|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So people live through it if you kill in self defense? The person is dead whether in self defense or not. You're talking about justifying killing. It's still killing.
Yep it's still killing, and I don't think your going to find many people who don't think it's OK to protect yourself, and save your own life.
I'll give you a few: Jesus, Ghandi, MLK, for starters.
You may want to do a little more research on those.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Ok, I have to admit, that one was just to off arch. Although I do have a pretty cold view of it, true. I guess I've seen enough suffering and death and injustice in my life that I'm numb to people getting so worked up to save something that isn't even born yet. Maybe when we get to a point where we're not killing people already here, abusing children, torturing people, starving each other, and doing acts of unimaginable cruelty, I'll give a crap about a 2 month old fetus.
There are people on this earth who wish they had never been born. I'm more concerned about saving their lives. In the end, there is nothing we can do about abortion. Making it illegal doesn't stop it, never has. You can take a 6 month old from it's mother and take care of it. You can't do that with a 3 month old fetus. Doesn't have anything to do with inconvience. They are just so many more important things to get worked up about. And frankly, the less the government is involved in our lives, the better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So people live through it if you kill in self defense? The person is dead whether in self defense or not. You're talking about justifying killing. It's still killing.
Yep it's still killing, and I don't think your going to find many people who don't think it's OK to protect yourself, and save your own life.
I'll give you a few: Jesus, Ghandi, MLK, for starters.
You may want to do a little more research on those.
Uh, they were all pacifists who turned the other cheek. Two of them were killed and didn't fight back. I'm not sure what more research you think I should do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
"...Actually, what i'm saying is that no one else should have the right to decide what we do with our own bodies. "
Well...not exactly. There are plenty of laws against personal activities in America. Think about the drug possession/use laws...prostitution...nudity prohibitions...
This thread has finally gone off the tracks and into the realm of the "You Suck
Abortion" thread. If the government allows it...put it out of it's misery.
I am against all those laws about drug possession, prostitution, nudity, etc. So I'm consistent in my views that the government should stay out of our bodies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,633
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,633 |
Quote:
guess I've seen enough suffering and death and injustice in my life that I'm numb to people getting so worked up to save something that isn't even born yet. Maybe when we get to a point where we're not killing people already here, abusing children, torturing people, starving each other, and doing acts of unimaginable cruelty, I'll give a crap about a 2 month old fetus.
So who says you can't worked up about ALL of the above?
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So people live through it if you kill in self defense? The person is dead whether in self defense or not. You're talking about justifying killing. It's still killing.
Yep it's still killing, and I don't think your going to find many people who don't think it's OK to protect yourself, and save your own life.
I'll give you a few: Jesus, Ghandi, MLK, for starters.
You may want to do a little more research on those.
Uh, they were all pacifists who turned the other cheek. Two of them were killed and didn't fight back. I'm not sure what more research you think I should do.
Again, check it out, the internet is a wonderful place. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,906
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,906 |
Quote:
Ok, I have to admit, that one was just to off arch.
Interesting comment. I see you are more concerned with offending someone than in actually believing what you post - and what you put out as your beliefs.
Offend me all you want.  (here's a little hint: you better work a little harder, cause you haven't yet).
Also, I notice in a different thread you accused someone of "twisting" your words and you didn't care for it. That's interesting..... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
I'm not going to go searching around the internet for something unspecific you claim to exist. If you don't have any evidence to back up your statements, I'm not going to do your work for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
I'm not going to do your work for you.
LOL. That's EXACTLY why I'm not posting anything for you. You don't have a clue and just spout out generalizations or something you've heard over time. Just as I thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,058
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,058 |
Quote:
The other reason pro lifers get a bad rap is evident right in this thread. Some of them, and I understand it is due to being emotional and passsionate about this, come off as complete jerks (and that's putting it mildly).
Although I agree with you I just want to point out some on here with the opposite opinion are just as harsh. I am against abortion and think life begins at conception. I don't believe my standards are consistant with what I think the law should be. I do consider it murder if the baby is viable. When I read posts on here from people that think it's ok to kill a baby for any reason up until the due date and then accuse me and others that we are wrong in feeling that way is pretty bad also. The arguement goes on from there that we aren't concerned about these babies once they are born.  That is an entirely different subject yet people use it to slight my opinion. They also say we are hypocrites because we feel killing an innocent life is equal to executing someone who premediatively kills someone.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
I was speaking from personal experience in discussing this with both sides. It is only from that personal experience that I'm relating what I see about the particular side I was talking about, I haven't seen it from the other side near as much. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I don't happen to think I'm alone in that perception, however.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,058
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,058 |
Ok. I didn't understand. I do think tere are more zealous "pro lifers" than people who are "pro choice". My problem lies with those who tend to be "pro abortion". An example would be most of the public speakers from NARAL.
