Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Abortion

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-24 7:26

I live in LA and right now, they are trying to pass a bill outlawing all abortions with the exception that it was cause by rape or incest and if it jeprodizes the mothers life.

Why is the government compromized mainly of white, old men who represent a small amount of the population. I don't think men should be able to make laws governing what a woman does with her body. I see early term abortions as getting rid of some very unwanted cells growing in ones body. What if I don't have the means of raising a child, what if I don't have the time to take away  from school to go through a few months of hell only to give up a child who makes me exponentially uglier and looser, what if I'm a crackwhore who would only make the child grow up the be fuck up and have a horrible, depressing life like all those /b/tards. I'm really scared that this law will be passed seeing how I live in a backwards, uber consevative state.

And also, North Caroline (maybe South I forget) is trying to pass a bill to ban all abortions that don't jeprodize the mothers lifes. WTF?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-04 17:06

Guys, we all have reproductive systems with the potential to make babies.  I propose we all have unprotected sex around the clock, because to do otherwise would be killing the chances of each sperm and each egg to produce a child.  Masturbating and discarding the sperm is murder too.  Those sperm could be cute little babies.  Whenever a woman has a period or a miscarriage, send them to prison.  They're wasting potential human lives.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-04 17:07

Oh and fertility clinics should be burned to the ground.  They store embryos, and they also throw some away.  Throwing away fertilized eggs.  Throwing away potential human lives.  Send the doctors and workers to the electric chair, we're trying to have a culture of life here.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-04 17:14

>>135

Go back to 8th grade biology fag and realize why your pathetic attempt at satire is retarded. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-04 20:33 (sage)

>>135->>136

LOL

>>137

Christians don't believe in science.  ;_;

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-05 8:28

>>137
Go back to 3rd grade english and look up "ad hominem".

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-05 8:29

>>138
Einstein believed in God.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-05 10:47

>>140
lol no he didn't check his quotes faggot

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-05 11:26

There are lots of scientists, engineers, mathematicians who are extremely religious.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-05 12:38

>>141
lol ur a fag lol lol do u suck cocks wait u must cuz ur a fag ha ha ha

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-05 13:21

Einstein wanted to be a Buddhist.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-06 16:20

http://www.armyofgod.com

only a clump of cells nothing to see here move along

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-06 22:59

>>120

The same thing according to who? You? I don't agree and neither does God, nor do the absolute dynamics of ethics and morals. Yours is the dumb opinion. If People deserve murder in ANY instance and to you these babies are people- then there you go. Dead babies.

Regardless, if this is YOUR belief, then YOU should be the one to exercise it. You don't have the right, nor responsibility to tell anyone else what to do with their body. Getting your tubes tied kills potential babies as well- you're going to stop women from doing that?

You want to know the real reason America, or rather the WEST will NEVER outlaw choice when it comes abortion? Because outlawing abortion would be nationalizing a woman's body in the most definitive sense of the word. And frankly, that far too close to communism for the likings of a capitalist society.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 1:23

>>145
When does a clump of cells become human? Do you decide that?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 1:27

>>146

I am not >>120

So you are saying that the death penalty is wrong?

Ok that's fine and so those who oppose abortion are hypocrites if they support the death penalty. right?

So what does that make those who oppose the death penalty yet vehemently support abortion? I would take a gander that many who are pro abortion are also anti death penalty since they are both issues found on the "left" side of the spectrum.

I think I would rather be a hypocrite on the side of innocent babies rather than a hypocrite on the side of murdering scum.

Now your next argument is the same ridiculous shit that the apologists for infanticide always spew, "oh no you are forcing your views on to my body"

I believe I can kill whom ever I want to, can I? Why can't I "exercise" my belief? Wait I also want to have sex with any hot chicks I see, by force if necessary, that is my belief, can I "exercise" that? Why not?

No one is talking about "potential" babies, it is not "potential babies that are being chopped up into little bits just because some woman thinks she can't afford it, its real living babies.

What is the difference between a baby an hour before birth and one an hour after? Only difference is the former can be legally murdered the latter cannot.

Increasingly medical advances make it possible for severely premature babies to survive and lead very normal lives, so again what is the difference in that case except the mother's choice?

So if the mother has choice over her "property" why was it wrong for blacks to be kept as slaves, why is it wrong for women to murder their children after birth,  toddlers are no less dependant on their parents or other adults for survival than a baby in the womb. Why do women need the vote at one time they were considered the "property" of their husbands? Now they turn around and want the baby to be considered their property "my body" the almighty ME. The whole point is that the baby is not the woman’s body, it is a separate human being that happens to spend 9 months in there.


The only silver lining is that these selfish murderers are eliminating themselves from the gene pool with every abortion!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 2:02

>>148

"...why was it wrong for blacks to be kept as slaves... Why do women need the vote at one time they were considered the "property" of their husbands?"

Hmmm, I seem to remember people using the Bible to justify these ills.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 2:04

>>148
No, they are not hypocrites. This argument has been repeated over nad over like 50 times already. Here it is, take it or continue to be a fagtroll.

"Mr. A believes a fetus is a human being and that criminals deserve to die. A fetus is a human being and not a criminal. Ergo: A fetus does not deserve to die."

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 2:05

Actually change that to...

"Mr. A believes a fetus is a human being and that people who commit extremely evil crimes deserve to die. A fetus is a human being and not a criminal. Ergo: A fetus does not deserve to die."

