Is it a sin??????

[joebloggs]

then we have a never ending argument dont we?

and that oath needs updating and modernising?

when would you feel a baby should be terminated?... if ever,as its seems doctors should do everything to keep a baby alive when should they allow one to die?

yes we do

updating or modernising, well in some medical schools the abortion part has been removed, why ?? i don't know the reason. pressure from pro abortion groups ?

but how can you change an oath that's 2,400 years old ?


yes, in one room they could be trying to save a premature baby and in the next ending the life of one

[Mrs Daddy]

Oh dear do you mind if am gonna we`re on page 6 now guys this reminds me of another thread (deabates about God) Its just never ending.We are all entitled to our own opinion and I all respect you for that!now where`s the pint

[Sophie]

Oh dear do you mind if am gonna we`re on page 6 now guys this reminds me of another thread (deabates about God) Its just never ending.We are all entitled to our own opinion and I all respect you for that!now where`s the pint

The longer this thread gets, the more pint you owe everyone mrs daddy

[Mrs Daddy]

The longer this thread gets, the more pint you owe everyone mrs daddy

I just thought the same sophie

[Piamed]

o

I don't envy any doctor faced with such decisions, especially if they also have strongly held religious convictions which might conflict with their clinical judgement. When we were in Cebu earlier this year we were involved on a daily basis with a family member who has terminal cancer. Although the neurologist knew she was going to die within 2 years he would not say so directly because of his faith and his belief that such matters are only in the hands of "God". It made handling the situation in the best way much more difficult.
When treating a pregnant women is the doctor primarily concerned for the mother or her potential baby? It cannot be easy, given the strongly held opposing views expressed here.
My position is clear. I don't believe "life" begins until it can survive alone. Until then it is not viable. I can understand the emotional attachment of parents to the changes happening within the mother, and why they feel as they do. Just because one part starts to work ( like the heart) does not mean that "life" exists. It is a bit like saying that a F1 car exists when you are testing the engine in the workshop. Until it goes out onto the track as a finished car, with a driver able to operate it, it is not viable on it's own. I don't intend any insult to anyone but its important to remove the emotion and look at the facts.

Health care professionals are primarily concerned with maintaining each and every life, full stop.

I do not think the F1 car is the best analogy (I know where you are coming from though) but sticking to it for illustrative purposes, I would say the following: If the engine of a F1 car is running but the car is in the pit being tweaked by engineers during fuelling it is no less an F1 car. Reason that the mothers body is the team of engineers and the fuelling line is the umbilical cord.

[joebloggs]

The longer this thread gets, the more pint you owe everyone mrs daddy

then i can make it 10 pages long

my last post on this.

[Mrs Daddy]

then i can make it 10 pages long

my last post on this.

what can I say joe

[bornatbirth]

what can I say joe

the pints are on me? didnt you already sat that

[Mrs Daddy]

the pints are on me? didnt you already sat that

that`s true!

[David House]

Health care professionals are primarily concerned with maintaining each and every life, full stop.

And that's the problem isn't it? I, and many others, do not accept that "life" exists at the moment of conception, but only that the potential for "life" exists, whereas a mother is clearly alive and that she must receive the primary concern.

I do not think the F1 car is the best analogy (I know where you are coming from though) but sticking to it for illustrative purposes, I would say the following: If the engine of a F1 car is running but the car is in the pit being tweaked by engineers during fuelling it is no less an F1 car. Reason that the mothers body is the team of engineers and the fuelling line is the umbilical cord.

Rather confused thinking I fear. If the car was totally finished and ready to race, but simply in the pits being tuned, you are right and the same applies, of course, to a baby who is viable. What we are discussing though is not that. I was suggesting that the car's engine was ready,working and being tested, but that the rest of the car was still being developed prior to assembly. Therefore it was not yet a viable F1 car, in the same way a baby is not really a baby until it is complete and able to live without it's mother.
I know we are rather getting bogged down in this and that views are deeply entrenched but I think it is helpful for those who hold the opposing view to be exposed to the rational of those who don't share that viewpoint. I used to be strongly "pro-life" until I thought more deeply about it and realised my arguments were based upon emotions rather than reality.

