Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Abortion debate thread

1…2930323435…59

Comments

  • #932
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    martinnew wrote: »
    Why... seems we can't even have a Christian discussion in a Christian Thread for Christians!......
    Always with the discrimination.

    MrP


  • #933
    martinnew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭martinnew


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Always with the discrimination.

    MrP

    As the thread said, it was a " A Pro-life Thread.. For Christians."

    There are dozens of other threads on abortion to rant about as freely as you like.

    But those who have take the other view on abortion ... don't expect to post on this thread and find that Christians are going to agree with you.

    You can't be a Christian and be pro-Choice.


  • #934
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    martinnew wrote: »

    As the thread said, it was a " A Pro-life Thread.. For Christians."

    There are dozens of other threads on abortion to rant about as freely as you like.

    But those who have take the other view on abortion ... don't expect to post on this thread and find that Christians are going to agree with you.

    You can't be a Christian and be pro-Choice.
    In fairness, who decides the definition of a Christian? How can you be an objective decider? What do you have that others don't? All I can say is that others who claim to be Christians are pro-choice.


  • #935
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    MrPudding wrote: »
    It usually gives me the urge to vomit. I expect he will say that urge to vomit in the devil trying to keep me from being saved, or some such crap.

    MrP

    Nah! it's just your conscience bothering you.


  • #936
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    Nah! it's just your conscience bothering you.
    Yeah, that'll be it. :D

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #937
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    martinnew wrote: »

    As the thread said, it was a " A Pro-life Thread.. For Christians."

    There are dozens of other threads on abortion to rant about as freely as you like.

    But those who have take the other view on abortion ... don't expect to post on this thread and find that Christians are going to agree with you.

    You can't be a Christian and be pro-Choice.

    If you have an issue with a post, then report it.

    I should add that while there have been a number of threads on abortion, the others largely died off, and this one survived.So despite the title, all are welcome to post here, regardless of belief, as long as they are civil and observe the charter.Site rules prevent us from restricting threads to Christians only.


  • #938
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    It usually gives me the urge to vomit. I expect he will say that urge to vomit in the devil trying to keep me from being saved, or some such crap.

    MrP
    The devil cannot prevent you being Saved ... and God cannot make you ... so it's entirely up to you Mr P.

    As a matter of interest, why do you get the urge to vomit, at the thought of being Saved from eternal damnation?


  • #939
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    Ha! :D Thanks, that made me laugh out loud!
    ... I have seen many who start out laughing ... and end up praying.

    ... I pray that you (and Mr P, when he gets over the urge to vomit) may eventually be counted amongst the elect.:)


  • #940
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    J C wrote: »
    The devil cannot prevent you being Saved ... and God cannot make you ... so it's entirely up to you Mr P.

    As a matter of interest, why do you get the urge to vomit at the thought of being Saved from eternal damnation?

    That's really something for the atheism / existence of God megathread and not here.One controversial topic per thread is more than enough.


  • #941
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    J C wrote: »
    ... I have seen many who start out laughing ... and end up praying.

    Aaaah, there's clearly hope for me yet. But I'll stay laughing, if it's all the same to you! Sorry Benny - had to giggle a bit more there. Happy new year everyone!! Whatever your creed, whatever your morals (within the confines of socially acceptable morality of course...) I wish you all the best of health and happiness in 2013. :D:D


  • Advertisement
  • #942
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    Aaaah, there's clearly hope for me yet. But I'll stay laughing, if it's all the same to you! Sorry Benny - had to giggle a bit more there. Happy new year everyone!! Whatever your creed, whatever your morals (within the confines of socially acceptable morality of course...) I wish you all the best of health and happiness in 2013. :D:D
    Laughter is often the best medicine ... and many happy returns to you as well.:D;)


  • #943
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    Happy new year everyone!! Whatever your creed, whatever your morals (within the confines of socially acceptable morality of course...)
    ... and there you raise a very important issue ... who determines what is 'the confines of socially acceptable morality' and how is it defined?

    Christians use the time-honoured standard set by God in the 10 Commandments.
    Many societies decide by 'having a vote on it' ... while others apply Human logic to determining what is acceptable behaviour.
    No matter which approach is used, in Ireland, we are looking at protecting unborn life from the moment of it's fertilisation (unless it substantially threatens a mother's life) ... and this would also seem to apply to the scientific use/manipulation of Human embryos and foetuses as well as their deliberate abortion.