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 2:46

first of all, http://www.armyofgod.com & #039;s version of abortion is completely and utterly wacked. the abortion -  "baby killers" -  pictures illustrated on site clearly shows a baby to be viable. the term viability in this case means that the unborn child is into the third trimester, and you fellow american wacks, have deemed abortion at that stage to be illegal. mothers can only abort at this stage if carrying the baby is hazardous to health, not by their own choice or initiative. These evangelical fuckers twisted the truth and sited zero reference to these pictures for the sole purpose of strenghening their own beliefs.

fucking right wing conservative fucks. why are you on 4chan looking up porn and hentai shit? go back to your bible study classes!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 8:32

>>148

Blah blah blah. There's a difference between PREVENTING CRIME and NATIONALISING PEOPLE BODIES, as well you know. Doing something to yourself, by yourself, for yourself shouldn't be a crime. You can talk about the morality of it all you want- but that is precisely my point. If YOU want to live under those rules- then find other people in other states who live under those rules and DO SO. But trying to make everyone conform to your unintelligent viewpoints = NO FUCK YOU. Your argument doesn't work here. Sorry: IT JUST DOESN'T. Yours is the dumb opinion because you try and say "fetus" when we aren't even killing fetuses.

Is killing a plant wrong? It's "Alive" and has commited no crime. What about the innocents of war and poverty? What about the innocent victims of strife that American foreign policy creates? They're alive- is that wrong? Should we outlaw that?

There's a conflict here you're purposefully trying to glaze over- but your argument doesn't work in today's world. SORRY. gb2/1940 when America needed to out birth the rest of the world for upcoming wars. We don't need to do so now.

Seems to me you know the people who end up in these situation and end having the kid are the middle and lower classes this = more soliders and this = more death. If you are against death, you should be against it all forms. If you love children so much, you should be taking care of the unwanted ones. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? People like YOU are the reason people get abortions and not give up their kid for adoption.

You REFUSE to address the reality that orphans aren't great contributers to society at large. They usually waste away.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 11:16

>>152

"fucking right wing conservative fucks. why are you on 4chan looking up porn and hentai shit? go back to your bible study classes! "

Gee I guess if you like "hentai and porn and shit" then you automatically like to kill babies? WTF are you talking about this is not a religious issue, it has been made so by those living off of dead babies, it is a human rights issue, what do you say to the atheist who is against abortion, there are many? "zomg GTFO back to you bible study"? retard.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 11:23

>>153

You fail yet again at stating another convoluted argument that contradicts itself, paraphrasing here the general argument made:

"These are unwanted children and they will have a shity life"

So the other part of you argument is that for the most part the people who procure abortion are poor etc.. that is they *already* lead the kind of life you forsee for the unborn child. Do you see the lack of logic in that argument?

Do you think they would rather be dead or lead their "shitty" lives? Why are there even poor people in the world then, if it is so much better to be dead rather than leading a "shitty" life, they should all be commiting mass suicide.

So obviously it is another vaporous argument put forth by those profitting from dead babies.

Death is very permanent, poverty is not, where there is life there is hope to do something better.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 11:36

>>154

You lying sack of crap.  It's the Bible thumpers that are protesting outside of abortion clinics.

>>155

You ignorance is appalling.  Take a basic econ class, retard.  There are so many poor people because they don't know how to control their finances while the other poor people in the world are poor due to their country's incompetence and/or corruption. 

A responsible parent shouldn't bring a kid in this who has to beg on the streets.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 12:21

>>156

A responsible parent wouldn't kill their children.

Where was I ever talking about the reason why there are poor? I am merely stating that if being poor is such a suffering that the baby who might "potentialy" be poor should be killed, then all the poor people should be killing themselves, but they aren't so your (i.e. arbortion proponents) argument that babies should be aborted because their lives would be worse otherwise is fail, because obviously being alive and poor is still a better choice than being dead.


Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 13:36

What makes you think they're not dying in droves? 

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 13:42

>>158
The poor are dying in droves? ...in America, the poor are fat.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 15:53

>>159

Wrong. You're thinking of the middle class and the upperclasses that aren't star fuckers. You need to move to a city right away so that you know how stupid you are.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 16:16

>>160
inner city lol

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 16:16

>>158

What are you retarded? Lets make this as simple as possible for your pea brain.

THE POOR ARE NOT KILLING THEMSELVES, I.E. THEY CHOOSE A LIFE OF POVERTY OVER DEATH - (I never stated anything about them dying from other causes, exagerated as that is in the USA, go to india or africa and witness actual poverty)

And who decides what is "poor". To Bill Gates we're all poor, should he put us all out of our missery?

The "poor" in America would be considered wealthy in many parts of the world, heck they get food, water, shelter, some form of transportation, electrcity, etc.

So whose definition of "poor" do we use to kill babies?

And so you cannot justify killing a baby because its going to be "poor", you have no right to decide that babies fate nor does the mother. Because if being poor were worse than death then all "poor" people would kill themselves.

is that clear now?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 16:27

>>156

yes yes of course anything that doesn't fit you narrow selfish world view is a lie

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 16:38

Hmm another news article that highlights the absurdity of abortion:

Jury FindsThree Guilty of Beating Pregnant Woman
The Associated Press
Published: April 5, 2006
SACRAMENTO—Three people have been found guilty of beating a pregnant woman in an effort to kill the fetus her boyfriend did not want her to carry to term.

A Sacramento County jury convicted Terry Buford, Titenesha Russell and Dwayne Curry in the Sept. 25, 2004, attack, district attorney Jan Scully’s office said Tuesday.

The victim was 7 1/2 months pregnant with Buford’s child when the three took the victim to a park under the pretense of going to the movies, Scully’s office said. Instead, they beat her with a baseball bat, a metal flashlight, a garbage can and their hands and fists, causing serious head injuries.

As she lay unconscious, the defendants stripped her and searched her for money. They eventually dumped her by the side of a road, where she was found and taken to a hospital.

Doctors delivered the baby through an emergency Cesarian section and were able to resuscitate it.

Buford, Russell and Curry were convicted Monday of attempted murder of a fetus, assault with a deadly weapon to terminate a pregnancy, attempted robbery and kidnap for purposes of robbery. Buford and Russell also were found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

All three face up to life in prison at a May 4 sentencing

*********

So how can you be charged with "attempted murder of a fetus" and allow abortion in the same country? The only difference is the mothers choice? Is this some kind of magic then? If a mother chooses to have the baby it is suddenly a person but if not by magic it is not one?

