|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 14, 2013 03:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, maybe the charges were not going to be murder but aborting a 9 month-old baby is still illegal and people who defend the right of abortion in general don't defend it for that period of pregnancy. So don't try to manipulate people into thinking it's about that.I guess when denying or bending the reality to make it fit your faith becomes OK, it turns into a habit.
You continually lie about me. That says a lot about you. Unfortunately you appear to lack the ability to hold a discussion or participate in a debate without getting personal.
I linked to the story and quoted a portion of the story and have not tried to manipulate anything.
The abortion doctor attempted to abort some babies and failed at the abortions. Instead of the babies being born dead, the way he planned, they were born alive.
The "abortion" resulted in live babies instead of dead babies. So he murdered the babies who had survived his abortion attempts. Those babies who had fought to survive his attempts to murder them in the womb and did survive to draw breath. Until he flipped them over on the table and cut their spines.
Planned Parenthood favors allowing this if it is what the mother wants, as a Planned Parenthood representative testified before law makers recently (I posted a link previously.)
Really, abortion supporters should have no issue with what the doctor did. The mother came in to the abortion clinic to have her baby killed. What difference does it make that the doctor failed to kill the baby in the womb? He corrected his mistake a few minutes later by killing the baby when it was born.
I guess we have quite different definitions of getting personal. This is not your first post in here, you have been in this thread, you have read all the posts about when an abortion should be performed and not, you know what has been written about brain development. Still trying to by-pass illegal, late-term abortions as something we defend is sheer manipulation and insulting to our intelligence. Of course, another possibility is you, actually not being able to see the difference between the two but if I comment on that, now that will be really against the CoC.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 04:46 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:49, 14 May 2013.
|
If you wish to revisit facts about the unborn, ok. The more science has advanced, the more the facts have come to favor the pro-life position that from the moment of conception a new human organism is in the womb of the mother. In fact that position is now beyond dispute from a scientific viewpoint.
Embryologists say that an embryo is a human organism, just as a 40 year old man is a human organism. A human embryo is a whole living member of the Homo sapiens species in the earliest stage of the human life cycle.
The human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism. It is not proper to call it a mere clump of cells or to compare it to a human organ. An embryo is not part of a human organism. It is a living human organism, with complete and unique human DNA..
The human organism will proceed through all of the various stages of human life and eventually die a natural death unless someone murders it before it completes its journey or some tragic accident befalls it. The human organism you see at 80 years old is the same human organism that came into being when it was conceived in the womb or in a glass container (in the case of human "cloning.")
The human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage. The 70 year old is a human being in the adult stage of human life. The adult organism was once in the embryonic stage, once in the fetus stage, once in the infant stage, once in the preteen stage, once an adolescent, and finally reached adulthood. Same organism. Same homo sapien.
If you believe a human being possesses an inherit dignity and rights by virtue of his humanity then you must oppose abortion because abortion kills a unique innocent human organism. If you say that only certain human beings have rights then you can justify the killing of any human organism for any reason.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 05:18 AM |
|
|
Once again, a human organism in plain biological sense and a human individual are different things. An embryo at an early stage has no brain, nerves, hence no self and self awareness. We are not complete human beings without our brain. That's why an 80 year-old person who is brain dead, although considered definitely a human organism, can be terminated for his organs and we don't call that murder either. You insist on skipping this part.
Besides, discussing abortion within it's legal limits is something, trying to by-pass 9 month-old abortion as same thing as legal abortion is something else. Although I don't agree with them, I can understand pro-lifers' point of view. (It's the people who are against contraception that I find totally absurd.) That's not what you're doing here, you are accusing people who support abortion of something they are not, which is the part I find manipulative and indecent.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 05:19 AM |
|
|
Can we apply as well pragmatism to abortion? I have no stance pro or against, but I think the human has the potential to poison his home planet if over populated. Also I am aware of how many animal species we simply crush because our expansion into wilderness. Also, the last argument would be that a mother which has no desire to have a baby would not be a good mother, there may be exceptions to the rule, but in general, her moral position is clear from the start: the baby is unwanted and she will not take care of him.
