Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Materialists Mutilate Language in the Service of Evil

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

download

 

From the sign that reads Arbeit Macht Frei (“work makes (you) free”) over the gate at Auschwitz, to the Doublespeak forced on the population by the totalitarian government in 1984, the mutilation of language has long walked hand in hand with evil.  As yet another example, we get this bizarre episode from frequent commenter Zachriel:

In a prior thread I asked Z whether he is in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat.

He responded:

The sale of human tissue is illegal in the U.S. As far as we know, no one in the current kerfuffle has been charged with such a crime, but if the evidence supports such a charge, they should be prosecuted.

I suspected Z was playing a word game with me centering on the definition of “sale.”  So I pressed on.  It turns out I was right:

Z:  They get reimbursed for the costs of acquiring, storing, and transporting the tissue, just as they do with any other tissue donation. They can’t legally make a profit . . . . We support current laws which criminalize the sale of human tissue.

So I asked the question this way:

Zachriel are you in favor of allowing Planned Parenthood to chop up little unborn babies and distribute their pieces like meat as part of their fetal tissue donation program?

And we finally got to the truth:

When a woman decides on a legal abortion, donating the tissue for medicine is appropriate.

This really didn’t make sense to me, so I interposed the following:

Zachriel at comment 52:

Q. Are you in favor of chopping up little babies and selling the pieces like meat?
A. No.

Zachriel at comment 62:

Q. Are you in favor of allowing Planned Parenthood to chop up little unborn babies and distribute their pieces like meat as part of their fetal tissue donation program?
A. When a woman decides on a legal abortion, donating the tissue for medicine is appropriate.

Which one is the lie Z? They can’t both be true.

He replied:

The first is a question about selling, the latter is a question about distribution.

So there you have it, dear readers.  “Selling” pieces of babies  – bad.  “Distributing” pieces of babies – good.

But wait a minute.  My dictionary defines “selling” as “to transfer goods to another in exchange for money; dispose of to a purchaser for a price.”  And Planned Parenthood admits that it receives money in exchange for the pieces of babies.  Why isn’t that selling?  Because there was no profit, answers Z.  Nonsense.  If GM breaks even this year does that mean it did not “sell” any of its cars?

And why does the hyper-technical distinction between “selling” and “distributing in exchange for a cost reimbursement” make any difference to begin with?  Both ways a baby is still getting crushed and dismembered, and her pieces are still being delivered to others in exchange for money.

And what if the bean counters make a mistake in the prices they set and Planned Parenthood accidentally makes profit.  Now it’s wrong when it wasn’t before?

People who chop up little babies and sell their pieces are evil.  People like Zachriel who advocate that practice are also evil.  And they compound that evil when they not only mutilate babies but also mutilate language.