Pretty amazing mental blindness from those on the left who are always so much smarter and elite than the rest of those dumb plebs on the right.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 16:43

>>163
"yes yes of course anything that doesn't fit you narrow selfish world view is a lie"

Actually, that sounds like you.  No need to click a link that was obviously made by a religious nut.

If you care so much, pay for other people's vasectomies.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 17:42

>>155

NO. Wrong again Mr. Dumb Opinion! Stop "paraphrasing"- all you're doing is trying to distill down the mountain sized nugget of truth you refuse to address. It is a statistical *fact* that orphans very rarely become productive members of society. This includes children who's mothers decided to have them- father figure be damned.

It's sick and twisted that you SELFISHLY want these children to live to kill, rob and death-suckle other members of society to satisfy *your* need to feel like you're "Defending the innocents". Your ideals are flimsy and only half of a philsophy. If you're against evil, death, and the callous destruction of innocence then you should unilaterally against it. You should replace talk with action. IF you really care about children, you would be adopting all these unwanted kids. It's clear to any reasonable human being that in light of your willingness to explain away this ethical truth- you care more about seeing your ideals win out over everyone else's than you do about the subject itself- INNOCENT CHILDREN.

Practice what you preach, son. Otherwise: Why should any one listen to you and what you have to say?

And the people against against casual sex? All I have to say is that the proponent of this argument made the orgasm analogous to a spell from a fucking Square RPG game! Come the fuck on, guys. "HASTE"? Aging from an orgasm? HAHAHA- that's the gayest nerd shit I've heard since the fag-furry movement.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 17:58

>>166

Are you a god?

How do you know what these children are going to grow up to be.

And can you not see the hypocrasy in your own statements?

So I am sick and evil beccause I want to defend life only to defend my point of view, but you want to kill babies to defend yours? Who is sicker?

Guess you should be out there personally protecting every murder victim or every rape victim, etc., if you can't personally protect each and everyone of them then murder nor rape are wrong, this is what you call an argument?

So what you are saying is that if someone else doesn't want to take responsibility for your failings then you can do whatever you want.

All I say is be honest about it then, don't say they are not human, say we the superior ones want to wipe out the inferior or potentialy inferior humans, come out and say it. WE WANT TO KILL INFERIOR HUMAN BEINGS SO THEY DON'T MUG US IN THE FUTURE.

Not as easy to sell the truth is it?

Stop hiding behind "choice" cowards.

>>165

You're and idiot and fail at even basic reading, that is the link to the web page for the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, thus the very term "godless" in their URL.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 18:11

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 18:30

>>168

what's you point? My link was to in response to being called a liar for saying there were non religious people opposed to abortion as well?

And everyone knows and stats back it up that the majority of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy women with a perfectly healthy fetus for nothing more than convenience, thus selfish to the utmost.

So while attempting to be compeling the sob story you link to is not the norm.

Besides you only help make my point that making this a religious issue is a smoke screen, why is outright murder wrong then, sure it says so in the bible, but is that why it is in the law?

And I can only shake my head at that first page, so because "god made all creatures" the guy claims we can't claim that the human fetus is gee guess what human? WTF is he on.

Maybe he missed something about how we even have rights against animal cruelty, leaving the finality of the death aside, abortion is quite painful, for some time now it has been well known that the unborn feels pain and many other sensations, so even on that level it is wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 18:41

>>169

There are also people who are non-religious who are pro-choice and pro-death penalty.  What's your point?  I don't know where you live but the majority of the abortion protesters use Bible verses on their signs.  Don't try to say it's not a religious issue to most of these Pro-lifers.

Name: anti-chan 2006-04-07 20:10

>>167

Are you god?

Compared to you? YES.

How do you know what these children are going to grow up to be.

Facts, statistics, you know: More than some pathetic notion of hope that one orphan out of the millions will go to college and get a liberal arts degree and be "alright". Like I said: I don't see you refuting the facts about these kids. Maybes, the perception of "protecting babies" and wishful FEELINGS does not void the COLD HARD reality of what happens to a VAST majority of these unwanted kids. Save your emotional arguments for the Oprah Winfrey show, faggot.

And can you not see the hypocrasy in your own statements?

You can't even spell hypocrisy! The thing is: YOU don't know what these kids will be, but HISTORY, FACTS and STATS blow all that shit you're spewin' out of the fucking water.

The thing is: The kinds of abortions YOU'RE talking about don't even fucking exist anymore. These aren't the 60's! We don't abort humanoid growths past a certain term. How the fuck would the growth feel pain when it doesn't even have a BRAIN?

I hope you're trolling and not actually this fucking retarded.


Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 23:04

>>171

Care to point out to me the law where abortion is limited to a certain term, and what term would that be?

IIRC even the "partial birth" abortion ban was thrown out so you can abort pretty much up to birth.

And go read freaking biology book while you are busy correcting my spelling on hte interweb of all places, last refuge of the argument less, start picking on typos how lame.

"At 3.5 weeks: the fetus will have formed the heart, begins development of the brain and spinal cordstarts forming the gastrointestinal tract "

"At 8.5 weeks: the embryo now resembles a human facial features continue to develop beginnings of external genitalia form anal passage opens, but the rectal membrane is intact circulation through the umbilical cord is well developedlong bones begin to form"

3.5 weeks is pretty much when you even notice you are pregnant if you don't take a test etc, so you are telling me most abortions happen before 3 week of gestation? go fail some more.

So statistics also tell us there are a lot of poor people all over the planet already living should we go kill them all? Since poor = automaticaly criminal to you? And again I ask you whose definition of poor are we to use.

And anyway your argument seems to be on a different level you accept these are 'kids' but they should be killed anyway since they are poor?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 23:14

>>170

So why is murder illegal, just because it says so in the Bible and probably most religious people feel it is wrong because of that, does it make it any less wrong if it was not in the Bible?

