going to have to deal with it.


You guys?

Um...

How...

many...

of...

me...

do you think I am?


I honestly don't know...how many of there are you in your head???



All that matters is that they are correct, however framed. Keep aiming lower though. You seem to be changing hearts and minds with this tactic left and right. How many babies you s'pose ya saved taday?


I can't save babies...it's currently against the law...All I can do is speak out against the injustices being done.

And I will continue to do so, no matter how many times you emotionally rant about me doing so.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



Can you explain yourself?

Are you also claiming that women do not ever have to worry about losing their unborn child to perfectly legal actions of someone else?

Please plase tell me that is what you are saying here.


Which legal actions can someone else take to harm or kill your unborn child???

You keep saying they exist...but I have yet to hear you give an example.


On the other hand...women can legally kill a man's child. You would think you would be outraged by that fact...but it appears you aren't.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 



You don't feel bad that you're teaching your children ignorance though?


Ignorance??? I'm teaching my kids SCIENCE.

Do you believe that learning SCIENCE is ignorant???




I have one last argument for you though. Is it the right of someone to have or to not have children? It's a trap, but you will probably see where I'm going with it if you're as smart as I'm giving you credit for.


It is the right for a consenting couple to have a baby. It is the right of an individual to have a baby if they can find a willing donor of sperm/applicator or egg/uterus.

Everyone also has the right to CHOOSE not to have a child...that choice comes at the same time for men and women...before they decide to have sex.

Current state...women have TWO choices not to have a child...one before they have sex and one after they become pregnant. A man only has ONE choice still...before having sex. This creates an inequality issue that shouldn't be allowed in our equal society we have today.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by MindSpin
 


You can call me dishonest if it makes you feel better, I assure you though that I honestly believe that if more conversations were had about abortion, adoption etc before having sex, less people would end up shocked that a woman might consider abortion.

I do take issue with abortion being made illegal.


It's not a matter of "shock"...it's a matter of having no say in the matter and watching as someone else kills your child. No amount of conversation will reduce that.


And what about getting the fathers consent...do you have an issue with that? You didn't answer that one.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


You are dreaming if you think we live in an equal society.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
There was more after the wrongs. You should have gotten the argument before dismissing it.


I quoted every word of your post in my reply.


Originally posted by Sinnthia
The law is determined in court. Tell OJ Simpson that no one can decapitate their wife and her boyfriend without breaking the law.


Decapitating your wife is illegal.


Originally posted by Sinnthia
Of men who were NOT convicted after "accidentally" causing a miscarriage? Admittedly it is hard to find police blotters of men found not guilty or even tried for beating up their girlfriends because, you know that is how that works when no one is prosecuted.

Are you honestly suggesting it does not happen?


Beating people (including pregnant people) is illegal.

Do guilty people sometimes get away with crime? Obviously.


Originally posted by Sinnthia
Crime according to whom?

Nice shift you are all employing on your terribly flawed argument. You started by saying women never had to worry about someone else harming their unborn child and getting off. Every pregnant woman that gets in a car, has needed surgery, or has a jerk at home is in risk of her unborn child being harmed by the actions of others. For that matter, why should intention really matter?


What I said is that no one can intentionally abuse or kill your unborn offspring without breaking the law. Only men know what it's like for someone else to intentionally abuse or kill their offspring (and for it to be perfectly legal, IE. for society not to care at all).


Originally posted by Sinnthia
If you get a woman pregnant and then find out you have a tumor that needs to be removed. You do not have to worry that the operation will kille the baby. Many women are put in the position all the time of trying to stave off needed procedures for fear of what may happen to their baby due to the actions of others.


We have to worry about women going into surgery for the sole purpose of killing our offspring and throwing it in the garbage.

If my wife goes into surgery for a tumor while she's pregnant, I certainly will be worried about the unborn baby.


Originally posted by Sinnthia
Women lose their unborn children in real accidents all the time. If I were to lose my child in a car wreck because someone else was reckless, why would his intentions to kill my baby matter? Gone is gone and they will walk away free if it is indeed deemed an accident and not willfull.


People die in accidents all the time, if you don't understand the difference between an honest to goodness accident, and intentional killing, this conversation is pointless.


Originally posted by Sinnthia
Are you really saying that life is only important when someone really WANTS to end it? Ending it by accident is not actually a real fear for pregnant women?


No... I'm sure that women do worry about an accident causing miscarragie etc. etc. (so do I as a Father).



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by grahag
 


From Wikipedia:

I should really just stop reading right there...good lord.


Because Wikipedia isn't credible? I can find this information in other locations, but I find Wikipedia to be the most convenient because it's all in one place. I suppose I can refer you to some books and you can just physically look it up.




Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not.

Let's look at the full definition from your source.

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate

So have fetuses functions ceased (death) or are they inanimate???
A fetus fullfils that definition anyway...it depends on the mother as a food source....so do newborns. We as human adults depend on other plants and animals as food sources. A fetus is self-sustaining as long as it has a proper food source and environment...the same as any other "living" thing.



*sigh* Having to explain the definition of everything you're using in your own argument is getting old, and I consider myself to be fairly patient.
Self-Sustaining means that you are able to provide for your own needs without help from others. Up to a certain point, a fetus is NOT self sustaining. They can NOT survive without the mother's biological functions. We're not talking about infants, we're talking about fetuses.




This has already been defined by law in almost every developed country. Can the fetus survive on it's own without the mother?

Can a newborn survive on it's own???



In almost every case, someone will provide for that infant. The same cannot be said of a fetus because it's not viable.




It's alive ONLY because the mother keeps it that way. The mother is the deciding factor. Your nitpicking of when life begins isn't decided by you. If you subscribe to a higher power to change that, more power to you, but the law gets to decide when it's legal for a woman can terminate her pregnancy through abortion.

I am hardly nitpicking...I have a clear definition of when life begins...it is the same definition Biology uses for every living thing.
When do YOU think it begins??? What arbitrary bodily function are you going to pick to make your criteria to determine life???



I'm not doubting that it's alive. By your definition, sperm, eggs, appendixes, skin, and everything else should be defended with the same veracity as a fetus. But it's not a human being until it's born. I go by the legal criteria because it uses common sense. Brain functions show that there is some sentience around 20-22 weeks, which is where most abortions are made illegal.

You're exhausting to talk to. I just wanted to let you know that. It requires a lot of forethought to post something and I have to explain everything as if you were a child. It's certainly not entertaining, which I find most debates to be, just because I assume that we're on the same level of understanding about the facts.

The only reason I go any further is to help explain what those facts are in the hopes that you'll understand better what this debate is really about.
edit on 25-2-2011 by grahag because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
People have been conditioned to accept abortion but it is a form of genocide so i can never accept or support it.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


As I've already explained to you, some men do have a say.

I'm sorry if you didn't.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by jrmcleod
 





I dont need to work in a hospital i know of two sets of parents in the situation due to

premature births.



No, really you DO!

You cant be knowledgable in this situation just because you know of a whole "2" people in this situation, try working with thousands of premature children over a period of years!



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 



The fetus is not yet a human being. It is a potential human being, but that's not the same as a human being.


As defined by what criteria??? When does it become a human being?

A 9 month old fetus that is still in utero is still considered a "fetus"...is it not a human being?

Where exactly are you drawing that line??? Because it sounds like you are giving justificaiton for very very late term abortions.


You're just being obtuse by implying that I was thinking it was going to turn into a different species. Now I have to explain it, which makes you look more simple-minded than you really are. I mean that it's likely to develop into a child if allowed to develop. If you abort the fetus, it stops developing and does not develop into a human being.


Be clear with your words friend...and I don't have to make you look silly.


Life does not imply human, but I gave you the definition in my later post. Again, you're being obtuse because you're obviously smart enough to know the difference.


I never said Life implies human.

Life is a biological process that is shared by humans with every other living being on this planet...we are just one of millions (billions? trillions?) species on this planet that all follow the same biological process of life.

This process of life starts when a uniqe DNA is formed and cells begin dividing...that uniqe life is "alive" until that cell division process stops.

This is the same for all "life". A fetus is just a very young human...just as a tadpole is a very young frog. They are both "living"...and in the case of the human fetus...if another human kills it...it is murder.

Nothing tricky about Biology...facts are facts.


But I am interested in my first question to you...what is your criteria for "life"???



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
To even pretend that men have a bigger concern over the matter is insane.


Why?

It's perfectly legal for a woman to kill our unborn offspring.


Originally posted by Sinnthia
As someone else very astutely pointed out, why are you knocking up someone that might abort their baby anyway?


I don't think my wife would ever have an abortion, but the truth is it's impssible to know. Any woman could have an abortion regardless of what they say beforehand and throw a man's unborn offspring in the trash for whatever reason she wants, no matter how stupid (and our legal system will sanction her action).



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 



It IS a philosophical question on whether it's MORALLY right, but legal, it is.


Sure...morality is a philosophical question. And the ONLY philosophical question that should be being discussed here is "Is it wrong to kill another human".

The question on when life begins...should not be a philosophical discussion...that should be a scientific discussion. The branch of science that deals with that would be BIOLOGY.

You are merging two different issues...philosophy should not be used in determining when life begins...but it is fine to use for determining if it is right/wrong to kill another human life.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join