  • #944
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Obliq wrote: »
    Ha! :D Thanks, that made me laugh out loud!

    It makes many laugh out loud, many in the world regard the gospel as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18). It is only when you start to mull it over and think about it that one comes to the conclusion that we've all sinned, we've all done what is wrong (Romans 3:23) and we are all in desperate need of a Saviour. Thankfully, Jesus the Messiah came into the world, live and to teach things of righteousness, the Kingdom of God, but also to be stricken, to be nailed to a cross of wood, and to rise again so that one day we can be with Him eternally.

    I used to think the idea of a God existing was nonsense until I actually gave it some serious thought. I simply didn't care about the subject until curiosity eventually kicked in.
    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    That's really something for the atheism / existence of God megathread and not here.One controversial topic per thread is more than enough.

    How is Jesus and what He did a subject for the Atheism / Existence of God megathread on the Christianity forum?

    Jesus and what He did should inform all of our consideration as Christians. It shouldn't be confined to one thread.


  • #945
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    philologos wrote: »

    It makes many laugh out loud, many in the world regard the gospel as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18). It is only when you start to mull it over and think about it that one comes to conclusion that we've all sinned, we've all done what is wrong (Romans 3:23) and we are all in desperate need of a Saviour. Thankfully, Jesus the Messiah came into the world, live and to teach things of righteousness, the Kingdom of God, but also to be stricken, to be nailed to a cross of wood, and to rise again so that one day we can be with Him eternally.

    I used to think the idea of a God existing was nonsense until I actually gave it some serious thought. I simply didn't care about the subject until curiosity eventually kicked in.



    How is Jesus and what He did a subject for the Atheism / Existence of God megathread on the Christianity forum?

    Jesus and what He did should inform all of our consideration as Christians. It shouldn't be confined to one thread.

    Simply because it was in danger of turning into a Christian / atheist slagging match over a central tenet of Christianity and the megathread would be better suited to it than a thread about abortion.If you have an issue regarding moderation then take it up via PM.


  • #946
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I'm surprised that no one here has posted on the trial of Kermit Gosnell, an abortion clinic doctor who is currently on trail accused with multiple murders. The odd thing, or so it seems to me, is that Gosnell was really just enacting the impeccable logic* of someone like Peter Singer, an ethicist who argues that infanticide is morally permissible up to 30 days after birth. Indeed, Planned Parenthood, the single largest provider of abortions in the US, has recently been in the news because one of its lobbyists was arguing for so called "post birth abortion**" in cases where abortions failed and the child was born alive. It really makes me wonder how widespread the practice of infanticide is in the US (not to mention the rest of the world)?

    If people are interested in hearing two very well considered positions on the subject of abortion then they should check out this debate between Scott Klusendorf and Nadine Strossen.



    * Logical only within a pro-abortion framework
    ** The term "post birth abortion", which seems to be the term of choice, is incoherent. You can't abort something that has already been born.


  • #947
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Gosnell is an excellent reason to make abortions safe, legal and easy to access. Women will always seek terminations, abortions or means to kill their unborn children, whatever terminology suits your view. Why make it difficult for them to do so?


  • #948
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    of someone like Peter Singer, an ethicist who argues that infanticide is morally permissible up to 30 days after birth. Indeed, .

    There's been a loooooong time since I've read his stuff but I don't believe this was his position. I thought it was more along the lines of if the foetus was to incubate in the woman for years it'd still be morally permissible to kill the foetus because a present newborn baby doesn't become a person for probably a year or so after being born. The distinction that is drawn is that once it leaves the woman's body it's a living entity, possibly still not on par with a human person but even if it's a dog or a spider you still have justify destroying it and because it's presenting no harm or hindrance to another persons' life to destroy it would be morally repulsive to destroy it.

    Regarding Gosnell and infanticide, infanticide and maternal suicide rates are highest in countries with no ready access to contraception or legalised abortion. From the 1850s to the 1950s our fair country that people think was some sort of golden age had an epidemic of infanticide and maternal suicide. One does have to wonder if contraceptives or access to England were denied would we still be in such an epidemic? If what Gosnell did was permitted by laws or a logical conclusion could be drawn from those laws then we might have something to worry about and possibly plan safeguards against. As it stands though it's just another case of an doctor gone terribly bad.