Just because religious people use their religous convictions to say something is wrong does not mean it is not wrong on just a human level.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 23:43

>>172

You must not live in America. 1995 AND 2003 called:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

Secondly, brain or no brain, babies still can't feel pain. It's a well known consensus in the scientific community that a fetus needs certain synaptic connection within the brain and nervous system. And they aren't formed until the THIRD TRIMESTER. And hey, idiot, guess which type of abortions require you to be in the Thrid Trimester? PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS.

The only people who think contrary to this are pro-lifers who can't be trusted for an objective opinion by proxy of their retarded bias.

Did I say kill all poor people, you fucking idiot? Newflash: It's the mother that is poor- not the baby. It is the lack of funding to state ophanages that make them poor- not the baby.

And hey, did I say poor = criminal? No, I said: Poor, no father/no parents = more of a probability of being a criminal. You can keep building strawmen you little child, I'm just going to keep kickin' em over like their sand castles at the beach and then I'm going to spend the rest of the afternoon throwing empty cans of beer at your mishapen, hick- head.

Face it: You fail, bitch.

And in addition you got totally owned.

TOTALOWNED

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-07 23:51

>>173

There's a place where religion allows murder.  It's called the Middle East.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 1:26

>>175

Remember: It's also called America.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 1:44

>>176

If you kick out all the religious freaks, it will be paradise.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 1:53

>>174

Ok so your argument is that a baby born to a poor familly is "probably" going to be poor itself and probably become a criminal and so should be killed?

So the inference from that is that poor people will probably become cirminals and so should also be killed. Or do you not see the conclusions of your own arguments? Are you still reduced to playing games with words?

Here is a little definition for you then:

probably

adv 1: with considerable certainty; without much doubt

Which if your addled brain can't quite fathom means you said most people born to poor famillies and thus poor people will be criminals.

I am being childlike? You still have not even answered my first statement, you are in fact agreeing that the unborn is a child and only should be killed because it will "probably" grow up to be a criminal, just like the Nazi's killed a bunch of Jews because they probably were up to no good.

And so from everything you say and write I see you are just a smug elitist who things you know what is good for everyone else, looking down on the poor because gee they are all going to be criminals "probably" so their ofspring should be wiped out. And anyone who disagrees with you is immediately a "hick" and dumb lol. I'm not even white dumbass.

And talking about trust, so I should trust those who speak from the arbortion industry making millions through the death of innocents but not trust pro-lifers because oh no they must have a bias, how comical is that, of course only those on the left are beholden to the truth, only they are enlightened enough to guide us poor dumb sobs.

And just to cover more of the "pain" issue it is not so clear as you make it sound:

1997: Statement by Dr. Paul Ranalli:
Dr. Ranalli is a neurologist at the University of Toronto, in Toronto Canada. He is acting president of the de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. He gave a presentation called "Pain, Fetal Development, and Partial-birth abortion" on 1997-JUN-27 to the House Judiciary Committee of the State of Ohio. 2,3 He has concluded that the "spino-thalamic" system is fully developed at about 12 to 14 weeks of gestation. This is the system that conveys pain signals from pain receptors throughout the body to the thalamus. He apparently believes that the thalamus can feel pain, even though a connection between it and the cortex is missing.

To support his belief that a fetus in the second trimester can feel pain, he cites three signs:

 A fetus will "withdraw from painful stimulation"
 Two types of stress hormones which are detected in adults who are feeling pain are also found in a fetus from when a blood sample is withdrawn. He quotes:  Nicholas Fisk of London, England who observed this reaction as early as 19 weeks 4, and
 J Partch of Kiel, Germany who observed it at 16 weeks.
 



2000: Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience:
The House of Lords in Britain conducted an inquiry into "fetal sentience." 5 One part of the study dealt with the ability of a fetus to feel pain. Conventional wisdom among researchers is that the brain's cortex is the only location where pain can be felt. However, they mention recent evidence that if an adult suffers from an injury or disease which causes the cortex to function poorly, that some sensation may be felt from an area lower in the brain. They speculate that a fetus may be able to sense some "form of pain sensation or suffering" before the cortex is linked to the lower levels of the brain. They note that babies who are born with a major brain defect can sometimes feel pain. This includes babies born with hydranencephaly in which "the cerebral hemispheres are substantially or entirely absent at birth" and anencephaly, in which "the cerebral hemispheres and the top of the skull may be absent."

They concluded:

 "After 23 weeks of growth, higher areas of the brain are active and starting to form connections with nerves that will convey pain signals to the cortex."
 "By 24 weeks after conception the brain is sufficiently developed to process signals received via the thalamus in the cortex."
 "While the capacity for an experience of pain comparable to that in a newborn baby is certainly present by 24 weeks after conception, there are conflicting views about the sensations experienced in the earlier stages of development. The current scientific understanding is that 6 weeks after conception the elements of the nervous system start to function. Most scientists currently agree that this marks the earliest possible point at which sensation might occur."6



2000: Statement by Vivette Glover:
Professor Glover of Queen Charlotte and Chelsea hospitals in London, UK, believes that there is a possibility that a fetus aged 18 weeks can feel pain. On 2000-AUG, she recommended that late pregnancy terminations be done under anesthetic. She suspects that the fetus would not respond to sensations in the same way as newborns. It is unlikely to produce the feelings of anxiety that people have. 10



2001: Statement by a panel of experts in the UK:
The issue of fetal pain was addressed by a working group appointed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom. The panel consisted of experts in fetal development, law and bioethics. Dr. Anne McLaren headed the group. She commented: "Fetal awareness of pain is a very emotive topic, of particular concern to pregnant women, but we have tried to approach it without preconceptions, to examine the scientific evidence dispassionately, and to identify areas where further research is urgently needed.'' 1

The group determined that pain can only be felt by a fetus after nerve connections became established between two parts of its brain: the cortex and the thalamus. This happens about 26 weeks from conception.  Professor Maria Fitzgerald of University College London, author of the working group's report, says that "little sensory input" reaches the brain of the developing fetus before 26 weeks. "Therefore reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as feeling or perceiving pain." 10

They recommended that the administration of painkillers should be considered before an abortion for any fetus which is 24 or more weeks since conception. This would give a 2 week safety factor in case the date of conception is incorrectly calculated.

