The January 2023 Philosophy Book of the Month is Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise by John K Danenbarger.

Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply

With which statement do you agree?

I want it to be illegal for a very poor teenager who was impregnated from being raped by an immediate family member to get an abortion even in the first week of pregnancy even if the doctors can and did detect the baby has severe genetic disorders and that the pregnancy if taken to term would have complications greatly risking the life of both the mother and would-be baby.
7
9%
I want it to be legal for a wealthy woman who is 5 days past her due date (of birth) to get an abortion even though doctors are sure that the healthy baby would be delivered safely and relatively easily otherwise and even though many safe, healthy, loving families are willing to adopt the would-be newborn immediately and even pay the woman significantly for that.
14
19%
I do not agree fully with either one of the above statements.
54
72%
 
Total votes: 75

N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by N693 »

I meant to write: you think it's my burden to justify my denial of a departure from this rule?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7093
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by LuckyR »

N693 wrote: November 28th, 2022, 8:36 pm
LuckyR wrote: November 28th, 2022, 7:54 pm
N693 wrote: November 28th, 2022, 7:18 am
LuckyR wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:29 am

I'm a little confused. You describe your opinion, then ask for criticism of it. I defend your opinion against criticism and support your living by your opinion. Yet you seem to have a problem with my comments.

As to your question, there is a significant difference between your Original opinion (that we're speaking of) and your new toddler Strawman, namely that abortion is in fact legal and consistent with ethical standards in the majority of the West, whereas infanticide is universally illégal and a violation of ethical standards.




My original post states that I claim all humans have an equal right to life. That means it should be recognized by the laws that govern society, not merely one private opinion among others. If one wants to argue that my claim is merely an opinion among equals, I ask them to defend their claim by giving a reason that the unborn do not have a right to life, but the born do.
Uummm... no. You noting: "I claim..." does not mean "it should be recognized by the laws that govern society".

Therefore you have the burden to show that your opinion is NOT merely an opinion among others (definitely more popular, perhaps more logical, than yours).


Why should I think the pro-abortion view is more popular? Whether it is or not, why would truth be dependent on popularity? At one time slavery was popular, did that make it ok?

It is my very point that contriving some criteria to justify killing some given group of innocent humans is the opposite of logical.

Humans have always had laws against the killing of innocent persons, yet you think it's my burden of proof to justify a departure from this rule? Do I have a burden to prove that any other group--say toddlers--has a right to life? Look, if you don't want to discuss it, or are unable to defend the contrary position, that's fine, but maybe someone else does.
Truth? What in your stated opinion has to do with truth?

As to popularity, currently 50% in the US believe abortion should be legal in some circumstances, 35% believe it should be legal in all circumstances and 13% believe (as you apparently do) that it should be legal in no circumstances. That's the answer to why.

As to slavery, if you're talking about the US, it was never popular, in the 15 states where it was legal in 1860 only 20% of white households owned slaves, or to put it another way, 80% of white households in slave states didn't own slaves (and that's not counting black households who were 33% of the population in slave states and who obviously didn't support the concept so it's really 13.3% in slave states).

Nice try in your, let's call it fluid use of the word "person" in your posting. First you cite the universality of laws against killing persons, then imply that under the law human fetuses are persons. However even a simpleton knows you can't square those two statements since abortion was legal throughout the US until recently, and still is for the majority of Americans.
"As usual... it depends."
N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by N693 »

LuckyR wrote: November 29th, 2022, 3:45 am
N693 wrote: November 28th, 2022, 8:36 pm
LuckyR wrote: November 28th, 2022, 7:54 pm
N693 wrote: November 28th, 2022, 7:18 am





My original post states that I claim all humans have an equal right to life. That means it should be recognized by the laws that govern society, not merely one private opinion among others. If one wants to argue that my claim is merely an opinion among equals, I ask them to defend their claim by giving a reason that the unborn do not have a right to life, but the born do.
Uummm... no. You noting: "I claim..." does not mean "it should be recognized by the laws that govern society".