[joebloggs]

[COLOR="Red"]Health care professionals are primarily concerned with maintaining each and every life, full stop.

And that's the problem isn't it? I, and many others, do not accept that "life" exists at the moment of conception, but only that the potential for "life" exists, whereas a mother is clearly alive and that she must receive the primary concern.

and that is the problem because, I and many others, and many doctors don't agree with you, and that a unborn baby does have rights.

and why do you keep mentioning the mother must receive the primary concern, most abortions are not because of the risk to the mother, they just don't want the baby, simple as that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6558823.stm

An increasing number of doctors are refusing to carry out abortions, leading to a crisis in NHS services, experts have warned.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says there has been a big rise in the number of doctors who are "conscientious objectors".


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...abortions.html

NHS doctors are refusing to carry out late abortions on moral grounds, forcing hospitals to contract them out to private practitioners.

Consultant gynaecologist Vincent Argent said there was "marked reluctance" among NHS staff to carry out late terminations. He said: "This isn't the result of childish squeamishness, these are healthcare professionals trained in dealing with any sort of medical situation. But late abortions conflict with everything doctors and nurses are trained to do - preserve life."


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...ry-444909.html

"Medically, abortion really isn't a popular thing to do, it is not a very technical or demanding operation and it's actually quite disheartening," he says.

"There's no handshakes or slaps on the backs afterwards, or the sense that you've done something great for someone. The best you can hope for is sense of relief that it is over.

"In my day to day work I deal with requests for terminations but I have a conscientious objection to that. During the consultation I will tell them because of my personal views I cannot refer them to hospital for the procedure and they will have to speak with another doctor. Out of the six doctors in our practice, three of us object to abortion.

Personally I feel the foetus is a person and killing that foetus is wrong

and http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle2037352.ece

[David House]

If you re-read all my posts you will see that I am not suggesting for a moment that abortion is an easy or desirable thing. Far from it, in my view it should always be an action of last resort, the least worse choice, when all other options have failed. Abortion as an alternative to contraception is not acceptable to me at all. I also don't minimise the emotional turmoil undergone by women who undergo an abortion, having witnessed it at first hand.
My argument is with those who feel it is wrong in every circumstance. To refer to a fertilised egg as an "unborn child" is simply wrong. In my view, it is still part of the mother until born and able to breath unaided. Therefore the primary duty of all doctors must be to the mother until then. I know some find it difficult and refuse to get involved. That is their personal decision.

[joebloggs]

My argument is with those who feel it is wrong in every circumstance. To refer to a fertilised egg as an "unborn child" is simply wrong. In my view, it is still part of the mother until born and able to breath unaided. Therefore the primary duty of all doctors must be to the mother until then. I know some find it difficult and refuse to get involved. That is their personal decision.

i don't think its wrong in every circumstance, but i don't agree with your view on a unborn baby, but that's your view and your entitled to it, but many doctors do not agree with you, and it goes against the original Hippocratic Oath, so it should not be a personal decision at all for doctors, thou some med school had taken the abortion part out of their version of the oath.

as i've already said abortion is not allowed in the original oath, so its not just a doctors personal beliefs, but written in the oath,not to take part in abortions and to preserve all life, my wife has seen many abortions, and has a degree in biology and medicine, and after more than 10years studying at uni. so she knows what the risks are to the mother if she has an abortion (risk of never having kids again, 6 * risk of committing suicide than a 1st time mother, etc) but she is still totally against abortions if it is not a danger to the mother.

from the nhs website..
A doctor or nurse has the right to refuse to take part in abortion if they do not believe in abortion. However, they should always refer you on to another doctor or nurse who will help. The General Medical Council guidance for doctors makes it clear that a doctor's 'personal beliefs' should not affect patient care. There is similar guidance provided by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for nurses, and by The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain for pharmacists.

this is a cop out by the GMC, saying they can refuse to take part if they do not believe in abortion, when its not allowed in the original oath, and the GMC know they can not force doctors to do abortions, and what would happen if the GMC had tired to force all doctors to carry out abortions?

no woman should have to go thru an abortion, no doctor should have to perform one, and no life should be lost..

and we will never agree by the looks of it

[aromulus]

We can debate this until we are blue in the face and still not get to some common ground.

