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

Abortion problem solved.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-26 22:17

fetus < 20 weeks old is not sentient
fetus > or = 20 weeks old is sentient

Name: Xel 2006-07-31 6:42

>>40 I am, and while I accept the idea that some babies could be sentient, they have no unique persona and the woman is philosophically and morally superior to opinions in this matter. I have no qualms about abortions, and I think the removal of unwanted babies is fully universalizable, while murder of birthed babies is not.

Name: anti-chan 2006-07-31 12:45

>>41

Simple and to the point. And the point about the nationalization of a persons body is a solid one that's so indefensible that all the opposition has been able to do thus far is repeat: "It's not the nationalization of someone's body!"

Uh, yes it is.

And this, in a capitalist system, in a democracy is in conflict with the core ideals this country was founded on.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 13:29

>>41
Would you still be pro-choice if it was medically proven that the developing fetus in question was sentient?

Yes, or no?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 13:32

>>42
Who cares? If they didn't want to fucking give birth, they should have used birth CONTROL.  It's so easy to do, there's really no point in arguing.  Abortion should be illegal except in circumstances in which the mother's life is threatened, she has been raped, etc. 

Name: Xel 2006-07-31 14:07

>>43 Yup, and I am neither proud nor ashamed. I don't have to consider.
>>44 Are you guys still on square one? Us other people have bought the stations and utilities already, and we're one street short of commencing hotel contracts.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 15:30

There you have it folks.  >>45

We have a breakthrough:  the liberals are for destroying sentient life at the whim of some bitch who didn't bother to take birth control pills to prevent the necessity.

Name: Xel 2006-07-31 16:04

>>46 Not all liberals per se. Oh, and have fun in heaven. I guess arbitrary morals matter more than humanity for you. What a shame you are a minority even in that protestant-ridden empire you live in.

If someone offered me money to go through some thorough education and then perform an abortion, I would jump at the opportunity for experience. Then I'd run the left-overs in a mixer and feed it to some pro-lifer while it sleeps, if I got paid for it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 23:12

>>47

"I guess arbitrary morals matter more than humanity for you"

No, it's precisely because humanity matters that much to me.

Those who think humans are just worthless sacks of meat, as evidenced by you, are often the ones most adamantly pro-choice. 

I'm not religious either.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 1:00

>>47
Yeah yeah yeah, you hate christians and fetuses, we get it. Now explain to us what you think justifies murder. Explain why you think a woman should be able to kill a fetus that can survive outside the womb for instance.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 1:06

>>49
It's because he is so damn caught up in his feminist crap that he has actually surpassed the "equal rights" line, and gone far over to the other side, attempting to give women other rights that they really clearly shouldn't have in order to 'make up' for the loss of other rights they have lost in other situations. 

Essentially, in his mind, since women are 'oppressed', we should grant them some unrelated 'right', such as the 'right' to violate the rights of other individuals and their right to their lives -- the 'right' to murder, to make up for it.

Name: Xel 2006-08-01 4:02

>>50 Women have been mistreated throughout history just because they play a different role in procreation. Until you sort out the inequalities that cause unwanted pregnancies, you are not allowed to speak on the subject.
>>48 "I'm not religious either." Could have fooled me.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 4:18

ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER!

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 8:54

>>44

Who cares? The United States Government. A majority of the people in it. I, for one, certainly care that any one would precieve the life in my wife's belly to be under their jurisdiction. I'm sorry, but that's not only ethically wrong, totalitarian in nature, a philosophical genocide, superceding the horror of murder it's just flat out UNAMERICAN.

Again, what is wrong with simply letting your state decide? Especially considering that it's been proven that 20-weeks is the sentient cut off? This is a woman's rights issue, because regardless of the morals involved, you can't own a woman for sake of continuing the species or "defending life" anymore. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 13:29

>>53
That is just like saying you should let your state decide on murder. 

It is not totalitarian at all.  If she did not want the child, she should have taken the actions necessary to prevent from becoming pregnant, and none of this would even have become an issue at all.

>>51

"Women have been mistreated throughout history"

Generally, they haven't been recently.  In case you didn't notice, women and men in the USA are pretty much equal in terms of freedom and rights. 

"Until you sort out the inequalities that cause unwanted pregnancies, you are not allowed to speak on the subject."

