Abortion in the US

[socal swimmer]

Soundless, I mean no disrespect, but you are an idiot. Abortion, past a certain point, is indistinguishable from murder - morally speaking. Its a horrible, horrible thing, and I wouldn't want to be the doctors that do it, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. It shouldn't be done as a matter of course, and society as a whole should see it as A Bad Thing. It should be treated as what it is, legalized and often-necessary murder.

 

this is true. however, this is important:

 

"Abortion, past a certain point, is indistinguishable from murder".

 

I believe that this point comes at viability (hence my arguments). This is how US law is defined. One could also make an argument that it comes at the beginning of consciousness, but this is much harder to define...

[PSPHax0r9]

ok so maybe my argument has flaws...

 

Actually it does.

 

This is more what I meant:

 

Before the fetus reaches viability, it is completely biologically dependent on the mother. Though it is genetically distinct, it recieves 100% of its food, nutrients, water, oxygen, etc from the mother. At this point, it is essentially an organ. Organs don't have rights. I'm pretty sure its not illegal to remove your kidney, nor is it "murder".

No, it's a person. Last time I checked, organs don't drain your food, water, nutrients, and oxygen. So are you saying that someone who needs an iron lung to breathe and an IV to get food is an organ? How stupid is that? Talk about insensitivty. you can't classify a fetus as just an organ because the fact is that (if nothing goes wrong naturally) it WILL be born and it WILL be able to survive on its own, and it is already genetically distinct. A fetus has never been, and will never be, an organ.

[Soündless]

now that i think about it, third trimester abortion is kinda sick, but it is very hard to define where it should be legal and were it shouldnt

[PSPHax0r9]

Soundless, I mean no disrespect, but you are an idiot. Abortion, past a certain point, is indistinguishable from murder - morally speaking. Its a horrible, horrible thing, and I wouldn't want to be the doctors that do it, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. It shouldn't be done as a matter of course, and society as a whole should see it as A Bad Thing. It should be treated as what it is, legalized and often-necessary murder.

 

The thing is, that most of the time it ISN'T necessary. Pregnant rape victims aren't numerous enough, and it is still rare that the life of a mother be threatened tot he point that the baby must die, so I fail to see how it is often necessary.

[Soündless]

The thing is, that most of the time it ISN'T necessary. Pregnant rape victims aren't numerous enough, and it is still rare that the life of a mother be threatened tot he point that the baby must die, so I fail to see how it is often necessary.

most of the time it is an inconvenience. i know plenty of girls who got abortions cause their parents would beat them if they knew they were pregnant.

[PSPHax0r9]

I believe that this point comes at viability (hence my arguments). This is how US law is defined. One could also make an argument that it comes at the beginning of consciousness, but this is much harder to define...

We're not talking semantics here. This is human life, not law. Abortion at all points should be considered murder. Because the fact is that it IS a human life, and it IS alive from conception. Even if you disagree that it is alive because it is dependant on outside sources (again, making people on life support apparently not alive), why would you even risk the possibility of that you could be destroying a human life? In fact, it's human life at its very MOST vulnerable. There's no reason to say that because you're unsure, we should just allow what might be murder.

most of the time it is an inconvenience. i know plenty of girls who got abortions cause their parents would beat them if they knew they were pregnant.

Exactly. Exactly my point.Those girls kill an innocent child (or, suppress an innocent child's birth) because it's an inconvenience.

 

People with diseases are an inconvenience to their family members and caretakers. Let's just round 'em up and kill 'em while they're nice and vulnerable. That's what we should do!

[apowerr]

now that i think about it, third trimester abortion is kinda sick, but it is very hard to define where it should be legal and were it shouldnt

Good, you have opened your mind and are understanding. It is very hard to decide when it's legal and when it's not (in terms of how long the pregnancy has been in progress).

Because the fact is that it IS a human life, and it IS alive from conception.

Just because it is alive from conception does not mean that it is human. All living things are alive, but not all living things are human (obvious on purpose). In my opinion, it does not become a human life or gain human status untill later in the pregnancy. I think early on abortions and embryonic stem cell research should be legal.