Then of course comes the unanswered question: when life begins thus murder is committed? For this it seems there are two strong clans which will not give up. Hence I return to my first arguments.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 05:49 AM |
|
|
It's a classic sorites paradox. It will never be solved to the mutual satisfaction of everyone.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 06:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's a classic sorites paradox. It will never be solved to the mutual satisfaction of everyone.
Well, nobody's forcing pro-lifers to have abortions. It's them that want to impose their values on everyone else. And let's not kid ourselves, this is about the belief that once the embryo is conceived it has a soul, almost all pro-lifers are religious. Science, embryology etc etc could have said this and that and it wouldn't mean squat to them. So basically suggesting to outlaw abortion is like demanding everyone to believe in a soul that exists even without a functioning brain, an entity other than the neurological process of consciousness.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 07:54 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 08:01, 14 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's a classic sorites paradox. It will never be solved to the mutual satisfaction of everyone.
Well, nobody's forcing pro-lifers to have abortions. It's them that want to impose their values on everyone else. And let's not kid ourselves, this is about the belief that once the embryo is conceived it has a soul, almost all pro-lifers are religious. Science, embryology etc etc could have said this and that and it wouldn't mean squat to them. So basically suggesting to outlaw abortion is like demanding everyone to believe in a soul that exists even without a functioning brain, an entity other than the neurological process of consciousness.
You are the one bringing the soul into this. I've been arguing from the standpoint of science. The embryo is a human organism according to science.
You are saying it is ok to kill certain human organisms even though those human organisms pose no threat to anyone (assuming there is no medical problem with the mother.) I find your stance to be morally questionable to say the least.
I'll point you to a "secular" pro-life movement. Their arguments about abortion are actually pretty much what I have argued. I encourage you to read their materials.
Clicky
Quote:
Welcome to SecularProLife.org. The pro-life movement is expanding beyond the cathedral walls and we want you to be a part of history.
If you are pro-life because abortion violates the Constitutional right to life, science shows that human life begins at conception, abortion hurts women, or for any other non-religious reason: make yourself at home! Here you will meet like-minded atheists, theists, and agnostics who are eager to save lives and fight the media portrayal of pro-lifers as "religious extremists."
clicky
Quote:
The secular pro-life position rests on the following premises:
-The fetus is a human being.
-There is no consistent, objective distinction between a "human being" and a "person."
-Human beings merit human rights.
-Bodily integrity is not sufficient to justify most abortions.
Atheist, secular, and pro life
Quote:
“Could it be true?” Marco Rossi asks in the September/October 2012 issue of The Humanist. “Is there really such a thing as a pro-life atheist? What’s next, Intelligent Design Agnostics? How about Secularists for Sharia Law?”
Although Rossi seems to think his analogies are comical and highly effective, they are actually inapt. Pro-life atheists do not claim God created prenatal children, that he endowed them with souls, or that he even exists. Instead, pro-life atheists, agnostics, and secular people argue that prenatal children are human beings who have rights, and that to abort them is wrong.
....
“When the sperm meets the egg, a genetically complete human being is formed, and all that is required for maturation is time and nutrition,” Thielen said. “As complete human beings in the most vulnerable stages, there should be protections afforded. As a society we are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable—the young, the aged, the infirm, those who can’t speak for themselves. The unborn belong here.”
For many, the historical argument for human equality is the strongest secular argument in favor of life.
“History has many lessons about human beings who were not legal ‘persons,’” said Hazzard. “What seems like common sense to one generation—‘Of course Negroes aren’t real people’—is horrific to the next. What criteria can we set that will prevent this from happening? Every criterion proposed to exclude the unborn can also be used to exclude others. Consciousness? Then it’s fine to kill someone in a temporary coma; they merely have ‘potential.’ Physical independence? So much for conjoined twins. Human appearance? Discrimination based on appearance has been some of the most insidious of all. Birth? Totally arbitrary; there is no ‘personhood fairy’ residing in the birth canal, conferring rights upon exit. At the end of the day, human rights are for all humans. If we don’t protect them for the weakest among us, they’re rather worthless.”
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 08:07 AM |
|
|
Pragmatically, with Elodin's point of view, every female person would be open to murder/manslaughter/negligent homicide from the moment of having a conception: taking the pill after would be murder, for example.