It's not inequalities that cause unwanted pregnancies.  It's people who are too irresponsible to wear a fucking condom, to take birth control, or to use any of the other numerous easy-to-use methods of contraception.  

Name: Xel 2006-08-01 13:42

>>54 This is slightly more interesting than white noise to me. There is such a thing as collective responsibility, inequality and environmental determinism, and since no one can justly put a woman's freedom over that of her foetus/child/lardblob/whatever, why not keep things as they are and try to get a liberty-oozing solution to the cultural causes of unwanted pregnancies. I'm not saying abortion is justified, but neither is a ban.

And. Stop. With. The. Spacing. I realize you like clarity but anyone of average sentience can pick up what you are writing even without the precious space in between. It's as if you are standing on a thrysting pulpet. Much like your existence I think your format in writing is just a way to spite everything natural, constructive and decent.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 13:43

Xel is completely fucking crazy.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 13:50

>>55
"There is such a thing as collective responsibility, inequality and environmental determinism"

There's such a thing as those ideas.  They aren't true though. 

"solution to the cultural causes of unwanted pregnancies. I'm not saying abortion is justified, but neither is a ban."

The causes of unwanted pregnancies are quite simply the woman's decisions.  Had she decided differently, she wouldn't have had the problem.  A flat out ban would not be justified.  Like I said, there are certain circumstances under which it should be allowed, but under many, it's wrong. 

"And. Stop. With. The. Spacing. I realize you like clarity but anyone of average sentience can pick up what you are writing even without the precious space in between."

Chill out..  It's just a few spaces - what's the big deal?

"I think your format in writing is just a way to spite everything natural, constructive and decent."

Says the abortion advocating fetus killer?

Name: Xel 2006-08-01 15:10

>>57 The big deal with the spacing is that it is somewhat haughty to ask people to click a link just so that they can read your tripe. It is a minuscule inconvinience but this is hardly an essay you are presenting here. What is the cause of the women's decisions then? Causality, now that is a fun thing. A ban on abortion is just as wrong as the abortion itself, so technically we are both philosophically phucked save for the fact that I have pragmatic and societal reasons on my side.
Now where is that toilet plunger... 

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 15:15

>>58
Would you eat a baby?

Name: Xel 2006-08-01 15:30

>>59 I think that could cause a human version of mad cow disease, so nyet.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 16:57

>>60
Would you murder a baby?

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 17:02

>>58
I'm gonna type however the fuck I want, and if you want to read it, read it.  If not, don't click the link.  Simple shit.  If my writing is "tripe," then you won't miss reading it, and you can just skip it without clicking the link. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 17:02

>>61

A fetus isn't a baby. Fails for irrelevancy.

Name: anti-chan 2006-08-01 17:14

>>54

"That is just like saying you should let your state decide on murder."

No it's not. You're still trying to trying to frame the debate as a debate on legalized murder. Meanwhile any sensible or intelligent person understands that I'm not saying that "you should let your state decide on murder". Instead I'm saying that the state (in the general sense, the government) shouldn't have a right to kill it's citizens via "Capital Punishment" or kill other citizens of other countries via War because their lives are as precious as ours (And all life is truly precious). With that premise, it stands to reason that state shouldn't decide who gets to be borne either. The state shouldn't own actual born-living people and dictate all their actions, so the state shouldn't own unborn people and dictate their actions.



"It is not totalitarian at all.  If she did not want the child, she should have taken the actions necessary to prevent from becoming pregnant, and none of this would even have become an issue at all."



Again, pregnancy isn't all the womans fault and when it comes to sex and reproduction. Women are in the same position as men. Your repressive nature towards women tells me you're either Chinese or Muslim or Catholic. All of which are people that contribute to overpopulation, one of which is a communist state.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 17:50

Women are in the same position as men--Are you fucking nuts!?

If a guy asks a girl if she's at risk of having children before their sexual marathon and she's says, "no," and then they end up having a kid anyway, are you gonna say it's HIS fault? The woman in question is the one who's in the best position to avoid this scenario. So no, men are not in the same position.

"Instead I'm saying that the state (in the general sense, the government) shouldn't have a right to kill it's citizens via "Capital Punishment" or kill other citizens of other countries via War because their lives are as precious as ours (And all life is truly precious)."