  • #949
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,172 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    IIRC infanticide wasn't punished as severely by the Irish courts as killing an adult was.

    *checks Google*

    Here's the Infanticide Act, 1949. Those found guilty would have been convicted for manslaughter.


  • #950
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    lazygal wrote: »
    Gosnell is an excellent reason to make abortions safe, legal and easy to access. Women will always seek terminations, abortions or means to kill their unborn children, whatever terminology suits your view. Why make it difficult for them to do so?

    Abortion is already safe, legal and easy to access in the US. We are now seeing organisations like Planned Parenthood move into ever darker areas. This is why their staff are now arguing for infanticide and are actively granting illegal sex-selective abortions.

    You ask why it should be made difficult to have abortions. I think that the only reason why someone should oppose abortion is if -

    a) the unborn is human
    b) we recognise that humans have intrinsic qualities that compel us to protect their life.

    So before anyone can answer your question we would first have to address the more fundamental question that underpins the entire abortion discussion - "what is the unborn?". If the above premises are not true then having an abortion is like having a mole removed or a nose job. It's an amoral act. However, if the premises are true then attempting to justify abortion as you have done is like somebody attempting to justify wife beating because there will always some men who do it. The logical application remains the same but I suspect it's the conclusions that are less palatable.


  • #951
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 9,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    IIRC infanticide wasn't punished as severely by the Irish courts as killing an adult was.
    .
    My understanding, from common law cases and an academic text, that this was a public policy reasoning. The killing of a children of such an age was deemed to be an act so against the maternal instinct that it served as an automatic defence against the charge. Of about 60 cases in a study, none resulted in a custodial sentence - mostly probation orders.


  • Advertisement
  • #952
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Abortion is already abortions safe, legal and easy to access in the US. We are now seeing organisations like Planned Parenthood move into ever darker areas. This is why their staff are now arguing for infanticide and are actively granting illegal sex-selective abortions.

    You ask why it should be made difficult to have abortions. I think that the only reason why someone should oppose abortion is if -

    a) the unborn is human
    b) we recognise that humans have intrinsic qualities that compel us to protect their life.

    So before anyone can answer your question we would first have to address the more fundamental question that underpins the entire abortion discussion - "what is the unborn?". If the above premises are not true then having an abortion is like having a mole removed or a nose job. It's an amoral act. However, if the premises are true then attempting to justify abortion as you have done is like somebody attempting to justify wife beating because there will always some men who do it. The logical application remains the same but I suspect it's the conclusions that are less palatable.

    That's all lovely.

    Now, back in the real world women have been terminating/aborting/killing the unborn since time began. Why do you want to make that difficult?

    I don't think one can compare legalizing wife beating with abortion/terminations/killing the unborn. I don't agree with anyone being subject to the will of another when it could cause them harm, as forced pregnancy and childbirth can.


  • #953
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Manach wrote: »
    My understanding, from common law cases and an academic text, that this was a public policy reasoning. The killing of a children of such an age was deemed to be an act so against the maternal instinct that it served as an automatic defence against the charge. Of about 60 cases in a study, none resulted in a custodial sentence - mostly probation orders.

    There's also been an increased recognition of the hormonal changes all women go through during pregnancy and postnatally. I don't know a woman who hasn't had postnatal highs and lows, especially as the highs wear off and the baby care really kicks in. Another reason not to impose motherhood on those who don't wish to engage in it.


  • #954
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    lazygal wrote: »
    Gosnell is an excellent reason to make abortions safe, legal and easy to access. Women will always seek terminations, abortions or means to kill their unborn children, whatever terminology suits your view. Why make it difficult for them to do so?

    Your uninformed I am afraid. Gosnell got away with what he did for so long due the failure to in-force regulations due to the obsession of pro abortion politicians to deregulate.
    ...

    The grand jury report that lays out allegations against Gosnell has an entire section called "How did this go on so long?" The simple answer is politics.

    Pennsylvania's health department stopped routine inspections of abortion facilities in the state after Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1995.

    Health department lawyers "changed their legal opinions and advice to suit the policy preferences of different governors," health department official Janet Staloski said in grand jury testimony. In this case, she said the state didn't want to be "putting a barrier up to women" who wanted abortions.

