Friday, June 22, 2007
It is wrong to commit murder under any circumstance
Associate Justice Benjamin Cardozo was correct in stating "When two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another." There is no law that says if you or the group of people you are with are suffering from a dire situation, it is okay for you to murder someone to save your life. As a person in authority Holmes has the responsibility to provide for the people on his boat. However, his authority should not give him the authority to choose someone else to die. Also he should not have ordered other men to commit murder by throwing people overboard. With a circumstance as the one they were in, each individual should have been considered equal to every other person on the boat. Even if one person would have given up their life, someone would have still had to commit murder. Sometimes people encountering difficult situations say things they would not normally say. Would a person still voluntarily give up their life if they knew that they would be rescued the following day? Most likely they wouldn't. If no one volunteers themselves to jump overboard then the whole boat should go down together. "A captain goes down with his ship" is an old saying that should have been the way that this incident played out.
Sometimes Pro-Life, Sometimes Pro-Choice
Abortion is an ugly political topic that even the closest of friends and families avoid discussing due to the touchiness of it. Discussions of abortion have split families and friends; even caused the death of some people due to the passionate beliefs by some people. To be consistently Pro-Life is to believe that a babies life is just as valuable as the mothers and must be protected at all costs. With this, I firmly believe that one cannot consistently be live that (a) a woman has no right to an abortion, (b) a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life, and (c) a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life.
(a) A woman has no right to an abortion. When an individual makes this strong of a statement, they are leaving no room for if, and, or but. They are truly pro-life and believe that under no circumstance shall that child's life be terminated; not due to the health of the mother OR the baby, circumstances surrounding the conception, or the capacity of the mother to provide a healthy nourishing womb for the fetus to develop in.
(b) A human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life. Websters Dictionary defines inviolable as "secure from assault or trespass." This again leaves no room for exceptions. To have this belief is to believe that the human embryo is COMPLETELY secure from ANY assault. So in going with "inviolable", to perform an abortion on a fetus, for any reason, would be an assault against it and would be infringing on it's inviolable right to life.
(c) A woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life. This statement right here says that an unborn fetus does NOT have an inviolable right to life and that a woman DOES have the right to abortion. This makes the third statement "A woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life" inconsistent with (a) and (b). If the unborn fetus is threatening the mother, it becomes necessary(from a pro-choice standpoint) to terminate the pregnancy to ensure the health and safety of the mother. To have the beliefs of (a) or (b) leaves no room for protection of the mother during pregnancy and makes full-term pregnancy the only option, no matter what.
To get into a pro-life/pro-choice debate was not part of this assignment so I will leave off with this, you can't be consistent with all three of the above beliefs; first two yes, the third one no. If you are pro-life, that is your stand consistently, not part of the time or when it fits your needs.
Matt Smith
Week 6 blog
(a) A woman has no right to an abortion. When an individual makes this strong of a statement, they are leaving no room for if, and, or but. They are truly pro-life and believe that under no circumstance shall that child's life be terminated; not due to the health of the mother OR the baby, circumstances surrounding the conception, or the capacity of the mother to provide a healthy nourishing womb for the fetus to develop in.
(b) A human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life. Websters Dictionary defines inviolable as "secure from assault or trespass." This again leaves no room for exceptions. To have this belief is to believe that the human embryo is COMPLETELY secure from ANY assault. So in going with "inviolable", to perform an abortion on a fetus, for any reason, would be an assault against it and would be infringing on it's inviolable right to life.
(c) A woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life. This statement right here says that an unborn fetus does NOT have an inviolable right to life and that a woman DOES have the right to abortion. This makes the third statement "A woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life" inconsistent with (a) and (b). If the unborn fetus is threatening the mother, it becomes necessary(from a pro-choice standpoint) to terminate the pregnancy to ensure the health and safety of the mother. To have the beliefs of (a) or (b) leaves no room for protection of the mother during pregnancy and makes full-term pregnancy the only option, no matter what.
To get into a pro-life/pro-choice debate was not part of this assignment so I will leave off with this, you can't be consistent with all three of the above beliefs; first two yes, the third one no. If you are pro-life, that is your stand consistently, not part of the time or when it fits your needs.
Matt Smith
Week 6 blog
Abortion and Convienently Ambivilent Morals
Brenda Porter: June 22, 2007
Abortion by definition is absolute because to have an abortion is to end life with no options once acted upon. To make a decision about abortion considering every part of myself: the physical, the mental, the emotional, the logical, and the moralistic, can never be absolutely consistent no matter what side of the issue I choose. I say this because I am human, and I have two minds, a logical and reasoning mind, and an emotional and irrational mind. Every principle and moral belief I have is subject to exception, so therefore can never be consistent absolutely.
The three beliefs in question proposed in the text, the first being a woman has no right to an abortion, cannot be consistent absolutely. To say so, one would also have to say that women could be sexually assaulted, impregnated, and forced to carry the pregnancy to full term due to an act of violence upon them. I would never agree with the latter statement and in my most unbiased view of the world around me I do not believe that the majority of society would either. Therefore, it is inconsistent.
Second, the belief that a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life is inconsistent with the laws of nature. The law above most being Darwin’s Law of Survival of the Fittest in which no living thing has any protected guarantee, and there are not rules that govern such things. A fetus is a living being, yes, but does it have a guarantee in the scope of life on its most grand scale to have protection to live, no. A fetus has no more guarantee to live life that an ameba, or a newborn zebra dieing in the jaws of a lion has. I must consider the words “having a right to life”. Every living thing has a right to life, but not every living thing gets to live. Therefore, it is inconsistent.
Finally, the belief that a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life is an inconsistency in itself. To make exceptions, no matter what the reasoning are still an exception and an inconsistency. Just like taking justice into our own hands when our own life is in danger. For example, a gun is loaded and being pointed at my head and I have the opportunity to grab a steel bar and bash the brains out of the person attempting to shoot me. That is an exception, because most of the time I would not kill another person. In this case, I would be justified, just as cases where abortion is justified to save the mother’s life. Once there is made a place for it to be acceptable in one case there will always remain a gray area.
Throughout life everyone must make difficult decisions. The decisions I make everyday effect myself, my life, and also of those around me. With that in mind, every decision I make, especially a major life decision like considering having an abortion, must take into account my principles, values, and feelings about all sides of the issue. Also, because I live in the United States, I grew up in a middle class Catholic family and neighborhood, because I am Catholic, because I love children and think they are our most important resource, I must also consider what impact my choice will have on these factors, not only in the short term, but also in the long reaching effects my choice will have not only on my life, but what about the lives of those who will follow me. Choices such as this are difficult, emotionally charged, and there really is no right side. Abortion may be the best thing one specific moment in life, but it may be completely the wrong thing at another moment. That is life. We never know from one moment to the next how we feel or what we think because our situation can change as quickly and to put constraints on any options for any being, human or animal, is not anyone’s authority.
Abortion by definition is absolute because to have an abortion is to end life with no options once acted upon. To make a decision about abortion considering every part of myself: the physical, the mental, the emotional, the logical, and the moralistic, can never be absolutely consistent no matter what side of the issue I choose. I say this because I am human, and I have two minds, a logical and reasoning mind, and an emotional and irrational mind. Every principle and moral belief I have is subject to exception, so therefore can never be consistent absolutely.
The three beliefs in question proposed in the text, the first being a woman has no right to an abortion, cannot be consistent absolutely. To say so, one would also have to say that women could be sexually assaulted, impregnated, and forced to carry the pregnancy to full term due to an act of violence upon them. I would never agree with the latter statement and in my most unbiased view of the world around me I do not believe that the majority of society would either. Therefore, it is inconsistent.
Second, the belief that a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life is inconsistent with the laws of nature. The law above most being Darwin’s Law of Survival of the Fittest in which no living thing has any protected guarantee, and there are not rules that govern such things. A fetus is a living being, yes, but does it have a guarantee in the scope of life on its most grand scale to have protection to live, no. A fetus has no more guarantee to live life that an ameba, or a newborn zebra dieing in the jaws of a lion has. I must consider the words “having a right to life”. Every living thing has a right to life, but not every living thing gets to live. Therefore, it is inconsistent.
Finally, the belief that a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life is an inconsistency in itself. To make exceptions, no matter what the reasoning are still an exception and an inconsistency. Just like taking justice into our own hands when our own life is in danger. For example, a gun is loaded and being pointed at my head and I have the opportunity to grab a steel bar and bash the brains out of the person attempting to shoot me. That is an exception, because most of the time I would not kill another person. In this case, I would be justified, just as cases where abortion is justified to save the mother’s life. Once there is made a place for it to be acceptable in one case there will always remain a gray area.
Throughout life everyone must make difficult decisions. The decisions I make everyday effect myself, my life, and also of those around me. With that in mind, every decision I make, especially a major life decision like considering having an abortion, must take into account my principles, values, and feelings about all sides of the issue. Also, because I live in the United States, I grew up in a middle class Catholic family and neighborhood, because I am Catholic, because I love children and think they are our most important resource, I must also consider what impact my choice will have on these factors, not only in the short term, but also in the long reaching effects my choice will have not only on my life, but what about the lives of those who will follow me. Choices such as this are difficult, emotionally charged, and there really is no right side. Abortion may be the best thing one specific moment in life, but it may be completely the wrong thing at another moment. That is life. We never know from one moment to the next how we feel or what we think because our situation can change as quickly and to put constraints on any options for any being, human or animal, is not anyone’s authority.
Abortion
Carrie Egging
June 22, 2007
In my mind, abortion is wrong. I believe that abortion should only be used in extreme cases where the mother’s health is in jeopardy. There is no reason why a person can’t go through the pregnancy and then give up the child for adoption if the person decides they are unable to care for the child. I understand that some sacrifices might have to be made from a person’s normal routine. An athlete may not be able to compete for a year, a musician may not be able to march, a partier may not be able to go to parties and drink all night, but in most situations, this person did something to be put in this situation.
I understand that it is possible that a woman could become pregnant from the offense of rape, but what crime did the child that this women now carry do to deserve not to even get a chance at life? I know that it would not be fair for this woman to have to bear this child, but I believe that it would be worse to know that after such a bad thing happened then to turn around and murder a sinless individual.
When an individual has become pregnant for actions that they should not have been doing, I do believe that it is not right that the baby should suffer and never get a chance to live just because two individuals couldn’t wait till they were stable enough to care for a child and wanted the easy way out of taking care of him or her. Or the woman got pregnant and didn’t want to tell her parents about it, so she got an abortion to cover up her actions. Where in all of this did the baby do anything wrong to deserve to die because its mother and father were not ready to have a child? It is almost selfish for people to do and I could never agree with it.
As one could probably tell from reading my essay, I do believe that a human embryo or fetus has right to life. They are a living individual even thought they have not seen light or breathed fresh air yet. These fetus’ that are aborted could have one day grown up to discover a cure for cancer or invent something that improved the quality of life, but we will never know because they were never given any opportunity at all.
Once again I believe that abortion should never be acceptable unless the mother’s life is in danger. The fetus should always be given a chance at life. And adoption is always an option if the mother and father could not care for the child. It is time for people to take responsibility for some of their actions and stop trying to take the easy way out and taking the life of child before they have an opportunity to live.
June 22, 2007
In my mind, abortion is wrong. I believe that abortion should only be used in extreme cases where the mother’s health is in jeopardy. There is no reason why a person can’t go through the pregnancy and then give up the child for adoption if the person decides they are unable to care for the child. I understand that some sacrifices might have to be made from a person’s normal routine. An athlete may not be able to compete for a year, a musician may not be able to march, a partier may not be able to go to parties and drink all night, but in most situations, this person did something to be put in this situation.
I understand that it is possible that a woman could become pregnant from the offense of rape, but what crime did the child that this women now carry do to deserve not to even get a chance at life? I know that it would not be fair for this woman to have to bear this child, but I believe that it would be worse to know that after such a bad thing happened then to turn around and murder a sinless individual.
When an individual has become pregnant for actions that they should not have been doing, I do believe that it is not right that the baby should suffer and never get a chance to live just because two individuals couldn’t wait till they were stable enough to care for a child and wanted the easy way out of taking care of him or her. Or the woman got pregnant and didn’t want to tell her parents about it, so she got an abortion to cover up her actions. Where in all of this did the baby do anything wrong to deserve to die because its mother and father were not ready to have a child? It is almost selfish for people to do and I could never agree with it.
As one could probably tell from reading my essay, I do believe that a human embryo or fetus has right to life. They are a living individual even thought they have not seen light or breathed fresh air yet. These fetus’ that are aborted could have one day grown up to discover a cure for cancer or invent something that improved the quality of life, but we will never know because they were never given any opportunity at all.
Once again I believe that abortion should never be acceptable unless the mother’s life is in danger. The fetus should always be given a chance at life. And adoption is always an option if the mother and father could not care for the child. It is time for people to take responsibility for some of their actions and stop trying to take the easy way out and taking the life of child before they have an opportunity to live.
Inconsistency-Laura Lukes
Inconsistency
6/22/07
Question #3 p. 453
A person has the choice of being either pro-choice or pro-life, or believing in both sides, not wanting to take a position on just one perspective. Pro-choice is believing that a woman has a right to choose what she wants to do with her body and whether she wants to give a child the chance to live or not. If she wants to get an abortion, she believes she has the right to do so. She also feels that the government cannot tell a woman what is right and wrong about abortion. If a person has a pro-life view on abortion, he or she believes that the child has the right to live no matter how it was conceived. Pro-choice and pro-life views are black and white, but there is a rather large gray area between them. As stated above, some women consider specific parts of each extremity to be verifiable. Such exceptions include rape or the woman’s health, as the Bar Association takes into consideration.
The question as to whether or not the three choices are inconsistent is more dependent on people’s beliefs rather than how the viewpoints are stated. There are three concrete views on abortion. Simply, abortion is wrong and is murder, abortion is the choice of the woman, or abortion is wrong with specific exceptions. Many people find it hard to take a side on this controversial issue due to the emotional nature of life and death. Even the law about abortion in the Texas Penal Code is in the gray area, asserting it is a crime to kill an embryo, but doctors can make exceptions if the woman’s health is in question.
This law shows that rules are clear and consistent, but how people perceive them can be inconsistent. Originally, laws banned abortion because it was dangerous, and the procedure had a high mortality rate. Now it seems the enforcement of the ban on abortion is due to people’s morals.
Overall, laws can be written and enforced consistently, but beliefs on the standards of abortion could be inconsistent. Three different stands on abortion await the population’s opinion, and those are not going to change. Opinions are the inconsistency.
6/22/07
Question #3 p. 453
A person has the choice of being either pro-choice or pro-life, or believing in both sides, not wanting to take a position on just one perspective. Pro-choice is believing that a woman has a right to choose what she wants to do with her body and whether she wants to give a child the chance to live or not. If she wants to get an abortion, she believes she has the right to do so. She also feels that the government cannot tell a woman what is right and wrong about abortion. If a person has a pro-life view on abortion, he or she believes that the child has the right to live no matter how it was conceived. Pro-choice and pro-life views are black and white, but there is a rather large gray area between them. As stated above, some women consider specific parts of each extremity to be verifiable. Such exceptions include rape or the woman’s health, as the Bar Association takes into consideration.
The question as to whether or not the three choices are inconsistent is more dependent on people’s beliefs rather than how the viewpoints are stated. There are three concrete views on abortion. Simply, abortion is wrong and is murder, abortion is the choice of the woman, or abortion is wrong with specific exceptions. Many people find it hard to take a side on this controversial issue due to the emotional nature of life and death. Even the law about abortion in the Texas Penal Code is in the gray area, asserting it is a crime to kill an embryo, but doctors can make exceptions if the woman’s health is in question.
This law shows that rules are clear and consistent, but how people perceive them can be inconsistent. Originally, laws banned abortion because it was dangerous, and the procedure had a high mortality rate. Now it seems the enforcement of the ban on abortion is due to people’s morals.
Overall, laws can be written and enforced consistently, but beliefs on the standards of abortion could be inconsistent. Three different stands on abortion await the population’s opinion, and those are not going to change. Opinions are the inconsistency.
Holmes Case
I disagree with the statements made by Associate Justice, Benjamin Cardozo, concerning the "Holmes" case where crew and passengers experienced extreme dire events that threatened their survival. Justice Cardozo is of the opinion that under these circumstances it was not justifiable to sacrifice one human life for another, and that all should have perished or survived. This is a hard statement to agree or disagree with, as for me it would depend on the circumstances of each individual situation. For example, in the "Holmes" case when it was determined that the boat would sink if drastic measures were not taken, I feel they were justified in taking action to save some of them. In this case all people on board even crew members should be considered equals. The fairest way to determine who has to jump overboard would have been to hold a lottery. I feel that if a group of people is facing eminent death it should be an option for them to hold a lottery. If it is the consensus of the majority to have a lottery drawing resulting in the sacrifice of one or more, they should not be punished for taking this action. It must be a majority consensus and all other options for survival must have been tried and exhausted. Humans would like to believe that they are incapable of making such a decision, but under the duress of such inconceivable circumstances this decision could be easier than most of us would like to admit. The question of "Does the harm avoided outweigh the harm caused?" Was it more harmful for all to perish or for some to survive? I feel it would be better for some to survive than all to die. The death of all would result in the suffering of many families, while the survival of some results in less suffering. Some circumstances call for us to do things out of necessity that we probably would not choose to do under normal conditions.
In my opinion, all of the crew members and the captain should have been tried rather than just the one man. The physical description given of the sailor on trial leads you to believe that he would be incapable of carrying out the crime alone. The first mate probably had a large part to do with determining who was sacrificed on board of the vessel. The jury had a tough time rendering the guilty verdict, so this shows that the jury truly saw how tough of a decision it was. The judge gave the man a quite lenient sentence, which leads you to believe the judge didn’t think this man was capable of carrying out the act by himself or that he did not totally disagree with the actions taken by the crew.
Whenever people are faced with life or death decisions they must often act quickly and respond to the situation in a way they feel is in the best interest of all involved. It is difficult to sit in judgement of the decisions made by the parties in the "Holmes case". It is difficult to make decision concerning this case, as there were many stipulations surrounding their situation. No one is able to honestly say how they personally would act until put into the same situation.
In my opinion, all of the crew members and the captain should have been tried rather than just the one man. The physical description given of the sailor on trial leads you to believe that he would be incapable of carrying out the crime alone. The first mate probably had a large part to do with determining who was sacrificed on board of the vessel. The jury had a tough time rendering the guilty verdict, so this shows that the jury truly saw how tough of a decision it was. The judge gave the man a quite lenient sentence, which leads you to believe the judge didn’t think this man was capable of carrying out the act by himself or that he did not totally disagree with the actions taken by the crew.
Whenever people are faced with life or death decisions they must often act quickly and respond to the situation in a way they feel is in the best interest of all involved. It is difficult to sit in judgement of the decisions made by the parties in the "Holmes case". It is difficult to make decision concerning this case, as there were many stipulations surrounding their situation. No one is able to honestly say how they personally would act until put into the same situation.
Abortion - Right & Wrong
Kristin Gebel
Question #3
22 June 2007
There have always been two sides to the abortion issue and in the present day there seems to be even more light shined on the matter. Answering the question, whether women should have the right to decide to have an abortion, I personally have many views. In some ways I believe abortion to be wrong because as we have heard many times before, there is another life to consider. But on the reverse side there are situations such as the mother’s life or rape victims to take into consideration. In all I believe that abortion is wrong. If someone is pregnant mistakenly then they should deal with the consequences, but in certain situations women should have the right to an abortion if needed.
Right away I want to emphasize the fact that women should have the right to decide whether abortion should be legal or not. I personally believe that women should be the deciding factors. I find it hard to take when I see people around asking others to vote no for abortion and the majority of them are male. Men should not be part of the deciding factor. Since men are not caring the child for the nine months of pregnancy or giving birth, I do not think that men should be able to vote on the up coming abortion laws.
Many feel that abortion is wrong and in most situations I agree. When a woman gets pregnant mistakenly it is her duty to go through with the pregnancy. Right now there are many different birth controls out on the market and I feel that it is both the male and female’s responsibility to take the necessary precautions. If someone does not want to get pregnant then there are ways around it, but when someone is careless and ends up pregnant I believe they should follow through with their actions. My friends and I have similar discussions such as this and I always quote, “If you are mature enough to have intercourse without protection then you should be mature enough to deal with the consequences.”
On the flip side there are a few reasons for abortion to be legal. For instance, if a woman is raped I whole heartedly believe that she should have the option of an abortion. She never asked or was willing to be raped and I do not feel that she should have to live with the constant reminder of that horrible day. The same goes for the unborn child. Put yourself in that woman’s shoes, how hard would it be to tell your child they do not have a father because you were a victim of a rapist. I personally would find that very difficult. I do not know, but I am sure there are some women out there that been raped and have gone through with their pregnancy. I applaud those women and give them my at most appreciation, but I still believe that those women should have an option. Let them make the decision.
Another reason for abortion to be legal would be in a situation where the mother’s life is at risk. There are situations where in certain pregnancies problems occur. Now try to place yourself in the mother’s or even the husband’s shoes and imagine that you are getting ready to introduce a new born baby into the world and then the doctor comes and says there are complications and he will only be able to save one life. Who would you choose? Knowing of someone who had to go through a similar situation during her pregnancy, I have seen how hard it is. She already had a one year old and when she was pregnant with their second child she had complications. If it were not for the abortion, she would no longer be here and her one year old would no longer have a mother.
As usual there are still two sides to the abortion issue and I merely stated my opinion toward both. Everyone has the right to voice their own opinions just as I have and I believe that is why the issue on abortion has yet to be resolved. I simply tried to get another opinion out there that says if one mistakenly gets pregnant, abortion should not be the choice, but in certain situations it as previously discussed it may be the only the answer.
Question #3
22 June 2007
There have always been two sides to the abortion issue and in the present day there seems to be even more light shined on the matter. Answering the question, whether women should have the right to decide to have an abortion, I personally have many views. In some ways I believe abortion to be wrong because as we have heard many times before, there is another life to consider. But on the reverse side there are situations such as the mother’s life or rape victims to take into consideration. In all I believe that abortion is wrong. If someone is pregnant mistakenly then they should deal with the consequences, but in certain situations women should have the right to an abortion if needed.
Right away I want to emphasize the fact that women should have the right to decide whether abortion should be legal or not. I personally believe that women should be the deciding factors. I find it hard to take when I see people around asking others to vote no for abortion and the majority of them are male. Men should not be part of the deciding factor. Since men are not caring the child for the nine months of pregnancy or giving birth, I do not think that men should be able to vote on the up coming abortion laws.
Many feel that abortion is wrong and in most situations I agree. When a woman gets pregnant mistakenly it is her duty to go through with the pregnancy. Right now there are many different birth controls out on the market and I feel that it is both the male and female’s responsibility to take the necessary precautions. If someone does not want to get pregnant then there are ways around it, but when someone is careless and ends up pregnant I believe they should follow through with their actions. My friends and I have similar discussions such as this and I always quote, “If you are mature enough to have intercourse without protection then you should be mature enough to deal with the consequences.”
On the flip side there are a few reasons for abortion to be legal. For instance, if a woman is raped I whole heartedly believe that she should have the option of an abortion. She never asked or was willing to be raped and I do not feel that she should have to live with the constant reminder of that horrible day. The same goes for the unborn child. Put yourself in that woman’s shoes, how hard would it be to tell your child they do not have a father because you were a victim of a rapist. I personally would find that very difficult. I do not know, but I am sure there are some women out there that been raped and have gone through with their pregnancy. I applaud those women and give them my at most appreciation, but I still believe that those women should have an option. Let them make the decision.
Another reason for abortion to be legal would be in a situation where the mother’s life is at risk. There are situations where in certain pregnancies problems occur. Now try to place yourself in the mother’s or even the husband’s shoes and imagine that you are getting ready to introduce a new born baby into the world and then the doctor comes and says there are complications and he will only be able to save one life. Who would you choose? Knowing of someone who had to go through a similar situation during her pregnancy, I have seen how hard it is. She already had a one year old and when she was pregnant with their second child she had complications. If it were not for the abortion, she would no longer be here and her one year old would no longer have a mother.
As usual there are still two sides to the abortion issue and I merely stated my opinion toward both. Everyone has the right to voice their own opinions just as I have and I believe that is why the issue on abortion has yet to be resolved. I simply tried to get another opinion out there that says if one mistakenly gets pregnant, abortion should not be the choice, but in certain situations it as previously discussed it may be the only the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)