Yes, it is a thorny, very thorny subject and I for one, am very confused.
I see all points raised are valid and without a doubt show real concern for the issue.

In the end, if the risk of losing the mother is so great that no other alternative can be found to save both, then I think it should be allowed, provided the woman gives consent.

This subject, really, is closely related to research on human embryos.
In some aspects the catholic church is right in being against it, as it will take us somewhere where in the end we will not be very happy... Clones, designer babies, etc.

I said to myself that I wasn't going to get involved in this one, but too late now.
It struck a very painful chord.....

[joebloggs]

just like an Italian,

wait til the fightings is all over




sorry dom


the number of cases where the mothers life is at risk are low, most abortions are carried out because the woman doesn't want it, remember the ads, a dog is not just for xmas, a dog is for life ? pitty they don't have the same ad for babies


the sun is shining, the front garden needs weeding, and i'll see if i can trick, and mean get little joe to help me

[Piamed]

Health care professionals are primarily concerned with maintaining each and every life, full stop.

And that's the problem isn't it? I, and many others, do not accept that "life" exists at the moment of conception, but only that the potential for "life" exists, whereas a mother is clearly alive and that she must receive the primary concern.

I do not think the F1 car is the best analogy (I know where you are coming from though) but sticking to it for illustrative purposes, I would say the following: If the engine of a F1 car is running but the car is in the pit being tweaked by engineers during fuelling it is no less an F1 car. Reason that the mothers body is the team of engineers and the fuelling line is the umbilical cord.

Rather confused thinking I fear. If the car was totally finished and ready to race, but simply in the pits being tuned, you are right and the same applies, of course, to a baby who is viable. What we are discussing though is not that. I was suggesting that the car's engine was ready,working and being tested, but that the rest of the car was still being developed prior to assembly. Therefore it was not yet a viable F1 car, in the same way a baby is not really a baby until it is complete and able to live without it's mother.
I know we are rather getting bogged down in this and that views are deeply entrenched but I think it is helpful for those who hold the opposing view to be exposed to the rational of those who don't share that viewpoint. I used to be strongly "pro-life" until I thought more deeply about it and realised my arguments were based upon emotions rather than reality.

That health care professionals are primarily concerned with maintaining each and every life cannot be positioned as a problem. From the moment of conception what is growing inside the women is very clearly alive both scientifically and morally. Anyone who knows anything about basic biology can attest to the former. The moral rationale underpinning the validity of life regardless of age or stage of development, is clear to those for whom it is important.

I agree that the analogy and it's development detract from the issue at hand. I am not pro-life at all; I am anti-abortion generally and believe that an abortion is both ending the life of an individual and their potential.

The result of an abortion is that an innocent human being is killed simply because they're in the way and can't defend themselves. That is a legal definition of murder. Don't believe me? Then look check out California state law: "Murder defined: death of a fetus. Paragraph A- Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought." There is a caveat provided to ensure mother's do not get prosecuted as long as they effectively do it in a state registered clinic where the practitioners are also exempt from prosecution Otherwise it's murder pinishable by law. Bottom line: it's murder but if done in a state registered clinic we will not prosecute you.

If you re-read all my posts you will see that I am not suggesting for a moment that abortion is an easy or desirable thing. Far from it, in my view it should always be an action of last resort, the least worse choice, when all other options have failed. Abortion as an alternative to contraception is not acceptable to me at all. I also don't minimise the emotional turmoil undergone by women who undergo an abortion, having witnessed it at first hand.