Last edited by Pdawg; 02/08/08 02:24 PM.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
I am against all those laws about drug possession, prostitution, nudity, etc. So I'm consistent in my views that the government should stay out of our bodies.
You truly don't have a problem with a pedophile standing naked in front of the kindergarten children at the bus stop and masturbating?
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
I am against all those laws about drug possession, prostitution, nudity, etc. So I'm consistent in my views that the government should stay out of our bodies.
You truly don't have a problem with a pedophile standing naked in front of the kindergarten children at the bus stop and masturbating?
I don't think anyone doesn't have a problem with that.
I don't have a problem with Janet Jackson's boob or topless beaches or breast feeding in public. I don't think we need to cover up a nude statue with a cloth.
Drugs...we don't have a drug problem - we have a social problem.
As for prostitution...one of the dumber laws on the books. It's illegality boosts crime, provides for parasitic rapist pigs, and spreads disease. And for what? To pay lip service to a moral code? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not going to do your work for you.
LOL. That's EXACTLY why I'm not posting anything for you. You don't have a clue and just spout out generalizations or something you've heard over time. Just as I thought.
OK. Fine. I searched the internet. It turns out Jesus was killed and didn't fight back. In fact, he said this "forgive them, for they know not what they do."
As son of God, he had the power to save himself. He also could have at least tried to punch one of them. He didn't. He let himself be killed. So is there a link you can provide me that shows something different?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Quote:
I am against all those laws about drug possession, prostitution, nudity, etc. So I'm consistent in my views that the government should stay out of our bodies.
You truly don't have a problem with a pedophile standing naked in front of the kindergarten children at the bus stop and masturbating?
I don't have a problem with him being naked on his private property and masterbating, no. In fact, I don't have a problem with him walking down the street naked in front of school children. It's just the human body, after all. What you described is a sexual assault, which is very different.
The nudity you see on national geographic is very different than the nudity you see in porn films. And in the end, I'd rather have a pedophile masterbating in front of school children than waving a gun around in front of them fully clothed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Quote:
Ok, I have to admit, that one was just to off arch.
Interesting comment. I see you are more concerned with offending someone than in actually believing what you post - and what you put out as your beliefs.
Offend me all you want. (here's a little hint: you better work a little harder, cause you haven't yet).
Also, I notice in a different thread you accused someone of "twisting" your words and you didn't care for it. That's interesting.....
What I did with you, Arch, is realize that your mind is too closed to reason to have a discussion, best evidenced by you giving up and resorting to insults and name calling.
If I twisted your words, it was not my intention, and instead of calling me pathetic, why don't you explain why my analysis or criticism of your ideas is incorrect.
You are not here to debate, you are here to tell everyone they are wrong, you are right, and those who disagree are going to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
I have no problem with drugs, prostitution, nudity, profanity, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, any of these "moral" issues.
I am the future. Take comfort in that.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
This is just a general point I want to make about this whole discussion. There are two grounds to oppose/support abortion. One is legal, and the other is philosophical/religious. We often put them together, when in fact they require very different analysis.
Legally speaking, a fetus has no rights under the constitution. We might write laws that protect them, but they are not considered "persons" under the constitution and therefore simply do not have the same protection that "birthed" humans do. Whether we agree with that or not doesn't really matter, becuase it's simply a fact of the time when that document was written. It can't be changed without an amendment. So until that happens, unborn children are not "persons" under federal law.
The legal argument, then, is actually an argument about states rights to regulate medical procedure and morals versus federal protections under the 4th amendment, applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The fourth amendment protects us from government intrustion into our personal affairs and property. This includes our bodies. This doesn't mean that the government can't make those intrusions, but they are held to a very high standard of justification. It's a balancing. You balance the severity of the intrusion into privacy against the compelling need to interfere.
The legal question we all argue, then, is whether saving an unborn fetus (a nonperson, legally) justifies the privacy intrusion into a "person's" uterus.
The philosophical/religious argument, is whether we should change our legal definition of "person," whether killing is ever justified, whether we should protect those that can't protect themselves, whether abortion is a sin, whether society is better with or without it, whether religion should stay out of government, etc.
Just wanted to point that out for those who are interested. The philosophical debate, while engaging, won't make much of a difference in the way the U.S. Constitution in interpreted, although sometimes it does.
Some abortions cases have actually been based on whether it was safe for a mother to have an abortion. The sides were switched. The pro-life group had to argue that anti abortion laws were necessary to protect the mother from a surgery that was life threatening, and the pro choice folks were arguing that the government shouldn't be protecting a mother's right to a safe medical procedure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
I have no problem with drugs, prostitution, nudity, profanity, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, any of these "moral" issues.