Comments
Comrade Zachriel you would be loyal Stalin's apparatchik... "The executions would go like this: after signing identification papers, (Polish) officers were led with their arms bound into a small room that was equipped with soundproofed walls, a drain, a hose, and a door or hatch- it was a room designed for executions. Forced to their knees, a member of the Kommandatura would deliver a single shot to the back of the prisoners’ heads, killing them instantly. Their bodies would be dragged through the second door or hatch in the ceiling, the room would be hosed down, and the next prisoner would be brought in." ...everything was legal here comrade Zachriel... http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/03/the-man-who-personally-executed-over-7000-people-in-28-days-one-at-a-time/Eugen
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Z @52: BFast says ... * * Only in cases to prevent serious physical harm to the mother from continuing the pregnancy.Zachriel
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
@Seversky Speaking as a materialist / atheist, you do not acknowledge people's emotions / spirit because they are not material, and therefore you have nothing whatsoever to say about ethics.mohammadnursyamsu
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
StephenB: So if, in the present moment, a baby female is tortured, Thalamocortical fibers don't appear until 23 weeks, while brain scans indicate that pain perception doesn't begin until about 29 weeks. Fetal anesthetic can be used for late term abortions. UDEditors: File this one under "damned lie." Clinical research demonstrates that babies feel pain far earlier than Zach would have you believe in his unspeakably evil defense of the slaughter and dismemberment of unborn babies. See here.http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10H06.pdf And of course, whether they feel pain makes no difference in the moral question of whether they should be killed. No one would argue that it is not murder to kill someone while they are sleeping. Except maybe Zach. It is not surprising that Zach is a liar; those who advocate killing generally are. StephenB: murdered, murder, the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. We're discussing legal abortion. StephenB: sliced up, and distributed, Just like Aunt Martha, after her accident, when her family let her die of natural causes rather than keeping her alive artificially. When making the organ donation, they knew she would appreciate that her body might provide some benefit to others. StephenB: but if an adult female may someday be thought of as a baby factory, that is immoral. It has nothing to do with reputation, but the slippery slope leading desperate people to take desperate measures. As that is contingent on social circumstance, there is no hard and fast moral rule. For instance, some jurisdictions allow compensation for blood or blood plasma, but not for kidneys, certainly not for hearts. Barry Arrington: there really is no difference between your position and the Nazi position. Hitler. StephenB: So, you reject the profitable sale of human organs and Jewish flesh into lampshades, but you support the profitless distribution of human organs and Jewish flesh into lampshades. Sorry, but no, and you know otherwise. We do support limiting the power of government to force women to bear children they do not want, especially in cases where continued pregnancy would lead to dire physical health consequences to the woman. Providing better options for women to avoid elective abortion makes sense, but empowering the government to imprison women for abortion or to prevent abortion would be a dangerous encroachment. Some abortions are done to save the life or health of the mother. Would you allow abortion in these cases? If so, are you against donating the fetal tissue? BFast says he would be okay with "splitting a baby’s face in two to extract his brain while his heart is still beating", then "chopping them into pieces, and distributing the pieces". Barry Arrington dodged whether he would allow for abortion to save the life of the mother, but said he was "not in favor of the use of human organs for any reason without the consent of the organ donor," which seems like a weaselly way to say it requires the consent of the fetus, which would also apply to Aunt Martha, or any organs donated by the parents of a child who died. The latter would mean no more heart transplants for children.Zachriel
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Seversky, in the first paragraph you state: "I don’t see the Zachriel collective as being any more immoral or amoral than anyone else here." In the second paragraph you state: "As for claims about a foundation for a moral code, they are without foundation," Don't you see the inherent contradiction? In the first paragraph you claim that Zach is just as moral as anyone else and then in the very next paragraph you undermined any foundation you had to be able to make that judgement. Moreover, although all men are sinners and have fallen short of moral perfection, (thus the necessity of the propitiation of Jesus Christ), the fact that atheists tend to be more immoral than Christian Theists is now an established fact:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/barbarians-inside-the-gate/#comment-577053 Religious students more 'moral' than atheists or agnostics – study - March 2015 Excerpt: The study of 10,200 students and 250 teachers from 68 UK schools took place between February 2013 and June 2014 and is the largest of its kind. Researchers used surveys, moral dilemma tests and interviews. The religious students scored higher on the moral dilemma tests and within the religious group, those who practised their religion scored more highly than those who did not. Girls also scored higher than boys when faced with moral dilemmas.,,, The report takes as its starting point the growing consensus in Britain that virtues such as honesty, self-control, fairness, gratitude and respect, which contribute to good moral character, are part of the solution to many of the challenges facing society today. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/religious.students.more.moral.than.atheists.or.agnostics.study/49315.htm
as to the propitiation of Christ:
Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24 Turin Shroud Quantum Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' On A Solid Oval Object - video http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=J21MECNU Solid Oval Object Under The Beard http://shroud3d.com/findings/solid-oval-object-under-the-beard
bornagain77
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
bFast @ 49
Axel (35), “surely Zachriel is immoral, rather than amoral.” I think I had it right the first time. Amoral means “lacking any morals” or “lacking any moral foundation”. Immoral is to breach the moral code. Zachriel, as with all materialists, simply has no foundation for a moral code. He is amoral.
Speaking as an atheist/materialist v2.0, I don’t see the Zachriel collective as being any more immoral or amoral than anyone else here. They take a different view on the morality of abortion than others here - myself included. But having concern for the rights and well-being of the mother as much as for those of the unborn child - such as they are under current law - is neither immoral or amoral. As for claims about a foundation for a moral code, they are without foundation, in my view, other than through inter-subjective agreement (ISA). Who should decide the moral code which binds them other than those who are to be subject to it? And that means all of them. I need hardly point out that, in past centuries, these matters were decided by the few: the monarch, the aristocracy, the rich, those who wielded political and religious power. Even the Founding Fathers were relatively well-off, well-educated white males. For all the lofty rhetoric about “unalienable rights” they did not extend them, at that time, to the poor or slaves or women. Subsequent generations came to the view that denying those rights to those groups was immoral and changed the law. Does this mean that the Founders were immoral or amoral?Seversky
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
Axel (35), "surely Zachriel is immoral, rather than amoral." I think I had it right the first time. Amoral means "lacking any morals" or "lacking any moral foundation". Immoral is to breach the moral code. Zachriel, as with all materialists, simply has no foundation for a moral code. He is amoral.bFast
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
I have been watching Zachriel's antics in the recent threads. I have, also, been engaged in some back and forth with this we-gomaniac in some past threads. Zachriel reminds me of a writhing snake. His comments always attempt to leave wiggle room. Never state a position. Deny much. Affirm little. Latch onto some semantic nuance to evade the obvious intent of the queries of others. Never make a position statement with justification so others may know what Multiple-Personality-Disorder-Zachriel believes. For example, "We are not naturalists." All well and good. But would it have hurt all that much to state what it that you are? And how that specifically differs from a naturalist? But no! That might provide clarity. Can't have any of that. As it is, Zachriel need not take ownership of anyone's criticism of the naturalist's worldview or the ethics/morals standards that flow from them. After all, "We are not naturalists." If the topic were not so deadly serious, Zachriel's antics would be hilarious. As it is, they are revolting. As I said, I am reminded of a snake, a writhing, lying snake. Zachriel is a son of a Serpent. And an apple that didn't fall far from its tree. StephenSteRusJon
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
As a well-known historian has said,
"A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status."
--Paul Johnson, Enemies of Society Or as I like to paraphrase it, "The sincere and honorable use of words is the first test of someone's character."EDTA
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 45. Zachriel has told so many lies that he stumbles over himself trying to keep it all straight. Outrageous boners like that are bound to happen in such a case. Prediction: He will not respond at all or if he does respond it will be your and my fault for not understanding him. Evil and lies get complex really quick. The truth is usually pretty simple.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Barry
Besides, are you really going to say that if the concentration camps charged for the Jewish skin it would have been evil, but they gave it away it would have been fine? Do you really want to go there?
Barry, that is exactly how I interpreted Z's comment. I posted my comment @44 before I read your comment @43.StephenB
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Zachriel
We are against the sale of human organs or most tissues from whatever source. That would encompass turning Jews into lampshades.
So, you reject the profitable sale of human organs and Jewish flesh into lampshades, but you support the profitless distribution of human organs and Jewish flesh into lampshades.StephenB
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Zach,
That would encompass turning Jews into lampshades.
Nonsense. No one charged for the Jewish skin that was turned into lampshades. Besides, are you really going to say that if the concentration camps charged for the Jewish skin it would have been evil, but they gave it away it would have been fine? Do you really want to go there? As much as it might make you squirm, Zach, there really is no difference between your position and the Nazi position. You are evil and dangerous. People like you are what make it possible to have concentration camps, gulags and killing fields. And what do I mean by "people like you"? I mean people who divide other humans into "humans that it is OK to kill" and "humans that it is not OK to kill."Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Zachriel
Distributing fetal tissue, such as after an abortion countenanced by bFast above, is moral and legal. Selling fetal tissue is not because it can lead to a situation where women become factories for body parts.
So if, in the present moment, a baby female is tortured, murdered, sliced up, and distributed, that is moral; but if an adult female may someday be thought of as a baby factory, that is immoral. At least we now understand your position more clearly. You do, indeed, support the act of murdering and slicing up innocent babies and distributing them, provided no profit is realized. We further understand that if, indeed, selling those baby parts does produce a profit, it is immoral not because of what is done to the babies but because of how those babies' mothers may someday be perceived.StephenB