It would appear that we are aligned on the key issue stated above. You have your own emotional view about unborn babies that is at odds with basic biology but I accept that is your view. It is however an obviously emotional one.

no woman should have to go thru an abortion, no doctor should have to perform one, and no life should be lost..

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!

[joebloggs]

reasons given for abortions..

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
- Feels she can't afford baby 23%
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93%
(Approx.)

"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
- Mother's Health 4%
- Baby may have health problem 3%
- Rape or Incest <0.5%

from http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/r...abortions.html -pro life group,. but i've checked with other sites, and the figures are roughly the same...

93% are because of social reasons..
7% are for medical reasons...

200,000+ abortions in the uk last year -

186,000 aborted because of 'social' reasons..
14,000 for medical reasons..

something the uk can be proud of

[David House]

As the Hippocratic Oath is being quoted here I took a look on Wikipedia. I quote:-

Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although it is not obligatory and no longer taken up by all physicians

Derivations of the oath have modified over the years in various countries, schools, and societies as the social, religious, and political importance of medicine has changed. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the original version that forbade abortion, euthanasia, and further forbade general practitioners from surgery

It is unsurprising that ancient oaths have to be modified in line with modern medicine and a greater understanding. The modern version is:-

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

This seems to me to suit modern conditions much better and even refers to "the need to take a life". By the way I think that in the Philippines the doctors don't sign the Hippocratic Oath! They sign the Hypocrisy Oath judging by the double standards often employed in deciding how to treat a patient dependent upon their ability to pay!

[Piamed]

The 3% killed because the babies will not be perfect is terrible also. Sure no one wants a congenitally injured baby but many of the 3% can still have a meaningful life and who are we to decide if they are worthy enough of life? In those instances we are just thinking about ourselves. It's still a choice we have to make in those instances and thus in my view these fall into the social reasons category. Mother's health and rape, depending on the mother's condition(emotionally, mentally and physically), are exceptions.

Some special women who have been raped have been able to have the child and either raise it successfully themselves or put it up for adoption. That is unusual though and calls for superhuman bravery and understanding. The figure above show that this reason for abortion is extremely low so should not be focussed upon as a key justifier for abortion.

[joebloggs]

By the way I think that in the Philippines the doctors don't sign the Hippocratic Oath! They sign the Hypocrisy Oath judging by the double standards often employed in deciding how to treat a patient dependent upon their ability to pay!

as for the oath, i stated the original one, and even if the med school leaves it out, the GMC still can not and will not force all doctors to perform abortions, because it is against the original oath and also against the principle of preserving ALL life.

as for doctors in the Phils. you've no idea, how can a doctor ask someone who earns 10k amonth, to go for a CT scan when the cost is 25kphp ? yes that's private medicine for you. the doctor has to supply a treatment the patient can afford, you really think the doctor wants to do that ? , dont blame the doctors for the poverty in the phlis or the lack of a NHS. thats private medicine just like in the USA, the richest country in the world.

and you've no idea of the effort and time doctors and student doctors in the phils give to the patient for nothing, and in some cases they paid for the treatment themselves. many times my misses has told me what they have done for patients for nothing.

my last post on this because you clearly are getting desperate insulting doctors

[David House]

The 3% killed because the babies will not be perfect is terrible also. Sure no one wants a congenitally injured baby but many of the 3% can still have a meaningful life and who are we to decide if they are worthy enough of life? In those instances we are just thinking about ourselves. It's still a choice we have to make in those instances and thus in my view these fall into the social reasons category. Mother's health and rape, depending on the mother's condition(emotionally, mentally and physically), are exceptions.

Some special women who have been raped have been able to have the child and either raise it successfully themselves or put it up for adoption. That is unusual though and calls for superhuman bravery and understanding. The figure above show that this reason for abortion is extremely low so should not be focussed upon as a key justifier for abortion.

I completely agree with this. No-one should be allowed to abort for such reasons.