I am the future. Take comfort in that.
Consider me comforted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,906 |
If you consider me calling your attitude pathetic "name calling", then yes I am guilty.
You are not here to discuss, you are here to cause problems.
Your posts speak volumes about you. Especially the "I didn't mean that, only said it to offend..." post.
Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
If you consider me calling your attitude pathetic "name calling", then yes I am guilty.
You are not here to discuss, you are here to cause problems.
Your posts speak volumes about you. Especially the "I didn't mean that, only said it to offend..." post.
Carry on.
I never said I didn't mean it, I said that I just said it to make you mad. I did mean it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,906 |
Quote:
Quote:
If you consider me calling your attitude pathetic "name calling", then yes I am guilty.
You are not here to discuss, you are here to cause problems.
Your posts speak volumes about you. Especially the "I didn't mean that, only said it to offend..." post.
Carry on.
I never said I didn't mean it, I said that I just said it to make you mad. I did mean it.
Might want to re-read your posts then, as you are lying.
But, enough of you. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Go ahead and have your say. I'm done with you.
Your thoughts are pathetic. Some day..............
You called my thoughts, not my attitude, pathetic. Which is, I believe, name calling, although I can see how you could interpret that to separating who I am from what I think. Fair enough.
You also said you were done with me, which it appears you weren't.
Regardless of all that, however, you did run out of logic and reason and ran away from the discussion when you decided my opinions were pathetic, instead of analyzing what about my thoughts inspired such pathos in you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you consider me calling your attitude pathetic "name calling", then yes I am guilty.
You are not here to discuss, you are here to cause problems.
Your posts speak volumes about you. Especially the "I didn't mean that, only said it to offend..." post.
Carry on.
I never said I didn't mean it, I said that I just said it to make you mad. I did mean it.
Might want to re-read your posts then, as you are lying.
But, enough of you.
"Ok, I have to admit, that one was just to off arch. Although I do have a pretty cold view of it, true."
That's what I said. Never said I didn't believe it was a valid point or argument, or even that I didn't believe it myself. As I said, I made those comments just to make you mad. Probably in the same way you told me my thoughts were pathetic. Why else would you say something like that and then walk away? If you didn't want to take a poke at me, you would have just ignored my posts. Doesn't mean you didn't believe it, however, as I think you did.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
And finally, to drive it all home, you once again resorted to name calling (calling me a liar) than discussing the topic with any substance or reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Both of you two -- Nearly an entire thread page that discusses not the issue at hand, but the other's tactics and character. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
This is just a general point I want to make about this whole discussion. There are two grounds to oppose/support abortion. One is legal, and the other is philosophical/religious. We often put them together, when in fact they require very different analysis.
Legally speaking, a fetus has no rights under the constitution. We might write laws that protect them, but they are not considered "persons" under the constitution and therefore simply do not have the same protection that "birthed" humans do. Whether we agree with that or not doesn't really matter, becuase it's simply a fact of the time when that document was written. It can't be changed without an amendment. So until that happens, unborn children are not "persons" under federal law.
The legal argument, then, is actually an argument about states rights to regulate medical procedure and morals versus federal protections under the 4th amendment, applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The fourth amendment protects us from government intrustion into our personal affairs and property. This includes our bodies. This doesn't mean that the government can't make those intrusions, but they are held to a very high standard of justification. It's a balancing. You balance the severity of the intrusion into privacy against the compelling need to interfere.
The legal question we all argue, then, is whether saving an unborn fetus (a nonperson, legally) justifies the privacy intrusion into a "person's" uterus.
The philosophical/religious argument, is whether we should change our legal definition of "person," whether killing is ever justified, whether we should protect those that can't protect themselves, whether abortion is a sin, whether society is better with or without it, whether religion should stay out of government, etc.
Just wanted to point that out for those who are interested. The philosophical debate, while engaging, won't make much of a difference in the way the U.S. Constitution in interpreted, although sometimes it does.
Some abortions cases have actually been based on whether it was safe for a mother to have an abortion. The sides were switched. The pro-life group had to argue that anti abortion laws were necessary to protect the mother from a surgery that was life threatening, and the pro choice folks were arguing that the government shouldn't be protecting a mother's right to a safe medical procedure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Both of you two --
Nearly an entire thread page that discusses not the issue at hand, but the other's tactics and character.
You are totally correct sir, thanks for reminding. I got myself all riled up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998 |
Quote:
And finally, to drive it all home, you once again resorted to name calling (calling me a liar) than discussing the topic with any substance or reason.