    In 1999, high-level Pennsylvania officials met to consider starting up regular inspections again but decided not to, state lawyer Kenneth Brody testified, according to the grand jury report. He told the grand jury that officials were concerns that abortion clinics wouldn't meet inspection standards and then there "would be less abortion facilities."

    The state's politics-driven policy continued until the gruesome allegations regarding Gosnell came to light.

    Inspections finally resumed in 2010 after more than 15 years. When pro-life Republican Gov. Tom Corbett took office in 2011, he asked officials to issue a report on the state's failure to inspect facilities for so long, the AP reported.

    By February 2011, Corbett had announced sweeping changes at the health department — including routine, unannounced inspections of abortion facilities.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/kermit-gosnell-clinic-not-inspected-2013-4#ixzz2RqMUEZAu


  • #955
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    lazygal wrote: »
    Gosnell is an excellent reason to make abortions safe, legal and easy to access.

    Not sure how that logic works.

    Lazygal,
    At what time does a child attain the full rights of an Irish citizen? At the moment of birth, a short time later? An hour later? How about a week or two later - just to give the parents a bit of a test drive?

    Abortion is safe, legal, and easy to access in the states. This guy killed a woman and performed abortions on a woman who changed their mind. Where are all of the women's rights crowd?

    If the victims of this "Doctor" had not been black we would be hearing far more of him. However, the States has grown comfortable in the killing of black children. 60% of black children are killed country wide and some cities kill 70% of black children.

    Democrat Barbara Boxer wants to allow killing newborns until they are taken home from the hospital. Back when I was young, the hospital was the safe place to be.

    What we are seeing is the fundamental problem with moral relativity.

    Soon, in the States, with the baby boomers retiring, we will be talking about killing the elderly. Their costs are going to skyrocket under Obamacare and I predict that someday, in my lifetime, we will see a buyout of the elderly's life.

    Think about it. You are old, terminally ill, and going to die soon. However, it's going to cost the taxpayers $250,000 to sustain you over the next year or two, or less. Why not end your life and the state will pay out $50,000 to the next of kin? Sound far fetched or feasible?

    Down any slippery slope, objects accelerate.


  • #956
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    FISMA wrote: »
    Not sure how that logic works.
    ...

    It's a little disingenuous to ask where are all the "Women's right crowd" when pretty much all of them condemn what this guy did just as much as you do. It's a bit like the person complaining about where all the people for poverty awareness are when there's a fundraiser towards expensive cancer treatment. Just because they're suddenly funding for cancer doesn't mean they don't give a fig about the poor. Likewise most "women's rights crowds" will condemn this doctors action and want safeguards put in place that it's less likely to happen in the future. They don't see it though as reason to ban abortion completely. That's kind of like the kid who burns himself with a saucepan being expected to never attempt cooking food again. The regulation needs refinement and proper enforcement and by the evidence presented by robp it seems the law wasn't actually enforced.

    As for your slippery slope. Anyone can start at point A and descend to point Z. I don't know how many points you have in between or whether you think they apply to Ireland. Going by the comment about Obamacare, Democrats and Republicans, I think it's not really relevant to the situation in Ireland. So, I'll just leave it there.


  • #957
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    Jernal wrote: »
    It's a little disingenuous to ask where are all the "Women's right crowd" when pretty much all of them condemn what this guy did just as much as you do. It's a bit like the person complaining about where all the people for poverty awareness are when there's a fundraiser towards expensive cancer treatment. Just because they're suddenly funding for cancer doesn't mean they don't give a fig about the poor. Likewise most "women's rights crowds" will condemn this doctors action and want safeguards put in place that it's less likely to happen in the future. They don't see it though as reason to ban abortion completely. That's kind of like the kid who burns himself with a saucepan being expected to never attempt cooking food again. The regulation needs refinement and proper enforcement and by the evidence presented by robp it seems the law wasn't actually enforced.

    As for your slippery slope. Anyone can start at point A and descend to point Z. I don't know how many points you have in between or whether you think they apply to Ireland. Going by the comment about Obamacare, Democrats and Republicans, I think it's not really relevant to the situation in Ireland. So, I'll just leave it there.
    Condemned but choose to ignore it as a media story for as long as possible or even worse.. to portray it as the women's decision to attend such a dreadful place. Shifting the blame as always. I have heard the commit said in relation to case by pro abortion posters "desperate women do desperate things". Why are Planned Parenthood even now resisting attempts to impose higher medical standards? Why do Planned Parenthood have such utter contempt for women's safety? Utter hypocrites.
    The Gosnell case has already prompted Pennsylvania lawmakers to pass a law that requires clinics to be regulated in the same way that outpatient surgery centers are. That means doors, hallways and elevators in the clinic must fit a stretcher, for example, in case a patient needs to be rushed to a hospital. Texas passed similar legislation.