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Even Guttmacher’s highly suspect, self-interested statistics peg life/health at no more than 3%. Not sure if sneering represents a substantive objection to research. Barry Arrington: So you admit that you are trying to justify 97% of abortions with 3% of abortions. No. Those abortions are justified by appeal to the life and health of the mother. Other abortions must look elsewhere for justification. Barry Arrington: no, I am not in favor of the use of human organs for any reason without the consent of the organ donor. Presumably that means only an adult can donate their organs; not their spouse or next of kin. In particular, it means children will never be able to have a heart transplant from another child who may have died from natural causes. You missed the first question. Would you allow abortion in cases where continuing the pregnancy would lead to dire physical danger to the mother? Barry Arrington: we might as well chop him to pieces and sell those pieces. We've corrected you on this repeatedly. We are against the sale of human organs or most tissues from whatever source. That would encompass turning Jews into lampshades.Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Even Guttmacher's highly suspect, self-interested statistics peg life/health at no more than 3%. So we can be certain the real number is far less than that. So you admit that you are trying to justify 97% of abortions with 3% of abortions. That should tell you something Z. It should tell you that even if there is a moral grounding for the 3% (and I am not saying there is except in the life of the mother case), there is certainly no moral grounding for the 97%. Otherwise, why would the 3% be the only thing you want to talk about. And to answer your question, no, I am not in favor of the use of human organs for any reason without the consent of the organ donor. You on the other hand seem content with reasoning that since that baby was murdered anyway, we might as well chop him to pieces and sell those pieces. Who knows. Some good might come of it. By the same logic, Z would have been in favor of using the skin of Jews to make lamps in 1943. After all, those Jews were dead anyway and they had no further use for their skin and those lamps need shades. You really are a moral monster Z. If you've ever condemned the Nazis you should apologize for your hypocrisy.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: First he says whether he approves of chopping up little babies and distributing their parts turns on whether the butcher complied with the law. Then he says he does not think that just because something is legal it is also moral. No, Barry Arrington. Your original question concerned the sale of fetal tissue. You purposefully changed the wording, and we responded accordingly. UDEditors: If by "responded accordingly" you mean "told a damned lie" then you are most certainly correct. BFast, for instance, thinks it's okay to "chop up little babies and distribute their parts" in certain dire situations, so the constant repetition of your charged language does little to further the discussion. Barry Arrington: Newsflash, “life/health of the mother” is a tiny fraction of 1% of abortions. Actually, about 3% are due to maternal health consequences. But given your own statistic, would you allow abortion in these few cases? If so, are you in favor of allowing women to donate the fetal tissue for medicine in the hopes it will save other lives? See Guttmacher Institute, "Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States", August 2011.Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
StephenB: sean’s example is hopelessly confused, as I made clear. StephenB: There is a big difference between paying an agency to help children and paying an agency to slice them up into parts for profit. That wasn't the point of comparison, but the difference between paying standard fees for delivery and paying for the thing being delivered. The example illustrates this quite well. StephenB: you keep changing your position about the morality of murdering innocent children and selling their parts. Is it immoral or not? You seem to have the same problem with comprehension as Barry Arrington. Our position is clear and found in the original post. Distributing fetal tissue, such as after an abortion countenanced by bFast above, is moral and legal. Selling fetal tissue is not because it can lead to a situation where women become factories for body parts. bb: And Zachriel lets judges, rather than scientists like himself, define what is “human”. Wrong. We reach our own conclusions. However, the U.S. judicial compromise balancing the value of the fetus with the autonomy of woman is reasonable; but there's no perfect solution. People wail about abortion, but they have little idea how meager this controversy will seem in a few years. Cloning and other genetic technologies will create far more complex and dangerous situations, and those that are inflexible will have no influence on the rapid social changes that are coming. bb: A baby in the womb is in no substantive way different than a baby that is born. Most people see life from conception to birth as a continuum. Few see a zygote as having the same claim to life as a baby. That's why people will fertilize many eggs in the hopes of creating a single baby, and only the rare person would consider it child endangerment. bb: As with all materialists Wrong. We're not materialist. bb: As with all materialists, he is amoral to the core. Wrong. Many materialists are moral.Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Zach, One of the reasons I know that abortion supporters such as yourself really know that abortion is evil, is that invariably and without exception they try to hide behind "life/health of the mother." Newsflash, "life/health of the mother" is a tiny fraction of 1% of abortions. And trying to use the 1% to justify the 99% is an absolutely certain indication that you know the 99% can never be justified standing alone.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Axel,