Recent statistics show that of the 177,225 abortions performed in Britain during a recent year, only 92 (0.05%) occurred after 24 weeks.



2001: Statement by the Medical Research Council at Edinburgh University, UK:
According to Fox News for 2001-AUG-31, the Council's study revealed that "a fetus was absolutely aware of pain by 24 weeks." This is earlier than the 26 weeks previously generally accepted by medical specialists.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 5:02

>So the inference from that is that poor people will probably become cirminals and so should also be killed. Or do you not see the conclusions of your own arguments?

I don't honestly see the problem; you're certainly not in favor of keeping them on welfare and allowing them to breed like the roaches they are, are you?

Name: anti-chan 2006-04-08 11:39

>>178

Listen and listen very carefully. My argument is exactly what it is. By "inferring" and constantly asking
"what my argument is"- you're purposefully not paying attention to the facts and purposefully trying to re-frame the debate. You must respond to my argument at FACE VALUE and not what you "think" it is.

READ AND RESPOND:

LIFE

The unborn isn't a child/baby/human. You don't get to decide what's "human". You certainly don't get to decide what's "alive" in the humanistic sense of the word. Building upon this point- the growth in the womb is a life in the same sense that a plant is living or animals are living.

Should we stop killing cows and chopping down trees and digging up carrots because they are "living"? No, of course not because the end justifies the means. This line of thinking works whenever a war pops up or we speak about capital punishment. We kill innocents now, where are their defenders? Lack of funding to social programs leave children and their families to starve- here and abroad. And when this child, lacking of a proper upbringing, goes on a rampage of rape and murder- will you be willing to take his life?

The thing is, as proven by human history: The idea of human life having value is flimsy at best, BECAUSE people like you refuse to make it absolute. If human life has value, then ALL human life has value. As long as you adhere to capital punishment you put the concept of human life having value in doubt. This is why your argument continuosly fails. You expect people to conform to the inherant value in being alive, when you implictly don't believe that yourself.

These are things you refuse to confront in yourself out of fear of their implications. Basically: You're a coward.

Here is a link to statistics of these unborn children: http://www.divorcereform.org/crime.html

I doubt you'll have anything to say.

Like I said about Pain: The only people who utter these outright lies about the ability for the human growth to feel pain are pro-lifers. Every other objective reasearcher says otherwise. It IS clear cut- it is not some foggy assertion because a couple of wackos feel like saying otherwise.


Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 11:40

>>178

I also have one more question for you: I know you said you're not religous and that's fine...but I'm interested in something.

Do you believe that human beings have souls?

It's a loaded question, I'll admit. But it must be answer before we continue.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 12:31

>>181
Nope.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 12:32

>>182
Yes.  Science has found no reason to believe that there's anything other than phenomena of the meat going on with regards to consciousness.  We've found bits of meat for every emotion known to man, and for most of the logic functions. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 12:33

>>183
You still haven't found one particular center of the brain that controls conscoiusness though.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 12:36

>>184
What a stupid statement.  Consciousness includes every part of the brain we know about; consciousness is a construct formed by memory, executive functions, and sensation going on at the same time.  We don't need to find a "center" of consciousness to know that it's a function of the flesh. 

Name: anti-chan 2006-04-08 12:36

>>182
>>183
>>184

What? Guys, guys, guys...can you all, like, shut the fuck up for a second? I'm asking >>178.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 13:47

>>173, >>175
yep. america

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 18:39

>>The unborn isn't a child/baby/human.

Yes it is, but you keep lying to yourself. Fetuses go through all the life processes, to say they are not alive means to completely rewrite the definition of what life is. And it’s called a human fetus for a reason retard.  People don’t give birth to frogs contrary to some of the posts in this thread.

>>As long as you adhere to capital punishment you put the concept of human life having value in doubt. This is why your argument continuosly fails.

This is how it works. If a person doesn’t do anything wrong they are allowed to live in society. But when they rape and murder a 5 year old they lose their value because they are fuckwads. Is that so hard to understand? 

>>Here is a link to statistics of these unborn children:

This from the same person who made hundreds of posts defending blacks? By your logic let’s kill all the blacks; after all they commit crime at a much higher rate then Asians or Whites.

Basically: You're a coward.
 

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 20:49

>>188

Your agrument fails really hard. What the fuck does the race thread have to with this one? OMG Izzat a strawman? Your argument is weak as fuck and in no way refutes a fucking word of what is said in those links. I'll take this as your omission of and apology for ultimate failure.

This is how it works. If a person doesn’t do anything wrong they are allowed to live in society. But when they rape and murder a 5 year old they lose their value because they are fuckwads. Is that so hard to understand?

Either human life has value or it doesn't. I'm not talking about fucking rapists, you dipshit. I'm talking about other innocents who you could give a shit less about. Innocents that are living in America. Innocents that are subject to numerous abuses due to your sick obsession with what a woman does with her own womb. You don't want your girlfriend or wife to abort your kid- then fine- let's talk. But you and you kind don't own a strange woman's womb and to pretend otherwise is an infringement on her human right.

AND before you say it: the unborn don't have any rights unless the father want it to live. It's not human, the only people disagree are pro-lifers who will NEVER listen to science.

If you feel capital punishment and abortion are exclusive then your brain should be *just* big enough to grasp that you can enforce murder laws- but nationalising a person's body and controlling it are two exlusive ideals. It's immeasurably shortsighted and hypocritical of you to be for "letting these children live" and then against social programs that would stop them from becoming rapist.