    Ferrero (spokesman of Planned Parenthood)said such regulations tie up legitimate clinics in red tape, and would not have stopped someone like Gosnell—who is accused of flouting a number of federal, state and local laws—from criminal practices. The larger campaign to restrict abortion predates the furor over Gosnell, Ferrero said.
    link


  • #958
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Gosnell is a monster and what he did was disgusting and I can't think of a single pro choice person who doesn't feel that way. He does not represent the majority of medical staff involved in terminations in the same way Harold Shipman isn't representative of all GP's. Its because of the lack of safe, legal abortions that people like him can operate.


  • #959
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Gosnell is a monster and what he did was disgusting and I can't think of a single pro choice person who doesn't feel that way. He does not represent the majority of medical staff involved in terminations in the same way Harold Shipman isn't representative of all GP's. Its because of the lack of safe, legal abortions that people like him can operate.

    So your strategy to deal with monsters like him is too drown them out by competition? Gosnell was licensed. Would you reassure a women considering an abortion in the UK of its safety by that means?

    Apart from being an extraordinary indifferent approach to women's health it assumes that the quality of abortionist is know to the customer, which is highly unlikely. Refer back to post *954 which showed explicitly that the pro choice lobby lead to the failure to carry out inspections according to regulations and killed Karnamaya Mongar. Pro choice America created Gosnell and allowed him to flourish. Pro life is pro women.
    In 1999, high-level Pennsylvania officials met to consider starting up regular inspections again but decided not to, state lawyer Kenneth Brody testified, according to the grand jury report. He told the grand jury that officials were concerns that abortion clinics wouldn't meet inspection standards and then there "would be less abortion facilities."

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/kermit-gosnell-clinic-not-inspected-2013-4#ixzz2Ry0tzyuK


  • #960
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    robp wrote: »
    Condemned but choose to ignore it as a media story for as long as possible or even worse.. to portray it as the women's decision to attend such a dreadful place. Shifting the blame as always. I have heard the commit said in relation to case by pro abortion posters "desperate women do desperate things". Why are Planned Parenthood even now resisting attempts to impose higher medical standards? Why do Planned Parenthood have such utter contempt for women's safety? Utter hypocrites.


    link

    Do you have any proof that they choose to ignore it? It's an on-going trial so speaking it about isn't exactly the wisest thing to do either.
    At a guess, I'd say Planned Parenthood is opposing these so-called higher medical standards because they're kind of stupid and subversive. I mean, vaginal ultrasound just to see the baby!

    But instead of asking me why, why not give your own reasons? And show how Planned Parenthood don't care about women. I find it hard to fathom that they have, as you state, "contempt for women's safety".


  • Advertisement
  • #961
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    robp wrote: »
    So your strategy to deal with monsters like him is too drown them out by competition? Gosnell was licensed. Would you reassure a women considering an abortion in the UK of its safety by that means?

    Apart from being an extraordinary indifferent approach to women's health it assumes that the quality of abortionist is know to the customer, which is highly unlikely. Refer back to post *954 which showed explicitly that the pro choice lobby lead to the failure to carry out inspections according to regulations and killed Karnamaya Mongar. Pro choice America created Gosnell and allowed him to flourish. Pro life is pro women.

    He is unique. Do you think there are Helmut Gosnells working in the UK? Do you think any of the thousands of Irish women who have had abortions will say their experience was anything like that? These kinds of people exist and thankfully they are rare but the answer to dealing with one person is not to ban the entire practice.

    Maybe I should ban my kids from learning to swim pr playing sport because one or two coaches happen to be sex abusers. Maybe I will never eat a takeaway again because the last time I did I got sick. Or should I avoid all beauty treatments because someone I know ended up with a botch job. But that would be totally over the top wouldn't it because people like this are in the minority. Same goes with abortion.

    When you can prove this kind of thing is the norm and happening on a regular basis then we'll discuss it, for now just stop clutching at straws.


Advertisement