Therefore you have the burden to show that your opinion is NOT merely an opinion among others (definitely more popular, perhaps more logical, than yours).


Why should I think the pro-abortion view is more popular? Whether it is or not, why would truth be dependent on popularity? At one time slavery was popular, did that make it ok?

It is my very point that contriving some criteria to justify killing some given group of innocent humans is the opposite of logical.

Humans have always had laws against the killing of innocent persons, yet you think it's my burden of proof to justify a departure from this rule? Do I have a burden to prove that any other group--say toddlers--has a right to life? Look, if you don't want to discuss it, or are unable to defend the contrary position, that's fine, but maybe someone else does.
Truth? What in your stated opinion has to do with truth?

As to popularity, currently 50% in the US believe abortion should be legal in some circumstances, 35% believe it should be legal in all circumstances and 13% believe (as you apparently do) that it should be legal in no circumstances. That's the answer to why.

As to slavery, if you're talking about the US, it was never popular, in the 15 states where it was legal in 1860 only 20% of white households owned slaves, or to put it another way, 80% of white households in slave states didn't own slaves (and that's not counting black households who were 33% of the population in slave states and who obviously didn't support the concept so it's really 13.3% in slave states).

Nice try in your, let's call it fluid use of the word "person" in your posting. First you cite the universality of laws against killing persons, then imply that under the law human fetuses are persons. However even a simpleton knows you can't square those two statements since abortion was legal throughout the US until recently, and still is for the majority of Americans.


Do you ever commit to anything, or is "philosophy" just an endless obfuscation on words?

Human law is based on opinion and popularity? And popular opinion is based on what? A vacuum, or what people think is true?

But you almost came close in the "person" claim. Rather than obfuscate on the word "person", just give some reason as to why the unborn do not deserve the right to life that the born possess. That's all you have to do. If you don't want to, that's fine, as I said.

So rather than continue this typing of words, just give some reason why an unborn person does not have a right to life, but a born person does.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7093
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by LuckyR »

N693 wrote: November 29th, 2022, 7:11 am
LuckyR wrote: November 29th, 2022, 3:45 am
N693 wrote: November 28th, 2022, 8:36 pm
LuckyR wrote: November 28th, 2022, 7:54 pm

Uummm... no. You noting: "I claim..." does not mean "it should be recognized by the laws that govern society".

Therefore you have the burden to show that your opinion is NOT merely an opinion among others (definitely more popular, perhaps more logical, than yours).


Why should I think the pro-abortion view is more popular? Whether it is or not, why would truth be dependent on popularity? At one time slavery was popular, did that make it ok?

It is my very point that contriving some criteria to justify killing some given group of innocent humans is the opposite of logical.

Humans have always had laws against the killing of innocent persons, yet you think it's my burden of proof to justify a departure from this rule? Do I have a burden to prove that any other group--say toddlers--has a right to life? Look, if you don't want to discuss it, or are unable to defend the contrary position, that's fine, but maybe someone else does.
Truth? What in your stated opinion has to do with truth?

As to popularity, currently 50% in the US believe abortion should be legal in some circumstances, 35% believe it should be legal in all circumstances and 13% believe (as you apparently do) that it should be legal in no circumstances. That's the answer to why.

As to slavery, if you're talking about the US, it was never popular, in the 15 states where it was legal in 1860 only 20% of white households owned slaves, or to put it another way, 80% of white households in slave states didn't own slaves (and that's not counting black households who were 33% of the population in slave states and who obviously didn't support the concept so it's really 13.3% in slave states).

Nice try in your, let's call it fluid use of the word "person" in your posting. First you cite the universality of laws against killing persons, then imply that under the law human fetuses are persons. However even a simpleton knows you can't square those two statements since abortion was legal throughout the US until recently, and still is for the majority of Americans.


Do you ever commit to anything, or is "philosophy" just an endless obfuscation on words?

Human law is based on opinion and popularity? And popular opinion is based on what? A vacuum, or what people think is true?

But you almost came close in the "person" claim. Rather than obfuscate on the word "person", just give some reason as to why the unborn do not deserve the right to life that the born possess. That's all you have to do. If you don't want to, that's fine, as I said.

So rather than continue this typing of words, just give some reason why an unborn person does not have a right to life, but a born person does.
Did you even read my last paragraph? 1) killing persons is illegal everywhere 2) abortion is legal in the majority of the West 3) therefore human fetuses are legally NOT "persons". Thus your question with the red phrase is nonsensical. It's not that I'm unwilling to answer your question, it's that you're asking the wrong question.

Getting back to the actual topic. Any honest review of the subject of abortion admits that the issue revolves around competing "rights" between two individuals, not solely the rights of the individual you happen to favor. Thus why continuously harping on fetuses without mention of women is intellectually dishonest, as it would be if someone were to only mention women without discussing fetuses.

Therefore reasonable people can and do come down on either side of the issue (as I cited in my review of poll data above). And that's why when you first vocalized an opinion that I happen not to share, I defended your opinion against criticism and supported you in following your opinion in your life choices.
"As usual... it depends."
N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by N693 »

LuckyR wrote: November 30th, 2022, 4:40 am
N693 wrote: November 29th, 2022, 7:11 am
LuckyR wrote: November 29th, 2022, 3:45 am
N693 wrote: November 28th, 2022, 8:36 pm



Why should I think the pro-abortion view is more popular? Whether it is or not, why would truth be dependent on popularity? At one time slavery was popular, did that make it ok?

It is my very point that contriving some criteria to justify killing some given group of innocent humans is the opposite of logical.

Humans have always had laws against the killing of innocent persons, yet you think it's my burden of proof to justify a departure from this rule? Do I have a burden to prove that any other group--say toddlers--has a right to life? Look, if you don't want to discuss it, or are unable to defend the contrary position, that's fine, but maybe someone else does.
Truth? What in your stated opinion has to do with truth?

As to popularity, currently 50% in the US believe abortion should be legal in some circumstances, 35% believe it should be legal in all circumstances and 13% believe (as you apparently do) that it should be legal in no circumstances. That's the answer to why.

As to slavery, if you're talking about the US, it was never popular, in the 15 states where it was legal in 1860 only 20% of white households owned slaves, or to put it another way, 80% of white households in slave states didn't own slaves (and that's not counting black households who were 33% of the population in slave states and who obviously didn't support the concept so it's really 13.3% in slave states).

Nice try in your, let's call it fluid use of the word "person" in your posting. First you cite the universality of laws against killing persons, then imply that under the law human fetuses are persons. However even a simpleton knows you can't square those two statements since abortion was legal throughout the US until recently, and still is for the majority of Americans.


Do you ever commit to anything, or is "philosophy" just an endless obfuscation on words?

Human law is based on opinion and popularity? And popular opinion is based on what? A vacuum, or what people think is true?

But you almost came close in the "person" claim. Rather than obfuscate on the word "person", just give some reason as to why the unborn do not deserve the right to life that the born possess. That's all you have to do. If you don't want to, that's fine, as I said.

So rather than continue this typing of words, just give some reason why an unborn person does not have a right to life, but a born person does.
Did you even read my last paragraph? 1) killing persons is illegal everywhere 2) abortion is legal in the majority of the West 3) therefore human fetuses are legally NOT "persons". Thus your question with the red phrase is nonsensical. It's not that I'm unwilling to answer your question, it's that you're asking the wrong question.

Getting back to the actual topic. Any honest review of the subject of abortion admits that the issue revolves around competing "rights" between two individuals, not solely the rights of the individual you happen to favor. Thus why continuously harping on fetuses without mention of women is intellectually dishonest, as it would be if someone were to only mention women without discussing fetuses.

Therefore reasonable people can and do come down on either side of the issue (as I cited in my review of poll data above). And that's why when you first vocalized an opinion that I happen not to share, I defended your opinion against criticism and supported you in following your opinion in your life choices.

Philosophical inquiry means quoting opinion polls? That's how you see it?

OK, you've finally given some sort of actual argument rather than just "well, everyone has their opinion". Thank You!

So the killing of an innocent, unborn person is justified because of some competing right of the mother, is that correct? Though you don't actually state what that right is. Since I have to guess: bodily autonomy?

Since I have to assume your argument for you, if a woman chooses to create a dependent human being, why is she not responsible for creating a dependent human being?

How many posts will it take to get an answer to this simple question?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7093
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by LuckyR »

N693 wrote: November 30th, 2022, 7:46 am
LuckyR wrote: November 30th, 2022, 4:40 am
N693 wrote: November 29th, 2022, 7:11 am
LuckyR wrote: November 29th, 2022, 3:45 am

Truth? What in your stated opinion has to do with truth?

As to popularity, currently 50% in the US believe abortion should be legal in some circumstances, 35% believe it should be legal in all circumstances and 13% believe (as you apparently do) that it should be legal in no circumstances. That's the answer to why.

As to slavery, if you're talking about the US, it was never popular, in the 15 states where it was legal in 1860 only 20% of white households owned slaves, or to put it another way, 80% of white households in slave states didn't own slaves (and that's not counting black households who were 33% of the population in slave states and who obviously didn't support the concept so it's really 13.3% in slave states).

Nice try in your, let's call it fluid use of the word "person" in your posting. First you cite the universality of laws against killing persons, then imply that under the law human fetuses are persons. However even a simpleton knows you can't square those two statements since abortion was legal throughout the US until recently, and still is for the majority of Americans.


Do you ever commit to anything, or is "philosophy" just an endless obfuscation on words?

Human law is based on opinion and popularity? And popular opinion is based on what? A vacuum, or what people think is true?

But you almost came close in the "person" claim. Rather than obfuscate on the word "person", just give some reason as to why the unborn do not deserve the right to life that the born possess. That's all you have to do. If you don't want to, that's fine, as I said.

So rather than continue this typing of words, just give some reason why an unborn person does not have a right to life, but a born person does.
Did you even read my last paragraph? 1) killing persons is illegal everywhere 2) abortion is legal in the majority of the West 3) therefore human fetuses are legally NOT "persons". Thus your question with the red phrase is nonsensical. It's not that I'm unwilling to answer your question, it's that you're asking the wrong question.

Getting back to the actual topic. Any honest review of the subject of abortion admits that the issue revolves around competing "rights" between two individuals, not solely the rights of the individual you happen to favor. Thus why continuously harping on fetuses without mention of women is intellectually dishonest, as it would be if someone were to only mention women without discussing fetuses.

Therefore reasonable people can and do come down on either side of the issue (as I cited in my review of poll data above). And that's why when you first vocalized an opinion that I happen not to share, I defended your opinion against criticism and supported you in following your opinion in your life choices.

Philosophical inquiry means quoting opinion polls? That's how you see it?

OK, you've finally given some sort of actual argument rather than just "well, everyone has their opinion". Thank You!

So the killing of an innocent, unborn person is justified because of some competing right of the mother, is that correct? Though you don't actually state what that right is. Since I have to guess: bodily autonomy?

Since I have to assume your argument for you, if a woman chooses to create a dependent human being, why is she not responsible for creating a dependent human being?

How many posts will it take to get an answer to this simple question?
Well, I am giving you credit for being conversant with the relatively simple broad issues involved with this extremely mature topic that has been posted upon here and elsewhere ad nauseum. You're welcome.

Having said that, I am a little disappointed that you persist in using the word "person" to describe fetuses, that your own argument proved was in error. Not that it matters at the core of the issue, it just smacks of bad faith in the process of discussion.

As to your question in your second to last paragraph, it is again the wrong question. Women who are pregnant do not universally "choose" to create a human, since anyone with any life experience knows every single method of birth control has a failure rate.
"As usual... it depends."
N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by N693 »

If you choose to engage in an act that creates a dependent human being, why are you not responsible for creating a dependent human being? You yourself concede that birth control doesn't always work. So why are you not responsible for the effects of a cause you have chosen?

Can I tell a judge that I'm not responsible for killing someone while driving drunk because I didn't intend the effect when I chose the cause? Will I be not guilty because I drank some coffee and I hoped that would derail the effect?

Could you stick to the subject and stop acting like you don't know what I'm saying? You're a moderator? Did you read the rules?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7093
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by LuckyR »

N693 wrote: November 30th, 2022, 4:58 pm If you choose to engage in an act that creates a dependent human being, why are you not responsible for creating a dependent human being? You yourself concede that birth control doesn't always work. So why are you not responsible for the effects of a cause you have chosen?

Can I tell a judge that I'm not responsible for killing someone while driving drunk because I didn't intend the effect when I chose the cause? Will I be not guilty because I drank some coffee and I hoped that would derail the effect?

Could you stick to the subject and stop acting like you don't know what I'm saying? You're a moderator? Did you read the rules?
Well just about everyone (not trying to win a pissing match) considers having sex with birth control as NOT being "an act that creates a dependant human being". Obviously you're saying that you do, but I have my doubts that outside of the abortion debate that you act on that stated definition. "Hey honey, we said now's the time to start trying to have kids, just a minute let me put on this condom". Really?
"As usual... it depends."
N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by N693 »

So for you, philosophical analysis is quoting (supposed) opinion polls and conjecturing what you think I (someone you don't know anything about) do?

Having sex, causes babies. You might try to perform some mitigating measure, but nonetheless, having sex causes babies. No? How do you think it happens?

And anyway, if you believed your position, you should say: "abortion is a form of birth control, so what?" But since you appeal to a supposed method to break the chain of cause and effect, you implicitly acknowledge the problem you claim isn't there.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7093
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by LuckyR »

N693 wrote: November 30th, 2022, 8:25 pm So for you, philosophical analysis is quoting (supposed) opinion polls and conjecturing what you think I (someone you don't know anything about) do?

Having sex, causes babies. You might try to perform some mitigating measure, but nonetheless, having sex causes babies. No? How do you think it happens?

And anyway, if you believed your position, you should say: "abortion is a form of birth control, so what?" But since you appeal to a supposed method to break the chain of cause and effect, you implicitly acknowledge the problem you claim isn't there.
So far we've succeeded in determining that we (like everyone else) have differing priorities in this issue of competing interests. I assume no one is suprised. Thus we have different opinions. I made that clear in my very first response to your post.

I'm okay with that, if you are too, great. If you are not okay with that and feel that your opinion deserves to be held in higher regard, please feel free to enlighten us with why that should be. But you'd better come up with something better than what you've posted so far, since (and I get that it can be frustrating) your arguments thus far while reasonable are not overwhelming.
"As usual... it depends."
N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by N693 »

Which is another way of saying the burden of proof is on me to show that we should not kill innocent people. Why do I not have the burden to prove we should not kill toddlers or teenagers?

Your argument is "because we want to", and then you say my argument is "not overwhelming". Of course it isn't. You want to kill children in utero so that you can live as you wish. No one can ever give a rational argument sufficient to "overwhelm" someone who lives by their passions. Can you reason with someone stomping their feet, grimacing their face, and shouting "BUT I WANT TO"!?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7093
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by LuckyR »

N693 wrote: December 1st, 2022, 7:18 am Which is another way of saying the burden of proof is on me to show that we should not kill innocent people. Why do I not have the burden to prove we should not kill toddlers or teenagers?

Your argument is "because we want to", and then you say my argument is "not overwhelming". Of course it isn't. You want to kill children in utero so that you can live as you wish. No one can ever give a rational argument sufficient to "overwhelm" someone who lives by their passions. Can you reason with someone stomping their feet, grimacing their face, and shouting "BUT I WANT TO"!?
Ok, one last time (I promise). Legally, human fetuses are not people. Adult women are people. As are toddlers and teenagers, BTW. Thus (yet again) your argument as stated evaporates in a cloud of emotion unattached to fact.

I get it, you and 13% of the US population disagrees. Fine, don't have an abortion. Have a nice day.
"As usual... it depends."
N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post by N693 »

Yeah, and why are they not people? You can't answer.

On this forum, "philosophy" is quoting (supposed) opinion polls.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021