Why is it so hard to understand that most of the people who commit crimes worthy of capital punishmeant COME FROM FUCKED UP FAMILIES WHERE THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN ABORTED. Is that so hard to understand?

Apparently so.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 21:50

>> OMG Izzat a strawman?

Nope retard, it isn’t. You posted those crime statistics to back up your argument about abortion. So why not kill all niggers too? After all they commit more crime.


>>Either human life has value or it doesn't.

It does until someone squanders it. Paintings have value until you take a dump on it, and people have value until they squander it as well.


>>infringement on her human right.

Lolz I call evything I want a human right lololol


>>It's not human, the only people disagree are pro-lifers who will NEVER listen to science.

You are the one who is ignoring science. Fetuses go through all of the life processes so it’s living by any working definition. And they call it a human fetus for a reason. People don’t give birth to cats and dog.

You can burry your head in the sand all you want but you are still retard.

>>it's immeasurably shortsighted and hypocritical of you to be for "letting these children live" and then against social programs that would stop them from becoming rapist.

You know what social program I am for or against?

NICE MIND READING!11!1

>>Why is it so hard to understand that most of the people who commit crimes worthy of capital punishmeant COME FROM FUCKED UP FAMILIES WHERE THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN ABORTED. Is that so hard to understand?

Once aging lets kill all the niggers, or at least force them all to have abortions.

Oh wait your just one of those hypocrites who wants to murder anyone they find inconvenient, even if they are the source of the inconvenience.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 22:40

>>190

Too bad this subject isn't about "niggers", my white supremacist friend. It's about abortions- not race. So guess what? [b]It's a fucking strawman, stupid.

Second: You aren't a good judge of when someone "Squanders" their life. It's subjective, not objective. That's why you keep ignoring any argument that says it's OK for you not to have an abortion while at the same time it's OK for someone to have one. It's why you keep ignoring statement pretaining to a woman's body being nationalized. People are not the property of the state. The state is the property of the people.

*I* call everything I want a "human right"? NO. YOU call everything you want a human right. You argument would be apt if we considered anything before the third trimester to be human, but we (the scientific community) don't- so it looks like you're  shit out of luck, son.[ "Life processes" does not a life make.

And yet AGAIN, you refuse to address the fact that birthing these fetuses into an environment where the chances of them harming society and filling up prisons because they're unwanted or raised by idiots- is a form of torture.

You refuse to address the fact that your protection doesn't extend to innocents who are alive and kickin'. What about other things that are alive, but we kill anyway out of convenience, hum? See: You will ALWAYS lose when you can't adequately address these issues.

Finally, you don't seem to understand the argument. This isn't about mandatory abortions. This is about choice. The choice of whether to have an abortion or not. You're trying to deny choice and that's why you're seen as a fucking whack job who's sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 22:43

>>190


By the way, I know what social programs you are for and against by proxy of your inability to address the fact that living innocents are dying and you're not stick up for them. I know what you're all about because you believe in capital punishment. You're liberal use of the word nigger and you're against the fundamental RIGHT for someone to make a choice.

You're FOOLISH enough to think abortions are just going to stop at the drop of a hat. Women were aborting their fetus in anicent GREECE, you stupid retarded fuckbrain.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 23:08

>>190

You're from the Bible Belt, aren't you?  Please worry about your unemployment problem first.  $$$ = More food for the babies!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 23:52

>>*I* call everything I want a "human right"? NO. YOU call everything you want a human right.

I have not even used that word fag face. Nice try.

>>but we (the scientific community) don't- so it looks like you're  shit out of luck, son.[ "Life processes" does not a life make.

Lol, you are not part of the scientific community, you just some fuck on 4chan. Get back to reality you self absorbed twit.

And the statement “’Life processes’ does not a life make.” is retarded even by 4chan standards. Then what does oh great master scientist of the universe?


>>And yet AGAIN, you refuse to address the fact that birthing these fetuses into an environment where the chances of them harming society and filling up prisons because they're unwanted or raised by idiots- is a form of torture.

Then why not kill kids who are alive and in bad homes? Surely they are being tortured and we should put this to an end.

>>You refuse to address the fact that your protection doesn't extend to innocents who are alive and kickin'.

WTF does that even mean. Half of your post is just nondescript shit to hide your stupidity.

>>What about other things that are alive, but we kill anyway out of convenience, hum? See: You will ALWAYS lose when you can't adequately address these issues.

What the fuck are you talking about? Killing animals is not the same as killing people PETA fag.

>>By the way, I know what social programs you are for and against by proxy of your inability to address the fact that living innocents are dying and you're not stick up for them.

Not sticking up for whom? This just fucking retarded. I have only made two posts in this thread so if you are trying to connect me to someone else you fail it retard.

>>Women were aborting their fetus in anicent GREECE, you stupid retarded fuckbrain.

What does the time of something have to do with rather or not it is wrong? No point in making arson illegal, after all its being going on 10000000000000 years right? You stupid cock.

>>You're from the Bible Belt, aren't you? 

Upstate New York fag, you fail for trying to be some geographical snob fag.  

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 0:33

Then why not kill kids who are alive and in bad homes?

Because they're alive, you fuckbrain!!

Upstate New York fag

Yep, that about sums it up. You're a kike faggot from upstate. Newflash: People in your own state fucking hate your guts.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 1:11

>>195

lol best reply you could muster. I’m glad you just game up retard.

Now go on about how you already won, and how smart you are, and all the other bullshit you fool yourself into believing.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 1:19

>>192
You're FOOLISH enough to think abortions are just going to stop at the drop of a hat. Women were aborting their fetus in anicent GREECE, you stupid retarded fuckbrain.