Some people just can't take it when their argument has any flaws. They either resort to personal attacks or complete ignore or make things up about you.
Wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pagers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,906 |
Quote:
Quote:
And finally, to drive it all home, you once again resorted to name calling (calling me a liar) than discussing the topic with any substance or reason.
Some people just can't take it when their argument has any flaws. They either resort to personal attacks or complete ignore or make things up about you.
Sorry. Calling someone a liar when they lie is not name calling. It is stating fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,633
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,633 |
Quote:
I don't have a problem with him being naked on his private property and masterbating, no. In fact, I don't have a problem with him walking down the street naked in front of school children.
As I said before. Your one sick puppy 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998 |
What about calling someones thoughts pathetic? Is that not a deliberate personal attack on someones beliefs? 
Wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pagers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,633
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,633 |
When somebody compares a chicken to a baby. Thinks it's OK for a grown man to parade around naked in front of school children, and thinks it's OK to be masterbating in full view of others. Those thoughts are pathetic.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998 |
Quote:
When somebody compares a chicken to a baby. Thinks it's OK for a grown man to parade around naked in front of school children, and thinks it's OK to be masterbating in full view of others. Those thoughts are pathetic.
I disagree with him a bit on the masturbation aspect. It doesn't mean his thoughts are necessarily pathetic, just different.
I don't really agree with him on the walking around naked part either, but he makes a good point that it's simply a human body.
As for the chicken comparison...he makes valid points. That doesn't mean that anyone has to agree or think that they are morally right, even I don't, but he did back up his statements. He wasn't just throwing things out there.
Wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pagers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,633
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,633 |
Charles Manson thought his points were valid. That doesn't mean they were. 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998 |
I'm not trying to stick up for jobenincase, and I don't agree with everything he's saying either. I'm just saying that he made a statement, and backed it up with corresponding points. Some might say it's a little harsh to relate a fetus to a chicken, including me, but you can't argue the fact that neither can communicate or react to anything but stimuli, which is what his point was. I might not be explaining what I'm trying to say very clearly. I'm going on zero hours of sleep so far, so my mind isn't exactly in tip top shape. 
Wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pagers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 961
Administrator
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 961 |
Quote:
That's what I said. Never said I didn't believe it was a valid point or argument, or even that I didn't believe it myself. As I said, I made those comments just to make you mad.
Posting something just for the sake of "making someone mad" is not fruitful to any discussion on here. If you must resort to doing this, then you most likely have little or no legs to stand on with your side of the debate as you feel you must resort to baiting.
Quote:
Probably in the same way you told me my thoughts were pathetic. Why else would you say something like that and then walk away?
That is not "name-calling." He expressed the opinion that he thought your opinion was pathetic. He did not say you were an idiot or a moron or a nincompoop; he stated that it was his thought that your thoughts were pathetic.
If you don't understand this, send one of the mods a PM or start a thread in the Ref's Corner. Do NOT reply here.
Carry on, but let's concentrate on the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
When somebody compares a chicken to a baby. Thinks it's OK for a grown man to parade around naked in front of school children, and thinks it's OK to be masterbating in full view of others. Those thoughts are pathetic.
GM, read my posts all the way through.
1. Why is it necessarily wrong to compare a chicken to a baby. Or to me, for that matter. We're both animals, breathe air, eat, and die. If you don't like the points I was making, that's one thing, but a comparison has to deal with context.
2. I like how you said "parade around in front of school children." I made a pretty clear distinction between a sexual assault (which does not require physical contact) and simply being naked, which is natural and not sexual, in and of itself.
3. I didn't think it was okay to be masterbating in front of others if they don't want to see it. I actually described that as a sexual assault. what I said was "on his private property." If he is doing it in his front yard where it is unrealistic to expect people to avoid it, that is an assault. Admittedly, you can be on your private property and be in front of others. I wasn't clear on that. The point I was trying to make was that freedom to do what you want with your body doesn't mean I give license to everyone to force it on others.
3a. And my final point of that whole thing, was that I'd rather have children see that, then violence. I think violence in this country, from TV, to the nasty way we treat one another while driving or the way we talk to our children, is a much graver threat than sex is to the youth of our nation.
And finally, what is probably most pathetic about this whole thread, is that twice I posted information about the legal aspects of abortion and the historical signifcance of the debate, and not one person has responded to that. The responses, particularly from GM and arch, the people who think my thoughts are pathetic and that I am a liar (pointed to as 'fact' by arch), have been about less substantial arguments I have made, and have simply been attacks on them with no analysis or attempt to actually discuss the points I was making. Of everything, that shows to me who really has the weakest justification of their views and who is least interested in learning anything from this discussion.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Abortion question which concerns
me...no debate intended.
|
|