And of course everyone had the right to put charges up against everyone losing a fetus in any way. If we follow Elodin, every lost fetus has to be investigated as suspicious death, at the very least when someone lifts a finger and points to the woman (and we know who that would be; we had the absurd situation that a rape victim losing the fetus might be on murder charges because the rapist would accuse her.) And if there WAS an investigation that came to the conclusion that someone lost a fetus due to an abuse of alcohol (party time), it had to be treated as manslaughter.
Think of the infinite field of extortion and blackmail opening.
That's just one reason why the pro-life stance is absolutely and completely ridiculous. It's of course a means for the oppression of the female gender. Monotheistic religions don't treat women well, never have, probably never will. There are enough children born in this world, more than enough, in fact, and women are supposed to love the children they conceive, since there is a special bond between them.
If that isn't there and a woman wants to abort, for everyone's sake - LET THEM, and the sooner the better.
Planned Parenthood, as a worldwide organization, is a blessing for so many people, mostly women.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 08:22 AM |
|
|
|
The pro-lifers position can be summarized as "let the child be born no matter the circumstances and then to hell with it". Seriously, I'm yet to read a single argument why giving a birth to an unwanted child is a good thing. Morals...
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 09:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You are the one bringing the soul into this. I've been arguing from the standpoint of science. The embryo is a human organism according to science.
Hey, Elodin, do you remember my question?
Quote:
Can we transfer a fetus between two women? Or maybe take it to some kind of "life chamber"?
If yes - I apologise, a fetus is an independent organism and an abortion is a murder.
If no - "Sorry, but science says you are wrong".
Also, you didn't answer me if you were a pregnant woman. 
Can you answer this or you'll ignore it once again?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 11:07 AM |
|
|
@Elodin
From your link:
Quote:
Consciousness? Then it’s fine to kill someone in a temporary coma;
This is a wrong analogy. Unconscious is not brain dead. Temporary or not, a person in a coma still has a functioning brain, embryos on the other hand, are brainless, not unconscious. So the corresponding thing is not people in comas but people who are brain dead and yes, we do terminate them. Now, if you are sincere about not bringing the soul into this, I wonder what will it take for you to see abortion as a normal procedure, a world of 50 billion people that is some kind of Soylent Green dystopia? Poverty and famine wiping out entire countries? Does it really have to come to that before you change your mind, because make no mistake, if abortion's off the table, eventually it will.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 04:09 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:11, 14 May 2013.
|
@JJ
Quote:
Pragmatically, with Elodin's point of view, every female person would be open to murder/manslaughter/negligent homicide from the moment of having a conception: taking the pill after would be murder, for example.
How utterly innane. Under your logic rape should be legal because every time a man has sex he is opening himself up to being charged with rape.
Quote:
That's just one reason why the pro-life stance is absolutely and completely ridiculous. It's of course a means for the oppression of the female gender. Monotheistic religions don't treat women well, never have, probably never will. There are enough children born in this world, more than enough, in fact, and women are supposed to love the children they conceive, since there is a special bond between them.
If that isn't there and a woman wants to abort, for everyone's sake - LET THEM, and the sooner the better.
What poppycock. Being murdered is NOT best for the baby. Murdering the baby is also not best for the mother or the father or for society. You place such a very very low value on human life. But that is just the way the extreme left is, eh?
Saying a woman does not have the right to murder here child is NOT oppressing women. What idiocy.
It is of course untrue to say monotheistic religions don't treat women well. Anti-theists must spew their hate constantly in every thread, so full of hatred and bigotry.
A mother being such a sorry individual that she is incapable of loving a child is not an excuse to kill the child. Instead sterilize the mom and place the child in a home with better human beings.
Quote:
Planned Parenthood, as a worldwide organization, is a blessing for so many people, mostly women.
It is an organization that loves to kill unborn babies. And it defends infanticide of born babies.
Clicky
Quote:
When Rep. Todd Akin made his outrageous comments about “legitimate rape” it was front page news — and rightly so. But when a representative of Planned Parenthood is caught on camera defending infanticide, it merits barely a mention in the mainstream media.
Testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
Jaws in the committee room dropped. Asked again, she repeated her answer.
Of course now PP is trying to backtrack a little, but we know their rue position and other extreme leftists that seem to be right up your alley share them.