[socal swimmer]

No, it's a person. Last time I checked, organs don't drain your food, water, nutrients, and oxygen. So are you saying that someone who needs an iron lung to breathe and an IV to get food is an organ? How stupid is that? Talk about insensitivty. you can't classify a fetus as just an organ because the fact is that (if nothing goes wrong naturally) it WILL be born and it WILL be able to survive on its own, and it is already genetically distinct. A fetus has never been, and will never be, an organ.

 

uhh.... organs don't use food, water, nutrients, or oxygen? Are you kidding? of course they do. they are composed of cells, which use all of those things to live.

 

If nothing goes wrong, an egg will be born too. It just needs a little food, water, nutrients, oxygen, and a tiny bit of white stuff. Hardly any, really.

 

We're not talking semantics here. This is human life, not law. Abortion at all points should be considered murder. Because the fact is that it IS a human life, and it IS alive from conception. Even if you disagree that it is alive because it is dependant on outside sources (again, making people on life support apparently not alive), why would you even risk the possibility of that you could be destroying a human life? In fact, it's human life at its very MOST vulnerable. There's no reason to say that because you're unsure, we should just allow what might be murder.Exactly. Exactly my point.Those girls kill an innocent child (or, suppress an innocent child's birth) because it's an inconvenience.

 

People with diseases are an inconvenience to their family members and caretakers. Let's just round 'em up and kill 'em while they're nice and vulnerable. That's what we should do!

 

So abortion isn't about law? Yes it is. We are debating whether abortion should be made illegal.

 

So a zygote (new embryo) is alive from conception? Is it not alive before that? I'm pretty sure that both sperm AND egg are alive.

 

There are also lots of things that are alive that we just kill off. Like spiders and little rats.

 

You do know that at the first trimester, a human fetus is physiologically indistinguishable from a chicken fetus? You must think it should be illegal to kill a chicken fetus too, because it too is alive, and is the same as a human fetus.

 

 

So just because its alive doesn't mean that killing it should be murder.

 

 

let me ask you this: if a woman was going to die during childbirth, should she be able to get an abortion?

[PSPHax0r9]

uhh.... organs don't use food, water, nutrients, or oxygen? Are you kidding? of course they do. they are composed of cells, which use all of those things to live.

Drain. Not use, drain. A human will drain resources from the mother, not just use them.

 

If nothing goes wrong, an egg will be born too. It just needs a little food, water, nutrients, oxygen, and a tiny bit of white stuff. Hardly any, really.

No, it won't. Naturally, without any interference, it won't. What's so hard to get about that? A fertilized egg WILL be born without any interference. An egg NEEDS interference (fertilization) to develop into a human being, so naturally, it's not just going to develop into a human. Nice try with that stock, ridiculous claim, though.

 

 

 

So abortion isn't about law? Yes it is. We are debating whether abortion should be made illegal.

Yes, thanks for that Captain. What I'm saying is that the human life and what is done with it supersedes law, and we should not be defining when a human becomes a human from what the current laws are; laws which might not have any backing. Basically, I'm saying it is chiefly a moral debate for laws to follow, and using current laws as argument isn't valid.

 

So a zygote (new embryo) is alive from conception? Is it not alive before that? I'm pretty sure that both sperm AND egg are alive.

It is a HUMAN life, I'm sorry for not specifying, sir.

 

There are also lots of things that are alive that we just kill off. Like spiders and little rats

Right! So let's just do that to humans, too! Great argument!

 

You do know that at the first trimester, a human fetus is physiologically indistinguishable from a chicken fetus? You must think it should be illegal to kill a chicken fetus too, because it too is alive, and is the same as a human fetus.

Really? Last time I checked chicken fetuses don't develop inside HUMANS, although something might have changed int he last 10 seconds that I wasn't aware of. And genetically, it IS distinguishable from a chicken fetus...

 

 

So just because its alive doesn't mean that killing it should be murder.

So it's alive. And it's a human. Last time I checked, deliberately killing an alive human was defined as murder. Although, once again, that could've changed in the past 10 seconds.

 

 

let me ask you this: if a woman was going to die during childbirth, should she be able to get an abortion?

Yes, but like I mentioned above, this is a RARE circumstance for which stipulations to the law could be made. We shouldn't make abortions in general legal just because in very RARE circumstances the life of the mother is in danger and she needs an abortion.

[socal swimmer]

Drain. Not use, drain. A human will drain resources from the mother, not just use them.