LOL so dumb. Just replace abortion with murder (or anything there are laws against, for that matter) and see how that argument holds up.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 1:20

You know, you could probably have a more coherent discussion without so many ad hominem insults.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 1:51

>>197

Capital punishment is still legal in America.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 2:17

>>199
So killing people who murder others is murder? Moral relativism is a wonderful thing!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 2:19

>>200

I thought you were against murder, hypocrite.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 3:55

>>196

There is literally no way to respond to the rest of your post without repeating myself. Unlike you I don't need to reassert my position over and over and over until it's magically made true.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 3:59

does it matter? world doesnt need no more people, and fetuses can't say no, or defend themselves!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 12:28

>>80


Good! IF they can't keep their legs closed and want an abortion badly enough, let them murder their child the HARD WAY!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 12:28

>>203

I rest my case.

There just admit it fetus are human but we will kill them anyway out of convenience, just stop being hypocritical and try to make baby murder sound like some altruistic higher goal of giving the woman rights over her body, news flash, the fetus is NOT her body.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 12:49

>>205

News flash, the fetus is connected to her body and uses her for sustenance.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 12:50

>>204

How about the guys keeping their legs closed too?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 14:46

>>205

This isn't the issue, child.

>>207

This is. If you're going stop women from making the choice to abort, no matter how you feel about it...then why don't you make it so that men can't have sex without concieving? If we were talking about a man's right- this would be an entirely different matter and so-called "pro-lifers" know this.

It fails so hard that I don't even feel like addressing it. The fetus isn't what people call "human" and it doesn't matter how many times you shout "baby murderer" you still don't get to dicate what some woman does with her womb.

The problem with the abortion movement is that you don't want compromise, you want control. You can shout out loud about what you think is a human or not, but the woman is going to do whatever she wants to do and the West isn't going to adhere to a policy that has all the dressings of communism.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 19:13

>>208
communism? what the fuck. get out, please.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 19:33

>>209

think about what he's saying about nationalising people bodies and compare it to china's communism and you'll see he's right

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 8:39

a prolifer shouting "murder" has the same effect as when a vegetarian shouts "murder" at some guy eating me. human life isn't important, shit LIFE isn't even all that important. we literaly rape our planet everyday and you people are worry about babies that we as a society don't even take care of?

GET A FUCKING CLUE ALREADY

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 10:43

>>211
You think that the planet is more important than the life upon it?  GB/2 MARS

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 12:29

>>206

So why can't a woman kill her infant children and get away with it? They are still just as dependant on adults for sustenance, just the means are different.

>>208
"People" didn't consider blacks as being human either.
"People" thought it was just fine to go around the world and colonize everyone elses land.
"People" didn't think women should vote.

Just because "People" don't consider the fetus to be human doesn't mean its true.

>>210
News flash ever hear about China's forced abortion policy, you know one child etc.? Yup opposing baby murder = communism O.o.

>>211
Again that's fine, just state that though, don't give people BS about oh noes woman's rights, just say it out loud we want to kill the babies of poor people cause they are going to grow up and ruin my country club some day.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 12:39

>>213
I LIEK TO EAT BABY UNBORN FETI YUM YUM

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 12:47

>>213

"People" didn't consider blacks as being human either.
"People" thought it was just fine to go around the world and colonize everyone elses land.
"People" didn't think women should vote.

Newsflash!  The religious establishment was ALL in favor of these things.  Go read a damn history book.


Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 13:03

>>215
How is that relevant?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 14:41

>>215

Like >>216 said, what they heck does that have to do with anything? The point is a lot of things that "people" said were right at one time were not, abortion being no different.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 15:43

The point is most of these Pro-lifers are religious freaks.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 16:10

>>218

That still makes no sense, so religous people supposedly supported slavery, colonization and keeping women from voting in the past all of those wrong things, so now if they support to right to life for the unborn this means what exactly?

And I say "supposedly" because if you even bother to read a history book you will see that it was infact religious people who brought an end to all those evils anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 22:35

>>219

THIS MEANS THEY ARE WRONG YOU FUCKING IDIOT. And "religious people" didn't bring an end to shit. You really need to read more.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 23:19

>>220
everyone doubts god once in their life. you only hear the famous people say it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 0:31

>>220
No this means you fail at understanding anything at all and throwing in religion yet again which has no bearing on this argument:

Slavery was allowed because blacks were labled as non human. But it was wrong.

Women were not allowed to vote because they were not considered fully human or equal to men. That was wrong.

Colonizing the lands of other people was allowed because they were considered lesser humans. That was wrong.

And just like that abortion is allowed because the fetus is considered not to be human. This is also wrong.

Do you get it now or are you still getting your panties in a not over zomg religion!!!111!

BTW take your own advice and read more, religious people does not necessarily = white people. Ghandi was very religious, he ended colonialism in India.


Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 0:34

You're an idiot, Abortion's mainstay has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is human. That's YOUR arugment, not ours. Our is about choice- doesn't even matter what subjective term you've got for the fetus.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 0:38

>>222

Don't bother trying to pull a Ghandi.  America is not predominately Hindu.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 2:45

Interestingly, the call for people to be more concerned about those who are currently living, and working to improve health and living standards, can often make the entire abortion debate a moot point.  People are less likely to have abortions when they are well educated, affluent, and feeling comfortable with their lives.  By embracing a more egalitarian approach to social issues, many of the 'moral' problems that people tend to complain about, such as abortions, are rendered less and less important, because people do not take actions that are considered to be devient by one group or another when they are successful in the overall society that they have been raised in.  Deviency by its scientific definition tends to arise when one can not succeed given the opportunities presented to them in their current overall society.

If you are opposed to abortion, but are willing to let things such as health care, legislations that hold corporations to a higher level of standards, enviornment protection, and pretty much a large number of the other standards that are the exact opposite of what is on the current administration's agenda slide, then you can not make your argument for being pro-life based upon any sort of moral issue.