Quote:
Recently a major motion picture, October Baby, told the true story of one abortion survivor in search of her birth mother and of her struggle to forgive her. The woman depicted in the movie, Gianna Jessen, testified before Congress about why she lived after her mother underwent a saline abortion: “Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive... I was early.... I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic, as his job is to take life, not sustain it.”
Amazingly, some argue that killing babies like Gianna is morally permissible. Recently two bioethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published a paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” They wrote: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
This is Orwellian. The term “after-birth abortion” is an oxymoron. You can’t kill an unborn child after it has been born.
The extreme left loooooves to kill babies.
Quote:
The pro-lifers position can be summarized as "let the child be born no matter the circumstances and then to hell with it". Seriously, I'm yet to read a single argument why giving a birth to an unwanted child is a good thing. Morals...
Loony leftists loves lying. The falsehood you are repeating is a common lie the left throws around about pro lifers.
Clicky
Quote:
Pro-lifers have developed a nationwide support system of Crisis Pregnancy Centers devoted to helping women face both pregnancy and the demands of being a new parent. CPCs provide the financial and emotional support to these women who chose to give life. While the League does not itself provide these services, we work closely with several of these centers and refer women to them regularly.
It is also important to note that abortion increases rates of child abuse and other violent acts. Decreasing the number of abortions means that fewer children will be abused; our activism, then, helps children in this way as well.
Quote:
Hey, Elodin, do you remember my question?
Quote:
Can we transfer a fetus between two women? Or maybe take it to some kind of "life chamber"?
If yes - I apologise, a fetus is an independent organism and an abortion is a murder.
If no - "Sorry, but science says you are wrong".
Also, you didn't answer me if you were a pregnant woman.
Can you answer this or you'll ignore it once again?
Yes, but I thought your questions were so inane as to not be worth my time to answer.
No, I am not a woman. If you check my profile it says "Male." I assume based on that that you do not know the difference between a male and a female.
The idea that Mommy has a right to murder Baby and Daddy should have no say so is yet one more of the extreme left loonyisms. Mommy and Daddy had sex. Baby is in Mommy's womb as a result. Mommy and Daddy both had a part to play in Baby's creation. It is discriminatory to say that Mommy has a right to kill Daddy's Baby. Mommy is not the only parent of Baby.
Futher, Baby being dependent on Mommy in no way implies Mommy has a right to murder Baby. Young children outside the womb are also totally dependent on others. People temporarily disabled can be totally dependent on otheres. Permanently disabled/handicapped people can be totally dependent on others.
Of course some of the extreme left argues it should be legal to kill the young, the old, the infirm, ect, who are dependent on others. I think "demonic" is an appropriate word to describe such people.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 04:24 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
Quote:
She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
I'm not necessarily defending their position, but I hope you realize this isn't exactly the same as actually saying they believe said baby should be, in your words, brutally murdered. She is advocating that these kinds of decisions not be made a priori by government legislators.
You may disagree with that position, certainly, but you should at least be disagreeing with what she is actually saying. Otherwise, it is only strawman fallacy.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 04:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Loony leftists loves lying. The falsehood you are repeating is a common lie the left throws around about pro lifers.
1. Find a dictionary.
2. Find the "l" letter.
3. Find the word "lie".
4. Educate yourself.
Anyway, how many children have you adopted, pro-lifer?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 04:52 PM |
|
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 04:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is also important to note that abortion increases rates of child abuse and other violent acts. Decreasing the number of abortions means that fewer children will be abused; our activism, then, helps children in this way as well.
...
Wat?
I'm sorry, but there is no way that that could be logically proven to be correlated, much less that abortions cause abuse. I think that the only real connection is as the population increases, so does the amount of abortions and the cases of abuse... which is sort of expected and not all that shocking.  The amount of car accidents and parties on the beach also go up, will they blame those on abortions as well?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 05:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
Pragmatically, with Elodin's point of view, every female person would be open to murder/manslaughter/negligent homicide from the moment of having a conception: taking the pill after would be murder, for example.
How utterly innane. Under your logic rape should be legal because every time a man has sex he is opening himself up to being charged with rape.
That just goes to show that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you grant a fetus person rights (so that an abortion would be murder), then it is MANDATORY to investigate every "suspicious" death of a fetus. A sex act is just that, and if there are no charge, there is no judge. However, a lost fetus is a LIFE LOST in that case, and the cause of a life lost has to be determined. That's the law.