 

excuse me if i do not understand the difference between the words "use" and "drain" in the way you are using (draining? jk) them.. Can you please clarify this?

 

No, it won't. Naturally, without any interference, it won't. What's so hard to get about that? A fertilized egg WILL be born without any interference. An egg NEEDS interference (fertilization) to develop into a human being, so naturally, it's not just going to develop into a human. Nice try with that stock, ridiculous claim, though.

 

the mother must pump food, water, nutrients, oxygen, etc into the fetus/embryo for 9 months. This is pretty damn big interference. Non-interference would be throwing it on a table and expecting it to feed itself, which is ridiculous. So it is flawed to say an embryo will develop fully with no interference.

 

Yes, thanks for that Captain. What I'm saying is that the human life and what is done with it supersedes law, and we should not be defining when a human becomes a human from what the current laws are; laws which might not have any backing. Basically, I'm saying it is chiefly a moral debate for laws to follow, and using current laws as argument isn't valid.

 

ok I get it. I didn't understand what you meant...

 

It is a HUMAN life, I'm sorry for not specifying, sir.

 

I don't agree that it is a human life. It is alive, and it could develop into a human, but at that point, it is not human. It is a single cell, humans are multicellular. Humans don't live inside people (unless something changed in the past 10 seconds), it does. Humans are self-aware, and have brains, and can think, and feel emotions, and reason, it can't. So other than genetics, it has almost nothing in common with humans.

 

Right! So let's just do that to humans, too! Great argument!

 

I was merely saying that just because something is alive does not mean that we should give it rights.

 

Really? Last time I checked chicken fetuses don't develop inside HUMANS, although something might have changed int he last 10 seconds that I wasn't aware of. And genetically, it IS distinguishable from a chicken fetus...

So it's alive. And it's a human. Last time I checked, deliberately killing an alive human was defined as murder. Although, once again, that could've changed in the past 10 seconds.

Yes, but like I mentioned above, this is a RARE circumstance for which stipulations to the law could be made. We shouldn't make abortions in general legal just because in very RARE circumstances the life of the mother is in danger and she needs an abortion.

 

ok, so there are cases where murder is ok? I can go out and kill someone on the street, as long as my reason is good enough?

 

That is logically, morally, and legally incorrect.

 

If you think abortion is ok in certain cases, then you must not think it is really murder. Otherwise, there is a hole in your reasoning.

[wildcat69410]

ok, so there are cases where murder is ok? I can go out and kill someone on the street, as long as my reason is good enough?

 

That is logically, morally, and legally incorrect.

 

If you think abortion is ok in certain cases, then you must not think it is really murder. Otherwise, there is a hole in your reasoning.

 

Have you heard of self-defense? Justifiable homicide? That kind of a logical failsafe is already built into our legal system. Assuming that the circumstances he's talking about refer specifically to rape victims and life-threatening delivery, then there's no hole in his reasoning.

[maclust]

this may already been said, but me being of the {censored} carrying variety i have no say or stance on this issue due to the fact that i myself will never have to make a decision like that. i may support one for going pro or nay with it, but can never actually say yes or no. just my .02

[solaar]

The psychological (and even some medical) implications of abortion are way way more complex than just 'pro choice' or 'pro life'. You meet new complexity with each individual case.

 

1. The psyche of the vast majority of women considering abortion is brittle. It is the last resort and truly a psychological ordeal. I reckon we can safely assume that it is an extreme and tough decision for every woman.

 

2. At least in the countries where abortion is legal and recorded, the first abortion is also the last for the vast majority of women. The whole experience seems to have an 'educational' effect in most cases, ie. to be more responsible in the future in terms of birth control. 'Never again' is the most used phrase after abortion. Also there is a fairly long and painful questionnaire to walk through at the MD (even in the Netherlands) before any physical action is taken. In some countries they also show photos of freshly aborted fetuses to the women. Quite a few women just turn around and walk out right there.

 

3. Women with a generally rather fragile health run the risk of infertility or other gynecological disorders after an abortion. Being aware of the risks, some women abort the idea of abortion right there.

 

4. The so-called solution of 'release for adoption' is certainly noble in theory but not as simple as it sounds. The women who finally decided pro life after considering abortion, who have been experiencing new life growing in their body and who eventually choose to keep the newborn are still the majority.

Let's stay realistic here, the potential scenario of yet another single mother (social case) in a dysfunctional environment (council flat) leading to even more dysfunctional grandchildren (criminals) is the most likely one. Why should a society tolerate the proliferation of such scenarios?

(I reckon the example somebody mentioned before 'it could be the next person who cures cancer' is the most unlikely one and actually not anywhere near reality. The case of the 15 year old pregnant daughter of a single mother, heavy drinker, bearing the next social case is hundreds of times more likely.)

 

5. Forcing women to bear an unwanted baby can lead to serious psychological or even psychiatric disorders. Especially in situations where the child was conceived in traumatising circumstances, and I don't even refer to rape. As trivial as it may sound to many people, the father who was her first great love betrayed her so badly, even the thought of bearing his child becomes intolerable to the point that bipolar disorder, depression etc sets in.

Do we as a society want yet another 'crazy' woman among us?

 

Abortion is not at all like many make it out like 'walk into the MD's, spread the legs, suction tube in and zap... It takes a great deal of careful consideration and very painful decision making.

 

My sources?

My wife's uncle and two friends of mine are gynecologists.

[Embio]

Socal Swimmer, your talking about a parasite - not an organ.... assuming you want to get obscenely clinical about it to the point of being moronic.

[socal swimmer]

Have you heard of self-defense? Justifiable homicide? That kind of a logical failsafe is already built into our legal system. Assuming that the circumstances he's talking about refer specifically to rape victims and life-threatening delivery, then there's no hole in his reasoning.

 

your logic is sound for life-threatening delivery, but not rape.

 

 

Someone rapes a woman, so therefore she can "murder" the baby? The baby did nothing to her. That is a revenge killing, which is also illegal.

 

 

well actually i don't believe abortion is murder, but I am using your logic.

[apowerr]

@Solaar, wow what a great post Like solaar stated, abortion is a tough decision. Again: I think abortion is horrible, and in some cases it is murder. That being said it must remain legal!

[Embio]

one thing that annoys me, and is illustrated beautifully by the questionaire in this thread - why can you only be pro-life, pro-choice, or undecided? I have an opinion - outlined above - that is none of those. Its all very well saying 'where do you lean' or 'if push comes to shove, which side are you on' - but pro-lifers and pro-choicers annoy the hell out of me with their black and white, 2D view of something that is anything but.

 

I also reject the notion that I am undecided.

[apowerr]

one thing that annoys me, and is illustrated beautifully by the questionaire in this thread - why can you only be pro-life, pro-choice, or undecided? I have an opinion - outlined above - that is none of those. Its all very well saying 'where do you lean' or 'if push comes to shove, which side are you on' - but pro-lifers and pro-choicers annoy the hell out of me with their black and white, 2D view of something that is anything but.

 

I also reject the notion that I am undecided.

QFE. Yeah, I cannot stand strict pro-lifers or pro-choicers. I know where I stand, but I put undecided because it wasn't pro-life/choice.

[Dermatea]

Abortion huh? Arguments like these never go anywhere, but hey, I'm all up for endless debates. As for the choices: Pro-life, pro-choice, or undecided, none of them really designate MY position. As for where I stand on this:

 

The EXACT moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, you have human life, no ifs ands or buts. B-b-b-but, it's just a clump of cells. A mass of mindless tissue, r-r-right? WRONG!! The zygote is a COMPLETE human. To destroy it would be murder. Nothing is missing from the zygote. Only time and nourishment need be added in order for it to develop into a fetus, child, adolescent and ultimately, an adult.

 

With that in mind, abortion becomes a light euphemism for murder, and no one has the right to murder.

 

There are many aspects to this, some of which may be confused for abortion when it is not. For example, if the mother develops a cancerous uterous, the uterous must be extracted to save the mother. This will most likely kill the baby, but the goal is to save the mother from certain death, not murder the baby, so it is not abortion.

 

I KNOW for a fact that no one here supports the murder of innocent babies, for there is probably nothing more evil than that. As such, people try to weasel their way out of it by saying the embryo is not a REAL human, not yet anyway, so we can kill it. If there are people who believe this, and I know there are many, convincing them otherwise will be difficult to say the least, but this might help:

http://l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

[Numberzz]

I don't believe it is a complete human. I mean, it doesn't have any body parts, and it cannot live on it's own. It has to feed off of another human, literally. Don't use the metaphor that a child is the same. What the United States needs is a President that isn't religious, so that he can make it legal. That way, the religious people wouldn't do it anyway, and the non-religious people could all have guilt-free rigorous sex.

[Dermatea]

Numberzz, you should visit the link in my post, but like I said, if you don't believe it anyways, you probably won't be convinced. I stand by what I know and believe, I know a zygote is a whole human, since everything is there, only time and nourishment need be added. "Because it can't live on its own" means it isn't human? What about a one-year-old? Surely that's a human in your standards correct? Even a one-year-old can't survive on its own. And what about people in comas? They too would die without constant assistance, yet are they not human? "They don't have body parts" so they are not human? The zygote is the earliest stage of a human's life. It needs to be sheltered in the womb before its organs are developed enough for it to leave, and after that, a newborn still needs constant care before it becomes a child, which still needs attention before becoming an independent. However, my point is, through a human's life, even in adulthood, one's body continues to develop and in no point in time can one be considered not a human simply because he or she hasn't developed enough. As the earliest stage, the zygote is COMPLETE. It isn't MISSING anything. All it's organs are in the process of developing, as it will continue to develop, all the way through adulthood.

[terrancew_hod]

There should be a choice on this poll that says "none of my business", because that what is should be. I don't care either way because I can't have a baby, some people just shouldn't be having kids, and unless those people that feel it's murder and want to outlaw abortion could actually take the fetus and carry it to term themselves (investing towards the medical technology), they should mind their own business... you'll find that when people have to actually do the work instead of talking the talk, they calm all that noise down. It's much easier to talk about something than actually do it. Most of the problems we have today are from sticking our nose in someone else's business instead of taking care of our own. Why should be worrying about this when there should have been cars, with all the technology in other areas, get no better gas mileage than years ago?

 

All this energy in the discussion could be used for something more pressing and useful... like the economy, taking care of poverty or helping teachers, who have to care for these increasingly unruly children (that these "parents" don't have time to watch or care for) to get paid what they actually deserve.

 

I think we'd all be much better off if we stopped meddling in other's affairs and concentrate on our own. I don't care to pretend what's best for others, I just know what is good for myself and care about things that affect my living and lifestyle. Abortion doesn't affect anyone except the person having it, so I'll just leave it to them and worry about what's going to actually affect my household.

 

Terry

[PSPHax0r9]

There should be a choice on this poll that says "none of my business", because that what is should be. I don't care either way because I can't have a baby, some people just shouldn't be having kids, and unless those people that feel it's murder and want to outlaw abortion could actually take the fetus and carry it to term themselves (investing towards the medical technology), they should mind their own business... you'll find that when people have to actually do the work instead of talking the talk, they calm all that noise down. It's much easier to talk about something than actually do it. Most of the problems we have today are from sticking our nose in someone else's business instead of taking care of our own. Why should be worrying about this when there should have been cars, with all the technology in other areas, get no better gas mileage than years ago?

 

All this energy in the discussion could be used for something more pressing and useful... like the economy, taking care of poverty or helping teachers, who have to care for these increasingly unruly children (that these "parents" don't have time to watch or care for) to get paid what they actually deserve.

 

I think we'd all be much better off if we stopped meddling in other's affairs and concentrate on our own. I don't care to pretend what's best for others, I just know what is good for myself and care about things that affect my living and lifestyle. Abortion doesn't affect anyone except the person having it, so I'll just leave it to them and worry about what's going to actually affect my household.

 

Terry

 

How utterly selfish and self-righteous. I'm not allowed to call abortion murder or say that it's wrong because it'll never happen to me?! What a complete and total {censored} argument. So white people shouldn't have campaigned for black rights? They're not black, what do they know? I mean seriously, what the hell? We're not debating over, say, some woman getting plastic surgery. It's not something that totally unimportant - it's a HUMAN LIFE in the balance. And you say that people can't want to protect a human life if they're not pregnant? I'm sorry but that's just completely outrageous. Just because being pregnant doesn't happen to me, doesn't mean that I can't want to protect a human life...

 

And it doesn't affect anyone but the person having it? Try, the person being aborted?! Seriously, this isn't having a tumor removed, it's ending another human life. I don't understand how you can take that so lightly. Well, actually I do, you said it yourself. It doesn't affect you, so why should you care? Why should you ever do anything to help others or protect others? It doesn't affect you. It's all about numero-uno. Well I'm sorry, but when a human life is involved - one that is at absolutely the most vulnerable point it can be, has no means of defending itself whatsoever, and has done nothing wrong - then I'll "meddle" in whatever affairs it takes.

[Numberzz]

Numberzz, you should visit the link in my post, but like I said, if you don't believe it anyways, you probably won't be convinced. I stand by what I know and believe, I know a zygote is a whole human, since everything is there, only time and nourishment need be added. "Because it can't live on its own" means it isn't human? What about a one-year-old? Surely that's a human in your standards correct? Even a one-year-old can't survive on its own. And what about people in comas? They too would die without constant assistance, yet are they not human? "They don't have body parts" so they are not human? The zygote is the earliest stage of a human's life. It needs to be sheltered in the womb before its organs are developed enough for it to leave, and after that, a newborn still needs constant care before it becomes a child, which still needs attention before becoming an independent. However, my point is, through a human's life, even in adulthood, one's body continues to develop and in no point in time can one be considered not a human simply because he or she hasn't developed enough. As the earliest stage, the zygote is COMPLETE. It isn't MISSING anything. All it's organs are in the process of developing, as it will continue to develop, all the way through adulthood.

I specifically said that in my post that you couldn't use that metaphor. It really isn't a real human. How small is it? Smaller than a fingernail? Can you have a conversation with it? Does it like certain things? Do you realize that you get it's birthday from the day it is born and not the day it was "created." Can you touch this person and teach it stuff? I know some of those apply to coma patients and stuff but still.

The last few sentences are wrong. You said that the zygote is complete, and that it isn't missing anything. Let me diverge to wikipedia: "A zygote (Greek: ζυγωτόν) is a cell that is the result of fertilization. That is, two haploid cells—usually an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—merge into a single diploid cell called the zygote (or zygocyte)." That means that at it's earliest stage, the zygote has one cell. That's missing a lot.

[terrancew_hod]

How utterly selfish and self-righteous. I'm not allowed to call abortion murder or say that it's wrong because it'll never happen to me?! What a complete and total {censored} argument. So white people shouldn't have campaigned for black rights? They're not black, what do they know? I mean seriously, what the hell? We're not debating over, say, some woman getting plastic surgery. It's not something that totally unimportant - it's a HUMAN LIFE in the balance. And you say that people can't want to protect a human life if they're not pregnant? I'm sorry but that's just completely outrageous. Just because being pregnant doesn't happen to me, doesn't mean that I can't want to protect a human life...

 

And it doesn't affect anyone but the person having it? Try, the person being aborted?! Seriously, this isn't having a tumor removed, it's ending another human life. I don't understand how you can take that so lightly. Well, actually I do, you said it yourself. It doesn't affect you, so why should you care? Why should you ever do anything to help others or protect others? It doesn't affect you. It's all about numero-uno. Well I'm sorry, but when a human life is involved - one that is at absolutely the most vulnerable point it can be, has no means of defending itself whatsoever, and has done nothing wrong - then I'll "meddle" in whatever affairs it takes.

 

Um, I believe self-righteous is thinking that a person is so much better than another as to think making someone else's decision them is best for them . Glass houses.

 

If you believe what I said is selfish and self-righteous, perhaps you should scroll back up and read what you posted. Then you'll understand what those two words actually mean.

 

Like I said in my post, if you feel so strongly about "human life", put all that energy into see if you can carry the baby to term yourself. If it was possible, I bet you still wouldn't do it. And that's what self-righteous and selfish is all about: speaking of things or telling other to do things that you wouldn't do yourself.

 

I'm concerned about more pressing things in our society than this nonissue that people get so worked up about and as a result I volunteer my time to various non-profit organizations and help them to raise money. If I can help someone, I'll do it, but I'm not so selfish to make someone else's decisions for them. I've been around enough people who are down on their luck or afflicted with disease to know that they are responsible for their own choices and they tend to know eventually what is good for them. It's not my place to stick my nose unwanted in other's affairs just as I don't want people doing the same thing to me.

 

Maybe you should think about that the next time you rattle off on someone about being self-righteous and selfish.

 

Terry