Barry, surely, Zachriel’s moral blindness, wilful or not, resides in his equation of morality
Axel, part of Zachriel's depravity is that he is a damn liar. First he says whether he approves of chopping up little babies and distributing their parts turns on whether the butcher complied with the law. Then he says he does not think that just because something is legal it is also moral. In this regard, Zachriel is the consummate materialist. Words have no meaning; lies are as good as the truth, because there is no truth. So there is no need to be consistent. He is evil, and evil despises rationality. In a sense, even though he really does nauseate me, I am glad he posts here. He is the poster boy for what it looks like when materialism causes one to cast off all restraint. And it is ugly beyond words.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
bFast @ #2: 'Zachriel knows this. As with all materialists, he is amoral to the core.' Since 'he knows his', bFast, surely Zachriel is immoral, rather than amoral.Axel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Barry, surely, Zachriel's moral blindness, wilful or not, resides in his equation of morality with the law of the land, which, in fact, in the West, in tandem with the attrition of the Christian zeitgeist, has become increasingly depraved in its rulings.Axel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Zachriel
Sean samis’s example was spot-on.
sean's example is hopelessly confused, as I made clear. It cannot be rescued. Meanwhile, you keep changing your position about the morality of murdering innocent children and selling their parts. Is it immoral or not?StephenB
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: In your own words, your entire argument for why you support “distributing” baby pieces as opposed to “selling” baby pieces rests on the legal issue. No. There's a difference — in fact — between selling orphans and charging conventional fees for placing them with families. You forgot to answer: Some abortions are done to save the life or health of the mother. Would you allow abortion in these cases? If so, are you against donating the fetal tissue? bFast: Save the health of the mother is the greatest crock going. There are cases where a pregnancy can be dangerous to the mother, such as when the fetus is dying. bFast: If an abortion is seriously necessary to save the life of the mother, then the principle of self-defense can justify an abortion. So you support abortion, at least in some cases. bFast: I would not have a problem with the parents choosing to allow their child’s organs be donated. Which means there would be a process of harvesting the organs and other tissues. This can also occur after a miscarriage. bFast: I doubt if Planned Parenthood ever asked the murderous mother her permission to “harvest the organs”. In the few states that allow fetal donation, the law requires the woman's consent.Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Zachriel, "Some abortions are done to save the life or health of the mother." Save the health of the mother is the greatest crock going. Where such is required, doctors declare that the mother is experiencing "anxiety", so needs an abortion. If an abortion is seriously necessary to save the life of the mother, then the principle of self-defense can justify an abortion. However, never should the understanding that the child is a person be disrespected. If an abortion is necessary to save the life of a mother, I would not have a problem with the parents choosing to allow their child's organs be donated. Note, however, that the child's parents must be an integral part of this process. I doubt if Planned Parenthood ever asked the murderous mother her permission to "harvest the organs".bFast
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington @29
Z, I have to be honest with you. I get a little nauseated when I deal with you. You are that disgusting.
Now I’m feeling left out! sean s.sean samis
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Z @ 7: Of course they can both be true . . . anyone knows that a gift and a sale have a different status in the law.
Z @ 26: "Nor do we think that just because something is legal that it is moral."
In your own words, your entire argument for why you support "distributing" baby pieces as opposed to "selling" baby pieces rests on the legal issue. And when you later say it doesn't rest on the legal issue, that makes you a damn liar in addition to a supporter of killing little babies, chopping them into pieces, and distributing the pieces. I suppose if you are the latter it should not surprise us that you are also the former. Z, I have to be honest with you. I get a little nauseated when I deal with you. You are that disgusting.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Zachriel @26
Huh? We didn’t mention the Supreme Court @7. Nor do we think that just because something is legal that it is moral.
Zachriel; don’t worry if Barry puts words in your mouth; that’s his shtick. sean s.sean samis
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
StephenB: There is a big difference between paying an agency to help children and paying an agency to slice them up into parts for profit. Sean samis's example was spot-on.
Hypothetical: Should we sell orphans like cattle? No. Should we facilitate their adoption? Yes. Should adoption agencies be able to charge fees to cover the costs of adoption? Seems reasonable. Since fees are just a selling price, it seems we should sell orphans like cattle.
Indeed, there is a valid distinction between charging fees and selling orphans. Similarly, and as the law {and common practice} makes clear, there is a difference between charging fees sufficient to cover costs, and charging for fetal tissue. If there is a miscarriage, should the woman be able to donate the remains to medicine?Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Zachriel @ 7 says that if the Supreme Court has made it legal then it is OK by him. Huh? We didn't mention the Supreme Court @7. Nor do we think that just because something is legal that it is moral. You forgot to answer: Some abortions are done to save the life or health of the mother. Would you allow abortion in these cases? If so, are you against donating the fetal tissue?Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply