Jump to content

US Politics/Elections Thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

The numbers don't lie, abortion IS the biggest black eye in America history. 

No, its not. A collection of undeveloped cells has no conscious, feeling, or purpose. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 27.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • downzy

    4198

  • Dazey

    1556

  • soon

    1548

  • Georgy Zhukov

    1531

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Donald Trump just grabbed America by the pussy

Posted Images

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

So you support an ideology that finds no problem with that believes life only begins at birth? Yet 38 states will charge someone with murder if a pregnant mother is attacked and the unborn child dies. So clearly the unborn DO have rights. So if a mother wants to keep the child, it's murder. But if she doesn't it's not? How is this consistent? One person is NOT entitled to this kind of power over another, women's rights be damned. 

Last year alone, over 600,000 abortions were conducted in America alone. Since Roe v Wade, the amount of abortions conducted in America is well over 30 million. Compare that to the Trail of tears, which most people feel is the worst thing the American government ever did, where 60,000 Native Americans were killed. The numbers don't lie, abortion IS the biggest black eye in America history. 

The thing is, you keep speaking as if the whole "abortion = murder" thing is fact. It's not, a lot of people just don't feel that way. You kept mentioning science earlier and Soulmonster explained really well how science doesn't support what you think it's supporting. There's nothing incorrect with feeling the way you do, but nothing about it is objective or set in stone.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I must also comment on this statement that science supports a particular stance on abortion. It doesn't. Science tells us what happens, it is descriptive, not what we should do about it. Science tells us when a heart starts beating, when the lungs fill with air for the first time, what genes are expressed first in the fertilized egg, when the fetus develops arms, how the body form develops, when the brain starts forming, etc. But it doesn't tell us when a fetus has become so much like a human being that it should be granted human rights (i.e when abortion turns to murder). That is a question more for philosophers or doctors or politicians. And as long as "human being" isn't precisely defined, or the definition is contested, we will never agree on when abortion is okay.

I don't personally have a good answer on abortion and when it should be okay. I definitely don't have a problem with terminating fertilized eggs and I definitely have a problem with killing babies, so somewhere inbetween here, somewhere in these nine months of gestation, abortion goes from being okay to being not okay in my opinion.

Additionally, it is not a distinct switch from "okay" to "not okay". The fetus gradually develops into a human being, so it is a continuum more than a binary thing. This means, of course, that the time when abortion is okay should be pushed well into the "okay" range to be sure. 

And all of this of course relies on the premise that as soon as a fetus develops sufficient similarities to a human being, in terms of shape and cognitive abilities, etc, it is a human being and thus deserving of the same protections as other human beings. The religious idea that the fertilized egg is a human being simply because it contains human DNA or because it has the potential to become a human being, is nonsensical to me. If any lump of cells with human DNA should be sacred we are committing murder every time we remove a mole, blast a tumor with radiation, or wank off. And the reason human beings have special protection is because human beings are different from anything else, thus granting those same rights to something that can potentially develop into a human being, is just diluting the uniqueness of human beings and the special rights we have. It is akin to valuing the parts that make up a car equally high as the developed car itself, basically dismissing the value of actually building the car and the synergy of all these parts working together.

Lastly, we shouldn't dismiss the feelings involved when it comes to terminating a fetus (yes, it isn't a case of "killing an unborn baby" because a "baby" is the name a fetus gets when it is born and "killing" isn't a term for destroying lumps of cells not considered to be separate living entities - so "killing an unborn baby" is deliberate corruption of language to appeal to emotions), both in the could-be-mother and could-be-father. Feelings starts developing as soon as a woman is pregnant and abortion is rarely a trifling matter. This should inform our discourse when discussing abortion, and also be an argument when discussing when abortion is okay - if we accept too late abortion that can lead to more sorrow.

 

I feel you are trying to argue semantics with me. Calling a fetus not a baby is pretty rediculous. When your wife was pregnant and she said "the baby is kicking' did you correct her and say "that's not a baby, it's a fetus." No I'm sure you didn't. Your wife would have gotten so angry with you, if you did. So your child was a baby, but others are fetus? That's not consistent. 

As for your points about science, I understand that you know more about science than I , and you are trying to argue semantics here as well. What happens in lab is one thing, however you manipulate (dare I say pervert) the cells is inconsiquencial. But when those cells are growing inside of a female, it is human dna (all the other parts as well). So how can you as a scientific person not admit that it IS indeed a human? She doesn't have an ameba growing in her womb, it's not a cat, it's a human.

I appreciate you saying it is a complex issue, not just black and white as many people like to believe. While I do feel abortions are NEVER a reasonable option, for the sake of what's best for all, I AM willing to compromise. Would you agree that by the time organs are developing it has indeed become human? By week 7 the head and other body parts are developing. So can we agree that any abortions after 6 weeks can no longer be considered "just a clump of cells?" 

I say this because the way abortions are being done right now (here in America) is indeed murder. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions HAVE to be considered murder by any logical thinking person. You even admitted that there is a point when it is no longer ok? So I feel this is where the change needs to begin. Which is why I pointed to week 7 of development. If the fetus has hands and a head (as well as a heart beat), it's a living organism. A living organism that IS indeed human. Yet EVERY state in America allows for abortions all the way up to 20 weeks (some even have no limit). According to WebMD, by week 20 the fetus can do the following

"You're halfway through your pregnancy! In about 20 weeks, you'll get to meet your baby for the very first time. Inside you, baby can hear and may respond to sounds. Talk or sing — even if you can't carry a tune — so your baby can get familiar with your voice. By now, baby measures 6 1/2 inches from the top of the head to the rump and weighs about 11 ounces — roughly the size of a small banana. Your baby will keep growing, and so will you. Expect to gain about 1/2 pound a week from here on out."

Yet every state allows the abortion of this child. How is this ok? How is this legal?

This is not the only aspect of abortions I disagree with wholeheartedly, there are also dismemberment abortions. This is where the doctors literally remove the head or limbs of the fetus in order to "end" it's life. Just think about that for a minute. A 20 week old fetus getting it's head or limbs cut off. 

28 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

No, its not. A collection of undeveloped cells has no conscious, feeling, or purpose. 

Incorrect. A 20 week old fetus is NOT a clump of cells. It's a living human being. All states allow abortions up to 20 weeks. You need to inform yourself more about this topic.

Edited by Iron MikeyJ
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to WebMD week 6 of fetal development. Clearly NOT just a "clump of cells."

Ba-bum, ba-bum. It's way too quiet for you to hear, but your baby's tiny heart has started to beat. That heart sits inside a body that's now almost 1/2-inch long from the top of the head to the rump — about as wide as a pencil eraser. Baby still looks like a tadpole but that won't last for long. Human features are starting to emerge, including two eyes that come complete with lids. The lungs and digestive system are also starting to branch out, forming the organs that will help your baby breathe and eat in just a few months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

According to WebMD week 6 of fetal development. Clearly NOT just a "clump of cells."

Ba-bum, ba-bum. It's way too quiet for you to hear, but your baby's tiny heart has started to beat. That heart sits inside a body that's now almost 1/2-inch long from the top of the head to the rump — about as wide as a pencil eraser. Baby still looks like a tadpole but that won't last for long. Human features are starting to emerge, including two eyes that come complete with lids. The lungs and digestive system are also starting to branch out, forming the organs that will help your baby breathe and eat in just a few months.

I can still call that a clump of cells! Or I can call it something else, a tadpole looking thing without consciousness that doesn't supersede the consciousness of the mother (for me). Regardless, I'm just illustrating that this paragraph doesn't necessarily mean to me or others what it means to you.

2nd/3rd trimester abortions begin to "discomfort" me. But never to the point that I would even think to dictate what a mother should do about it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I feel you are trying to argue semantics with me. Calling a fetus not a baby is pretty rediculous. When your wife was pregnant and she said "the baby is kicking' did you correct her and say "that's not a baby, it's a fetus." No I'm sure you didn't. Your wife would have gotten so angry with you, if you did. So your child was a baby, but others are fetus? That's not consistent. 

Just thought of a good Soul gag there, potentially for our future sitcom that Len and others are writing.''Das ist not a baby, Frau Geerhart, but a composition of cells coexisting at an embryonic stage''. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, downzy said:

I think it's an extremely admirable thing you and your wife did.  I don't think many, including myself, could make the same choice.  And yes, I view it as a choice.  It's not simply a matter of it being easy for the parents, but for some not wanting a child/person to live in extreme discomfort or duress.  There are instances where a fetus has severe chromosomal abnormalities that usually result in death late into the pregnancy or a short, painful life days after labour.  We often say that the most humane thing to do for pets with little to no quality of life anymore is to put them down.  For some, the compassion we show our pets should be extended to fetuses not long for this world.  

The other matter revolves around whether your values or choice on this matter should supersede the choice of other would be parents.  You and your wife may have made the choice that was inline with your values, but why should you impose your values on others who might see things differently?  

Why does the child have rights to exist if the mother is unable to obtain the morning after pill within a 24 hour time frame?  That seems extremely arbitrary.  How does the forcibly fertilized egg have no rights for the first 24 hours?

Moreover, why should the mother have to be re-traumatized every time they look at their child produced by rape?  

Where do you draw the line on what conditions are abortable and what are not? Who gets to make these decisions? The parents? The doctors? Take Down Syndrome, is that abortable? Or if the child is missing a limb, is that abortable? Where is the line? 

As for pets, I believe we as humans have dominion over animals and plants, so putting your pet to sleep is not comparable imo. For a more apples to apples comparison, I don't believe in assisted suicide, nor do I believe in the death penalty. I don't believe that any human has the right to determine life or death for another human. The ONLY exception is the extreme situation where you have to defend yourself in a life or death situation. Like if someone is going to shoot you or someone else, then you have to do whatever you can to stop that person. But this is a rare and extereme example. Beyond that, no. I don't believe people like Charles Mansion deserved the death penalty. Nor do I feel government has right to make life or death decisions. 

As for "putting my values or morals on others" I don't feel that is true. Shouldn't we ALL agree on the value of human life? As I said in my post to Soul monster, there has to be a line where abortion has to be considered for what it is, murder. I think the science speaks for itself, week 6 is the line. So for the sake of argument, I will say women have 5 (possibly 6) weeks to make the decision. After that, it IS clearly a living human, and as such abortion has to be considered wrong. I understand that many women might not even know they are pregnant until week 5 or 6, but that's besides the point. When the fetus has a heartbeat and is developing organs, it's too late. 

As for rape, I would ask you do two wrongs make a right? How does the aborting of the fetus help the woman deal with the rape? She will STILL be traumatized by that event, with or without the baby. She was an innocent that has suffered, how does killing the other innocent (baby) help the situation in any way? I understand not wanting to keep the baby, that's why adaption is the most reasonable option. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

I can still call that a clump of cells! Or I can call it something else, a tadpole looking thing without consciousness that doesn't supersede the consciousness of the mother (for me). Regardless, I'm just illustrating that this paragraph doesn't necessarily mean to me or others what it means to you.

2nd/3rd trimester abortions begin to "discomfort" me. But never to the point that I would even think to dictate what a mother should do about it.

So a living organism with a beating heart, made up of human dna doesn't have any rights in your opinion? You say it lacks "consciousness" therefore it doesn't matter. What about a coma patient, they lack consciousness and feeling as well. So the plug should be pulled on all of them? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So a living organism with a beating heart, made up of human dna doesn't have any rights in your opinion? You say it lacks "consciousness" therefore it doesn't matter. What about a coma patient, they lack consciousness and feeling as well. So the plug should be pulled on all of them? 

There isn't anything about "beating heart" which is really special to me.

I'm glad you asked the second question, I think it helps me think through where I stand and explain it better. What's very important to me is the subject (whether it's a fetus or someone in a coma) in relation to others and whether harm is being inflicted onto a subject's consciousness. The fetus has never had what I consider to be a conscious experience. It hasn't shared memories or experiences with anyone or anything outside of the womb - it exists only in relation to the mother. For you, it has value in and of itself, which I can understand. But at that point we're kind of making appeals to spirituality, which brings us to what I've been saying- this is subjective because we all have different conceptualizations of spirituality and the valuation of life that are incommensurate with each other.

This is why I found it actually offensive for you to compare abortions to the Trail of Tears, which inflicted actual, tangible pain upon people, every bit of which was felt and experienced. I would prefer a trillion 6 week fetuses aborted before something like that ever happens again.

A person in a coma has shared a lifetime with family, friends, etc. So it would be best left to the family of the person in the coma to decide when to the pull the plug. 

Edited by Jakey Styley
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

There isn't anything about "beating heart" which is really special to me.

I'm glad you asked the second question, I think it helps me think through where I stand and explain it better. What's very important to me is the subject (whether it's a fetus or someone in a coma) in relation to others and whether harm is being inflicted onto a subject's consciousness. The fetus has never had what I consider to be a conscious experience. It hasn't shared memories or experiences with anyone or anything outside of the womb - it exists only in relation to the mother. For you, it has value in and of itself, which I can understand. But at that point we're kind of making appeals to spirituality, which brings us to what I've been saying- this is subjective because we all have different conceptualizations of spirituality and the valuation of life that are incommensurate with each other.

This is why I found it actually offensive for you to compare abortions to the Trail of Tears, which inflicted actual, tangible pain upon people, every bit of which was felt and experienced. I would happily have a trillion 6 week fetuses aborted before something like that ever happens.

This is why I'm trying to find a compromise with you and others on this forum. There HAS to be a line where we can agree abortions are wrong. You even said yourself that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions give you "discomfort." Why do you think that is? Possibly because deep down you feel something is wrong with allowing them. You also said "you would never tell a mother what to do." If you saw a woman neglecting a week old baby would you say anything/ do anything? We know the government would. My point is, what EXACTLY about the moment of birth all the sudden gives the baby all of these rights? Yet as I said earlier, in 38 states if a mother gets attacked and her unborn child dies, the perpetrator can be charged with murder. So clearly, in 38 states anyways, they believe the unborn DO have rights. 

I'm just trying to find the line here. I provided factual proof that by week 7 the fetus has a heart beat, a head, and hands and is of course made up of human dna. I feel that is a very reasonable point to say the child has rights, would you not? It no longer resembles a "tadpole" but is indeed looking more human like. Would you accept a trillion abortions at week 7?what about week 10? Week 15? Week 20? Where is your line?  Would you like me to find the point in development where the fetus can "feel" things? 

Edited by Iron MikeyJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Where do you draw the line on what conditions are abortable and what are not? Who gets to make these decisions? The parents? The doctors? Take Down Syndrome, is that abortable? Or if the child is missing a limb, is that abortable? Where is the line? 

Why wouldn't the parents or doctors be the ones to decide?  Why does your values and choice get projected onto others? 

It sounds me to me you want to project your own religious values onto others.  But why should anyone be subjected to rules and laws based on the personal faith of others?  

23 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Nor do I feel government has right to make life or death decisions. 

That's not accurate.  You do feel the state has a hand in determine who lives or who dies.  You have already provided some fairly arbitrary conditions as to who can get an abortion or when someone can ask for the morning after pill.  You're simply projecting your own moral and religious views onto state policy.  I'm not saying you are alone on this matter.  We all do it to a certain extent.  But the difference here is that people who are supportive of giving a woman the right to choose whether she carries her fetus to term believe it is a choice left up to the individual and not one that can be dictated by the state.  

What I find insincere about pro-life advocates is their claim that they care about the welfare of the child and that the state has a responsibility in ensuring the life of a fetus.  But once that baby is born, it seems few give an actual fuck about the child.  The same political forces that seek to compel women to have bring their fetuses to term have nothing to offer that woman and child after delivery.  They seek to eliminate welfare, financial support, maternity support, and oppose maternity leave.  If it were truly about the sanctity of the child, you would think the same political forces who oppose abortion would support government support for that child once it has been delivered.  But they so rarely do not.

31 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I think the science speaks for itself, week 6 is the line

Science doesn't say that.  You're saying that.

32 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

After that, it IS clearly a living human, and as such abortion has to be considered wrong

Why though? Others may argue the science says it becomes a living human at conception.  To them, your views are abhorrent.

32 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I understand that many women might not even know they are pregnant until week 5 or 6, but that's besides the point.

It really isn't besides the point. 

33 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

As for rape, I would ask you do two wrongs make a right? How does the aborting of the fetus help the woman deal with the rape?

Maybe she doesn't want to see the face her abuser in the face of her child. 

You've already now moved the line to five or six weeks.  A woman who becomes pregnant due to being raped is going to know about it within a few weeks.  So this really shouldn't be a problem for you under your new timeline as to when an abortion is acceptable.  

35 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

She was an innocent that has suffered, how does killing the other innocent (baby) help the situation in any way?

The fetus has no consciousness, no prior existence. 

36 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I understand not wanting to keep the baby, that's why adaption is the most reasonable option. 

No it's not.  Forcing a woman to take a fetus to term because of your own arbitrary moral values is inhumane.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

This is why I'm trying to find a compromise with you and others on this forum. There HAS to be a line where we can agree abortions are wrong. You even said yourself that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions give you "discomfort." Why do you think that is? Possibly because deep down you feel something is wrong with allowing them. You also said "you would never tell a mother what to do." If you saw a woman neglecting a week old baby would you say anything/ do anything? We know the government would. My point is, what EXACTLY about the moment of birth all the sudden gives the baby all of these rights? Yet as I said earlier, in 38 states if a mother gets attacked and her unborn child dies, the perpetrator can be charged with murder. So clearly, in 38 states anyways, they believe the unborn DO have rights. 

I'm just trying to find the line here. I provided factual proof that by week 7 the fetus has a heart beat, a head, and hands and is of course made up of human dna. I feel that is a very reasonable point to say the child has rights, would you not? It no longer resembles a "tadpole" but is indeed looking more human like. Would you accept a trillion abortions at week 7?what about week 10? Week 15? Week 20? Where is your line? 

The discomfort comes mostly from the visual aspect of it, it's more grotesque to imagine the more it looks like a human. I don't like it, but I don't think it's anyone's choice but the mother's.

I would compromise only for those like yourself who are anti-abortion, not for me, because it is just not intuitive to me to be able to tell the mother what to do with a subject that to me doesn't have the same value as a born baby yet. Until then, it might as well be her spleen for me, it is ENTIRELY hers. The mother, with conscious life behind her and conscious life ahead of her, with the awareness to make judgments of what it means for her and the unborn to carry out the pregnancy, is very obviously to me the most fitting agent to make this choice. Your alternative to the mother as agent is an arbitrary appeal to spirituality, which isn't insignificant, but just can't hold any solid weight outside of, well, your own conceptualization of the sanctity of life and what life is.

I see your stance as being akin to designing law and people's rights according to a single religion.

Edited by Jakey Styley
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jakey Styley said:

2nd/3rd trimester abortions begin to "discomfort" me. But never to the point that I would even think to dictate what a mother should do about it

The 3rd trimester thing is a disingenuous scare-tactic employed by pro-life advocates that is not based in reality.

The truth is only 1.3 percent of all abortions occur at or after 21 weeks of gestation.  91 percent of abortions performed occur at or before 13 weeks.

Most studies of the very few who have late-term abortions find that the vast majority are due to medical complications to the fetus or mother.  There are very few instances were there is no medical condition.  The few that have occurred (and we're talking very, very few) are associated with mothers dealing with an abusive partner, mental health issues, or have an addition problem.  Most late-term abortions are a result of women not being given critical health information about their fetuses.  Later on when they discovered severe abnormalities do these women choose to abort.  Finally there are women who have late-term abortions because the states in which they reside in make it extremely difficult for them to obtain one earlier.  It was found that all of these women travelled out of state to eventually procure the procedure.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

@downzy,

I'm only moving the goal post to find a compromise, not because I believe it to be ok at any point. Isn't compromise what should be strived for in politics? I have provided factual information from WebMD on the development of a fetus, yet you said "that's not science." I'm confused by that. 

Yes 3rd trimester abortions are rare, I don't disagree with that. But 2nd trimester are not nearly as rare as you claim. While it is true that 2/3 do happen within the first 8 weeks. 7.7% happen between weeks 14 and 20. Last year there were 623,471 abortions in the US. 7.7% of 623,471 is 48,007 2nd trimester abortions. If you do that year by year, it will be an alarming number. That is one of the reasons I would argue that abortion is FAR worse than the trail of tears or slavery. I understand you won't agree with me, but that's how many of DO feel. 

Again, I'm trying to compromise here, is there any point where you would be willing to do the same? Or are you firm on your stance that they should not have any (or very few) restrictions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

The discomfort comes mostly from the visual aspect of it, it's more grotesque to imagine the more it looks like a human. I don't like it, but I don't think it's anyone's choice but the mother's.

I would compromise only for those like yourself who are anti-abortion, not for me, because it is just not intuitive to me to be able to tell the mother what to do with a subject that to me doesn't have the same value as a born baby yet. Until then, it might as well be her spleen for me, it is ENTIRELY hers. The mother, with conscious life behind her and conscious life ahead of her, with the awareness to make judgments of what it means for her and the unborn to carry out the pregnancy, is very obviously to me the most fitting agent to make this choice. Your alternative to the mother as agent is an arbitrary appeal to spirituality, which isn't insignificant, but just can't hold any solid weight outside of, well, your own conceptualization of the sanctity of life and what life is.

I see your stance as being akin to designing law and people's rights according to a single religion.

I haven't mentioned religion once during these posts, so I'm not sure why you even bring that up. 

As for your spleen comparison, that's just plain not true. A woman's spleen is HER dna, a fetus has its own, unique dna. Just because it is inside of her, does NOT make it hers. If it did, it would HAVE to have her dna, correct? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My final point on this topic is caterpillars and moths. When they are in a cocoon, they are still biologically the same organism they were before the cocoon and they will be after it. But while in it, they are in transforming state of being. They are still alive are they not? They are just at a different state of development, much like the fetus. 

Furthermore, if there were a group of people killing all the caterpillar's while they were in a cocoons (on a massive scale), liberals would have a problem with it (as would I). Yet that same concern is lacking for actual humans. I find that completely telling about the democratic party. So the next time you want to talk about the moral justifications for racial equality, women's rights, or whatever have you, take a moment and think about how much lack of empathy is being shown towards actual humans, the most innocent of humans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3rd trimester argument is such bullshit. People act like there are women giving birth that just scream "NEVERMIND!" and they stab the baby in the head with a screwdriver.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I haven't mentioned religion once during these posts, so I'm not sure why you even bring that up. 

As for your spleen comparison, that's just plain not true. A woman's spleen is HER dna, a fetus has its own, unique dna. Just because it is inside of her, does NOT make it hers. If it did, it would HAVE to have her dna, correct? 

Because your arbitrary valuation of life is akin to an element of religion or spirituality, it’s a matter of faith and belief, it’s not based in objective truth which you keep trying to establish through various means (heartbeat, DNA, etc). If it were we would all agree. That’s all I’m trying to say. Those lines you’ve drawn do it for you but they don’t have to do it for others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many 3rd trimester abortions are essentially C-Sections.  The Baby/Fetus is given a lethal injection before the procedure so it is not "born alive" or else it would be "born alive" once taken out of the womb by c-section.  There are few (if any) excuses for 3rd trimester abortions, imo. 

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member




×
×
  • Create New...