So, in your opinion, self-defense and insuring the security of a nation and socitey is unacceptable? And all of this is supposed to serve as compliment to the argument that fetuses aren't "born"--An argument that you haven't even proven.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 18:10

>>65

Men shouldn't jump into bed with a woman if he doesn't know her well enough to where he has to ask this question in the first place. Do you understand anything about male/female relationships? Because it doesn't seem like it.

So, in your opinion, self-defense and insuring the security of a nation and socitey is unacceptable? And all of this is supposed to serve as compliment to the argument that fetuses aren't "born"--An argument that you haven't even proven.

There is proof. You've seen it already, I gather. And this proof, I think, wouldn't change your position. You are an unreasonable person to begin with.

Finally, Abortion isn't a risk to national security, nor the security of a society. This is something YOU haven't proven. Abortion has been around as long as the concept of birth has. It may not have existed in the form we've come to know it as, but it has been done before the chop-vac method.

Name: Xel 2006-08-01 18:16

>>66 I hate hollering, but this is exactly the point where the crowd goes "Ooooooooh" and the generic token goes "Oh-no he Dee-in" or some other derivative.
>>65 You should go to bed.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 19:19

>>66

"Men shouldn't jump into bed with a woman if he doesn't know her well enough to where he has to ask this question in the first place. Do you understand anything about male/female relationships? Because it doesn't seem like it."

I understand it well enough to know that you're putting ALL responsibility on the male when it's the female who best understands the risks involved. You saound to me like the kind of person who thinks it's in the nature of all guys to be surly and stupid and therefore, everything that does wrong is because of said surly and stupid individual. Well, if that's the case, what does this say about the the inherently genius female who decided to hang out with the idiot male?

"There is proof. You've seen it already, I gather. And this proof, I think, wouldn't change your position. You are an unreasonable person to begin with."

It's easy enough to say that without actually providing proof isn't it? Perhaps you have a whole row of 'lifeless tumor' and 'no heartbeat' rationalizations lined up. If that's your proof, then you're coming up short as usual.

"Finally, Abortion isn't a risk to national security, nor the security of a society. This is something YOU haven't proven."

On the contrary: It is because you haven't proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that fetuses don't live that I have proven that it's a threat to society's stability. Becuase you are so unwilling to care if the fetus lives or not and are simply concerned with getting rid of it, you are shown to be individually objectivist, which is exactly what people like Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein were. They also made "over-population" arguments (ones YOU use but haven't been able to prove).

"Abortion has been around as long as the concept of birth has."

No. The CONCEPT of abortion has been around just as long as the CONCEPT of birth has. Just because the idea exists, that doesn't mean it will be legislated by every culture. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 20:55

I understand it well enough to know that you're putting ALL responsibility on the male when it's the female who best understands the risks involved. You saound to me like the kind of person who thinks it's in the nature of all guys to be surly and stupid and therefore, everything that does wrong is because of said surly and stupid individual. Well, if that's the case, what does this say about the the inherently genius female who decided to hang out with the idiot male?

And you sound to me like the kind of person who thinks women are wanton sluts who just can't keep their legs closed and stop gobbling all the cocks with their spacious vaginas. Therefore, everything (in spite of the fact that she can't reproduce on her own) that she does is wrong and sexual legislation should work only to control her and her slutty ways.

And if that's truly the case my bitter under-sexed friend, then you need to save that shit for when you're listening to Linkin Park and typing in your livejournal. The woman knows about as much as the man. What is there to know, really? Birth control is so easy, remember?

"It's easy enough to say that without actually providing proof isn't it? Perhaps you have a whole row of 'lifeless tumor' and 'no heartbeat' rationalizations lined up. If that's your proof, then you're coming up short as usual."

Like I said. You're a zealot. No amount of proof will ever seem reasonable to you because you can not be reasoned with.

On the contrary: It is because you haven't proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that fetuses don't live that I have proven that it's a threat to society's stability. Becuase you are so unwilling to care if the fetus lives or not and are simply concerned with getting rid of it, you are shown to be individually objectivist, which is exactly what people like Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein were. They also made "over-population" arguments (ones YOU use but haven't been able to prove).

Fail. All you have to do is prove to me that abortion directly effects the stability of society. You don't need my stance to support yours, if what you say is the unadultered truth. I don't even really care about over-population, I care about liberty and human lives not being owned by the state (unborn or not). The problem with your argument is that over-population has been in-fact proven to be the downfall of many dead cultures and societies. And it doesn't take a Hitler or a Hussein to figure this out. It does however, take a team of scientist using observation and empirical evidence.