Many people who are pro-choice, except for the most extreme members of that group, would be happy if there were no more abortions, because of sufficient education, and readily available birth control and emergency contraceptives.

If you are not willing to go the full mile to support equal rights to work, sustinence, shelter, pay, entertainment, and opportunities, all that supporting a pro-life agenda shows is that you are seeking a way to punish people who do not live up to your moral standards.  Because no action takes place without some measure of self benefit, as described by the rational actors theory, one must assume that you in some way see people being able to control the number of children that they are bearing as a threat to your own welfare.  Is it because, deep down, you believe that if someone has more children than they were intending, they will be stretched further, thus not allowing them to allocate sufficient resources to each child?  This isn't an unrealistic reason for being pro-life, even if few will admit it - for those who are willing to punish people by denying them abortions, and who restrict themselves due to culture or creed from having many children, it means that their children will have greater opportunities in life, as more resources can be devoted to their upbringing, giving them better education, opportunties, and chances to get ahead in life.  Ultimately, anti-abortion legislation can be seen as a small part of a much larger movement by the WASP (that's White Anglo Saxon Prodestant) portion of the society to provide themselves with additional advantages, while repressing people of other cultures and social classes.

Do you think that this is an unreaslistic assumption?  Remember, institutionalized racism and other forms of institutionalized discrimination can take place with very few people actually having discriminatory feelings.  Just by buying into the propaganda, you are supporting such discrimination - just look deep down, and ask yourself, why ARE you so concerned with what other people do?  You are not concerned for no reason - saving 'innocent' people is not a rational decision, because ultimately other people are competition for limited resources.  Please examine the reasons for why you feel the need to be a prick about something that does not affect you, and then see if you can identify in truth what it is you want to accomplish.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 3:29

no you are wrong

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 12:00

Hey, here's an idea. Let's ban abortion and force the anti-abortionists to pay for the kids schooling, healthcare, accomodation and feeding costs. Anti-abortionists don't get the point until it happens to them.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 13:09

>>227
Or neuter poor people.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 14:43

>>228
you are poor (in intelligence) let's start with you.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 18:24

>> 226 Please examine the reasons for why you feel the need to be a prick about something that does not affect you,

Probably has something to do with killing little kids.  THAT'S What's got anti-abortinists angry.  It's called empathy, and if you were almost aborted you'd understand. 


But you make some good points;  people who can't support their kids would have some problems.  I'd gladly pay, to be honest with you, to keep someone alive on a personal level.  Like, if my sister wanted to abort and I had the means to support a kid I would contribute to that. 

But on a societal level, it makes no sense, because all those unwanted kids do tend to clog the system. 

So in other words, it's too complicated an issue to resolve down to "You're being mean!", "No, you're being mean!"

I guess abortion could, in many cases (except the "oops! Honey call the fetus flushers!") be acceptable as sort of a form of just natural death... you know, cutting your losses when it would likely kill you otherwise.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 18:39

Probably has something to do with killing little kids.  THAT'S What's got anti-abortinists angry.  It's called empathy, and if you were almost aborted you'd understand.

What fool? Didn't he just say: "Protecting the innocents" isn't very valid. These aren't "little kids" with personalities, words or even feelings. Is the seed of a tree, an actual tree? NO. Same with humans. You're just scared of reducing us to precisely all that we are: Highly intelligent carbon based lifeforms.

What you don't understand is that your point of view is as subjective as if it's right to kill in war, or if it's right to make war in the first place. If you can't outlaw war, or poverty or anything else that supposedly "kills innocents", then what makes you think abortion should be outlawed? Give it a rest already- if it doesn't affect you- then don't worry about it. If you want to live around people who care about this issue so much then move to a state where you don't get a choice.

But don't sit here and imply that everyone should live under this rule because of your subjective, convienant and mutable sense of morality.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-11 18:49

>>231 These aren't "little kids" with personalities, words or even feelings

Eh, you don't know that.

>> if it doesn't affect you- then don't worry about it.

That's a great idea.  People are getting gunned down in the street; doesn't affect me, I'm inside.  People are dying of this strange new disease.  Doesn't affect me, I don't have it. 

The primary reason why I'm against abortion is because it leads to some seriously scary shit; what if someone decides that anyone with an IQ below 130 doesn't have "personalities, [significant] words, or even feelings"?  I mean, it's highly possible, think how genetically engineered mental supermen would look at us. 

Don't sit here and imply that everyone should live under this rule because of your subjective, convienant and mutable sense of morality.

Name: anti-chan 2006-04-11 21:22

>>232

"Eh, you don't know that."

Eh, yes I do. I certainly have a better idea than you do. Your entire point of view is based on the possibility that they might, MAYBE have a personality or feelings. The thing has feelings in the same way a cow has feelings right before you hit it with an air gun and butcher it raw. It's not human until it looks up at me with those huge eyes that scream: Protect me! Until then, it's a seed. I.E - just a growth.

"Gun down in the street blah blah blah"

I'm sick of this argument. It doesn't apply. Stop using it. The "slippery slope" argument is the same one they used with vaccines and airplanes and spaceships and indoor plumbling and computers and democracy. It's a dumb attempt at ignoring the facts that abortions, like these other inventions, aren't going to completely destroy society like you *think* it will. People have been aborting their pregnancies since before the middle ages- *pats self down*...hm....I don't FEEL like society has been destroyed. Anyone else?

And then there's the classic "Throw his words back in his face." tactic...Great going, fuckhead!

Except for one thing: I'm not implying that everyone should live under "this rule"...I'm saying there should be a CHOICE. Don't like abortion? Don't have an abortion. Think you need one because there's no fucking way you can raise a kid and turning him over to the state is a fate worse than death? Then do have an abortion.

It's that fucking simple. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. That's what you dumb fucking idiots don't seem to get. You think pro-life means everyone else must be pro-death. How boorish! How so completely fucking retarded.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-13 0:52

>>233
agreed. couldn't have said it better meself.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List