With regard to Philippine doctors I was maybe being "over the top" as I have experience of both good and bad. There are many who are dedicated and do their best in an imperfect system. There are also those who seem much more interested in their fees than in helping the patient. Having recently supported a relative with terminal cancer I have personal experience of unecessary procedures and time in hospital which was organised entirely for the benefit of the doctor, and not the patient.

[bornatbirth]

reading this as made me thirsty??? wheres my pint

[Mrs Daddy]

reading this as made me thirsty??? wheres my pint

its coming Hope you dont mind if i sit on the fence

[SurvivingAngel]

You're right!!! In Taiwan it is the same, they always add 1 year to our age. They said life begins at the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm.

I cannot resist with them as it's sounds true

Yes, life begins at the moment of fertilization. However, if you compute it, the gestation period does not even reach a year, so I find it strange to consider a baby a year old upon birth.

The ironic thing here is that they would say that it's ok to have the unborn child, with life, aborted if it's below 3 months, thinking there's no life in it yet.

[SurvivingAngel]

reasons given for abortions..

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
- Feels she can't afford baby 23%
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93%
(Approx.)

"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
- Mother's Health 4%
- Baby may have health problem 3%
- Rape or Incest <0.5%

from http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/r...abortions.html -pro life group,. but i've checked with other sites, and the figures are roughly the same...

93% are because of social reasons..
7% are for medical reasons...

200,000+ abortions in the uk last year -

186,000 aborted because of 'social' reasons..
14,000 for medical reasons..

something the uk can be proud of

This only goes to show that some people are not responsible enough for the consequences of their actions. We are now living in a modern society, it's outrageous to see that most women who have had abortion have these social reasons in killing their own flesh and blood. With all the contraceptives you can avail of, some people are not resourceful enough.

[SurvivingAngel]

sin or no sin ........ if she thinks its a sin having sex is a sin too ........ especially if ur not married .......... but if u don't belive in that , well means no sins committed i think

Being open to new ideas does not necessarily mean you have to adopt them. Fornication used to be a NO-NO here in the Philippines but people have gradually been influenced by other cultures.

They do things that used to be abhorred by the society but I hope they should be clever enough to avoid whatever unpleasant consequences their actions may bring about.

[SurvivingAngel]

There are also those who seem much more interested in their fees than in helping the patient. Having recently supported a relative with terminal cancer I have personal experience of unecessary procedures and time in hospital which was organised entirely for the benefit of the doctor, and not the patient.

I completely agree with you David. I just came out of the hospital and was made to pay a lot for doctor's fee. I was rushed to the hospital for severe headache caused by sinusitis. There is an Internist that I regularly go to so I had her check me but the hospital called another doctor, a Neurologist, who made me undergo a lot of tests saying it could be because of hypertension.

Three days later, I was asked to pay 4,000 for a two-day visit which was apart from my hospital bill. When I asked her assistant why I had to pay that much I was just told that that's what the Neurologist said.

Some doctors don't care about their patients. All they care about is how much they make from them.

[JudyHon]

That health care professionals are primarily concerned with maintaining each and every life cannot be positioned as a problem. From the moment of conception what is growing inside the women is very clearly alive both scientifically and morally. Anyone who knows anything about basic biology can attest to the former. The moral rationale underpinning the validity of life regardless of age or stage of development, is clear to those for whom it is important.

The result of an abortion is that an innocent human being is killed simply because they're in the way and can't defend themselves. That is a legal definition of murder. Don't believe me? Then look check out California state law: "Murder defined: death of a fetus. Paragraph A- Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought." There is a caveat provided to ensure mother's do not get prosecuted as long as they effectively do it in a state registered clinic where the practitioners are also exempt from prosecution Otherwise it's murder pinishable by law. Bottom line: it's murder but if done in a state registered clinic we will not prosecute you.

Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.

[adam&chryss]

Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.

May I ask how many children sir has?

[JudyHon]

May I ask how many children sir has?

May I ask how the number of children someone has has any relevance upon an objective ethical discussion?