But you don't care about silly things like that, do you?

"Just because the idea exists, that doesn't mean it will be legislated by every culture."

Exactly my point. Just because the idea that "abortion = murder" exists doesn't mean it will be legislated by every culture. Especially this one in America where we care about liberty, freedom and choice.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 21:05

>>69
"And you sound to me like the kind of person who thinks women are wanton sluts who just can't keep their legs closed and stop gobbling all the cocks with their spacious vaginas. Therefore, everything (in spite of the fact that she can't reproduce on her own) that she does is wrong and sexual legislation should work only to control her and her slutty ways."

It has nothing to do with the fact that she can't reproduce on her own.  She's engaging in intercourse with another person, and she knows that if she doesn't handle the birth control, that she may end up getting pregnant.  It's her body, she should care for it, period.  It's not the man's responsibility to do shit.  If she wants a condom on the man, she needs to make sure it's on there.  If she doesn't want to have a baby, then she should use birth control instead of "risking it" and having an abortion if she happens to get pregnant. 

"Like I said. You're a zealot. No amount of proof will ever seem reasonable to you because you can not be reasoned with."

I think it's you who can't be reasoned with, and this seems pretty evident from the fact that you simply can't come to terms with the fact that when the woman is engaging in sex with another person, she is taking some risks, and it's her body she's risking.  It is her responsibility to care for that body, and to prevent from becoming pregnant if she doesn't want a child.  Birth control is not prohibitavely expensive, and it is readilly availible just about anywhere.  Abortion is almost always unnecessary. 

"Fail. All you have to do is prove to me that abortion directly effects the stability of society. You don't need my stance to support yours, if what you say is the unadultered truth. I don't even really care about over-population, I care about liberty and human lives not being owned by the state (unborn or not)."

In making abortion illegal, the state is acting as another being's protector, not taking posession of its body. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 0:52

The argument that "it's the woman's body - she can do what she likes" becomes incoherent once you have a new life growing inside.

That said, it must be the responsibility (and priviledge) of BOTH parents to decide what happens to the child. Problems would happen when they can't work it out between them.

My answer: make abortion a punishable crime for which both parents must suffer, but abort a foetus they can't agree on.  

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 2:47

>>71
So if the woman runs away and aborts, the husband gets punished aswell? Or if the husband forces the woman at gun point to have an abortion the woman gets punished?

If the fetus is sentient it is no longer part of the woman's body. If the woman was raped and was too emotionally distraught or abducted to have an abortion then she should be compensated for her services to the person inside her. If she had every chance to abort but didn't, she putthe fetus in that position and should not get compensation. Aborting the fetus would be like locking someone inside a box with no air and refusing to tell the police where the key is. For the rape victim it would be like yanking the life support cord out even though the patient will get better in a few months.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 2:50

>>63
A baby isn't an adult, and a black man is not a white man, but that doesn't mean it's not sentient.

Fail for pure evil.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 2:51

Xel, would you kill sentient life just because it is powerless and dependant on someone?

Would you kill a 9 month old fetus 1 day before it is born for instance?

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 3:29

A MODEST PROPOSAL AMIRIGHT

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 3:35

suck a cock. 50 cent was gonna be aborted, but now he's black and rich.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 3:47

>>71
Dumb idea.  The mother shouldn't be able to abort the child unless she has a damn good reason (i.e. raped, or necessary for mother's health).

The father can't be held responsible for actions the mother has committed. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 3:48

Xel sounds like a real fag irl.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 4:14

>>72
>>77
it has to be government supervised. mothers can't just go around aborting any time they like. unsupervised abortion is different, and different rules apply. 

Name: Xel 2006-08-02 4:19

>>74 If dependance was the issue killing hobos would be justified, but we don't do that because we drew the line at foetuses. So much for the disrespect of life angle, the freedom to have abortions didn't make people think "well this dude isn't helping society so let's kill him as well". Also, if a mother has waited that long to squish the little lump then she should give birth to it. A majority of abortions occur shortly after the woman discovers that she is late, so too bad that I won't teach my hypothetical daugher to pee on a piece of plastic after every sexual encounter (provided I don't send her to a cloister, which is probably the best solution considering you might have a son one day).
>>78 This is like being told by Dick Cheney that he finds you to be "Wah! An awful human being! Wah!"

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