The rest is your usual hate sermon - no answer needed.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 05:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A mother being such a sorry individual that she is incapable of loving a child is not an excuse to kill the child. Instead sterilize the mom and place the child in a home with better human beings.
The desensitized atheist I am is still shocked by your conclusion. How comes that a mother asking for abortion for reasons you have no clue about should be definitively spoiled of her right to give birth? The religious views look to me sometimes like trapping the human in stereotypical stances, and then refuse the right to repent, rethink and reconsider the options. While preaching the opposite.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 05:19 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:27, 14 May 2013.
|
Quote:
@Elodin
From your link:
Quote:
Consciousness? Then it’s fine to kill someone in a temporary coma;
This is a wrong analogy. Unconscious is not brain dead. Temporary or not, a person in a coma still has a functioning brain, embryos on the other hand, are brainless, not unconscious. So the corresponding thing is not people in comas but people who are brain dead and yes, we do terminate them.
We don't kill the brain dead. We let them die a natural death instead of taking heroic measures to keep the body alive.
Quote:
brain death
n.
Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function, as evidenced by cessation of breathing and other vital reflexes, unresponsiveness to stimuli, absence of muscle activity, and a flat electroencephalogram for a specific length of time. Also called cerebral death.
A fetus responds to stimuli. A fetus also has no irreversible brain damage. Quite the contrary.
The embryonic human organism has the same exact nature as the adult human organism that it will mature into. The genetic information is all there. It will exhibit mature consciousness at the proper time--when it is mature. The embryo thus should be considered a rational organism. It is not something like an amoeba NOR a brain dead organism. The difference in a 40 year old human organism and a human organism in the womb is only maturity, not nature.
Immediately exercisable capacity for mental functions appears to be a poor way to measure the moral worth of a human organism. Such a system of measuring moral worth means the moral value of the human organism changes with time, circumstance, happenstance, and developed mental potential. It means a mature human organism who is drunk, taking medication, sleeping, in a coma, or otherwise not functioning at 100% of mental capacity is less worthy of life than one who is functioning "at 100%" by that measure. And presumably human organisms of higher "intelligence" are more worthy of life than those with lesser intelligence.
It should be no surprise that an immature human organism can't function at the same levels as a mature human organism. But as I pointed out earlier, the nature of both the immature organism and the adult organism is the same. The mental capacity of the immature organism is there in root form. Given time the body and mental functions of that immature organism will mature. A human embryo is a rational organism because of its human nature. The basic natural capacity for consciousness is present at the moment of conception and matures as the human organism matures. That maturation continues well after birth.
The different levels of maturity of the human organism at the various stages of human life don't to me imply that the human organism is becoming more and more worthy of moral respect. A normal 40 year old man has a higher level of consciousness than a pre-teen. Yet I find the idea that because the 40 year old mature human organism has a higher level of consciousness he is worthy of more moral respect than the 10 year old human organism to be troublesome. I also find the idea that "smarter" human organisms are of more moral worth than those with a mental impairment morally repugnant.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 05:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but I thought your questions were so inane as to not be worth my time to answer.
So I assume that the answer is: no, you can't transfer a fetus into another female. That's a shame.
Quote:
No, I am not a woman. If you check my profile it says "Male." I assume based on that that you do not know the difference between a male and a female.
Well, you were talking about fetus as you were a pregnant woman. But it seems like you'll never have to choose between having a child or an abortion...
Quote:
The idea that Mommy has a right to murder Baby and Daddy should have no say so is yet one more of the extreme left loonyisms. Mommy and Daddy had sex. Baby is in Mommy's womb as a result. Mommy and Daddy both had a part to play in Baby's creation. It is discriminatory to say that Mommy has a right to kill Daddy's Baby. Mommy is not the only parent of Baby.
Mommy is more important for Baby than Daddy while Baby is in Mommy's body, not in Daddy's body. So it's all up to Mommy actually. The only thing Daddy can do is trying to stop her or leave her when he doesn't agree on that.
Quote:
Young children outside the womb are also totally dependent on others. People temporarily disabled can be totally dependent on otheres. Permanently disabled/handicapped people can be totally dependent on others.
There "others" have a choice. Mommy after becoming pregnant has no choice but to have a baby or an abortion. More or less legal.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
